Is Creationist Science Worth Believing?

[Sepher Sephiroth]

---

Sepher Sephiroth says : Brod wala gyoy labawng nakahibaw ani tanan bisag ang bibliya nagkanayon " ang dios deli matokib sa pong og sa huna2x " salamat brod. Agi langko.

[The_Child]

okay, giving you the benefit of a doubt..

cloning is another way of making another human being or any other creature. but nobody ever said it was not normal. there are many living creatures out there who do reproduction by way of asexual reproduction, e.g. make a clone of themselves. it's called parthenogenesis.. an example is the fresh-water hydra. they are even "lower" in life-form than us, so why not us too?

precisely because we are not capable of parthogenesis.

[NASYO]

nasyo ayaw pakaulaw sa MOHICANS nga naa sa imo avatar.

OT

wala na jud kay kala-inan sa ubang ADD diri rcruman.

wala ko'y mabuhat anang imong style. it's your way to clear up things.

bwahahahahahaha.

common sense = own opinion?

[bluedes]

Let me first define what Natural is:

Source: define:natural - Hanapin sa Google
Parthenogenesis is natures ingenious way of reproducing organisms without mate because they are designed that way and their environment and physiology hinders them to do so, it is still natural.

If you think gene splicing, manually injecting selected sperms into a fertile egg culturing them on petri dish is natural. Fine, let me know when the first edition of your dictionary comes out.

personally, human beings have the capacity to improve themselves compared to other species on the planet..

if you saw dogs now being able to clone themselves by their own efforts, would you consider them abnormal?

to limit the potential of progress of humans is based on fear and apathy.. and an inherent belief that humans are not responsible enough for future growth.. it does not equate that to clone oneself means its an act of God.. it merely means having reached the point in time where the scientific/technological means are available.

if the only argument against cloning is because it is blasphemous to (an act of God), that's religious bullshit ra japon..

precisely because we are not capable of parthogenesis.

we weren't before.. but we are now.. who's to draw what we are capable of or not capable of?

[The_Child]

we weren't before.. but we are now.. who's to draw what we are capable of or not capable of?

excuse me, but are you telling we were not capable of parthenogenesis in the past but presently we are capable of doing this?

are you telling we could actually split ourselves naturally these days, to produce another me? ....

[The_Child]

we weren't before.. but we are now.. who's to draw what we are capable of or not capable of?

excuse me, but are you saying that we were not capable of parthenogenesis in the past but presently we are capable of doing this?

are you saying that we could actually split ourselves naturally these days, to produce another me? ....

[handsoff241]

if the only argument against cloning is because it is blasphemous to (an act of God), that's religious b***s*** ra japon.

*whew* Didn't I included in my posts that nature deems it(cloning) artificial? I'm sure you know the steps in cloning, don't you?

[handsoff241]

excuse me, but are you saying that we were not capable of parthenogenesis in the past but presently we are capable of doing this?

are you saying that we could actually split ourselves naturally these days, to produce another me? ....

Whoever gave you that idea is a total BoD.

[bluedes]

excuse me, but are you telling we were not capable of parthenogenesis in the past but presently we are capable of doing this?

are you telling we could actually split ourselves naturally these days, to produce another me? ....

the essence of parthenogenesis in cloning is already achievable with our technology today..
again, who's to say it is natural or unnatural?

are you limiting the definition of a human being then?

[handsoff241]

who's to say it is natural or unnatural?

Nature, the root-word itself.