Is Creationist Science Worth Believing?

[bluedes]

---

*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?

so you're saying that its not within our *nature* to be able to clone ourselves?

this is the process of evolution in the making..

when we pass away and bring on the next generation, people will dig up fossils of us and say, "these humans resorted to traditional/conventional means of reproduction.. e.g. sexual intercourse.."

the next generation could very well provide other means of reproduction..

[handsoff241]

so you're saying that its not within our *nature* to be able to clone ourselves?

No i'm not, in our nature as man, we can do anything we want given enough time to discover and grasp it's process, whatever it may be(this time cloning).
But, it is NOT natural for us to clone ourselves.

this is the process of evolution in the making.

When you say evolving, it means an organism as a specie changes to adopt to it's environment for the purpose of survival. Cloning does not fit that description(stressed on "as a specie"). We can survive, as we have done thousand of years ago(as suggested by the theory of evolution itself), by sexual reproduction, and that is natural.

the next generation could very well provide other means of reproduction.

What is the purpose of other means of reproduction? The idea of cloning is to make THE SAME HUMAN, both genetically and in physical appearance. When we say reproduction, it means produce a new and unique individual.

[The_Child]

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?

as you can see i was not asking about cloning. parthenogenesis is not necessarily equal to cloning. if i am to brush up with my biology, the product of parthenogenesis does not necessarily yield a genetically identical organism. when referring to molecular level self-replication, it is no longer referred to as parthenogenesis without having to recourse to artificial means.

"who's to say its natural or unnatural" only becomes problematic when it deals with the development of technology, but obviously, parthenogenesis is a naturally occurring phenomenon to some species of organism.

you are jumping the gun. bad conclusion. i nver mentioned anything in regards to the definition of human beings

[The_Child]

so you're saying that its not within our *nature* to be able to clone ourselves?

this is the process of evolution in the making..

when we pass away and bring on the next generation, people will dig up fossils of us and say, "these humans resorted to traditional/conventional means of reproduction.. e.g. sexual intercourse.."

the next generation could very well provide other means of reproduction..

you could not demonstrate that it is evolution in the making if you refer to evolution as a scientific theory. if you do, then please demonstrate.

people will dig up... "archaeology is an art of digging things and story telling" so our knowledge from archaeological digs are mere interpretations, and story-building.

"could very well" the modality is in question. how certain are we that the next generation "could" develop such means?

[bluedes]

No i'm not, in our nature as man, we can do anything we want given enough time to discover and grasp it's process, whatever it may be(this time cloning).
But, it is NOT natural for us to clone ourselves.

When you say evolving, it means an organism as a specie changes to adopt to it's environment for the purpose of survival. Cloning does not fit that description(stressed on "as a specie"). We can survive, as we have done thousand of years ago(as suggested by the theory of evolution itself), by sexual reproduction, and that is natural.

What is the purpose of other means of reproduction? The idea of cloning is to make THE SAME HUMAN, both genetically and in physical appearance. When we say reproduction, it means produce a new and unique individual.

so pretty much you are trying to define the nature of man.. right? what is natural for men to do, and what is not natural.. and cloning is placed in the "unnatural" category.. why is it unnatural? because it sounds too science fiction? maybe monstrous possibilities like that of frankenstein?

as for evolution, that is only one aspect you mention. we evolve not only for adaptation and survival, but to better ourselves from the previous incarnation/species.. cloning is a step better, because to be able to clone and not to be able to clone, i think that is clear enough that there is progress in our abilities to do things..

and you see, a clone may be a physical copy, but the inherent consciousness of a clone is totally different from the original.. the set of experiences a clone undergoes is totally unique.. which still makes a clone *special* or *unique*.. if you view a clone as nothing but a mere low-life trying-hard second-rate pussy-cat.. ahh, that is another issue..

as you can see i was not asking about cloning. parthenogenesis is not necessarily equal to cloning. if i am to brush up with my biology, the product of parthenogenesis does not necessarily yield a genetically identical organism. when referring to molecular level self-replication, it is no longer referred to as parthenogenesis without having to recourse to artificial means.

"who's to say its natural or unnatural" only becomes problematic when it deals with the development of technology, but obviously, parthenogenesis is a naturally occurring phenomenon to some species of organism.

you are jumping the gun. bad conclusion. i nver mentioned anything in regards to the definition of human beings

i never said parthenogenesis is equal to cloning.. but the essence of it is within the grasp of cloning.. which is to reproduce without two separate parents.. in parthenogenesis, u dont need a male parent; in cloning, u dont need either a male/female parent.. that is the essence of parthenogenesis.. cloning captures that..

but more talk on parthenogenesis: in stem cell research, parthenogenesis can be induced on human embryonic stem cells.. so in effect, we are quite capable of it as well.



*superman will soon be a reality, but a different kind of superman.. not as fast as a speeding bullet or able to leap tall buildings in a single bound*

[bluedes]

you could not demonstrate that it is evolution in the making if you refer to evolution as a scientific theory. if you do, then please demonstrate.

people will dig up... "archaeology is an art of digging things and story telling" so our knowledge from archaeological digs are mere interpretations, and story-building.

"could very well" the modality is in question. how certain are we that the next generation "could" develop such means?

and pray tell, why can i not demonstrate absolutely that it is evolution in the making?

i beg to differ, archaeology is a science.. they don't just dig up bones and fossils to be able to fabricate a fantastical story of the origin of things in the past, but these stories must be backed up by scientific proof and findings.. if that is the case, I can just dig up my pet's bones in my backyard and claim it to be a long lost descendant of Ice Age's Scrat..

how certain are we that the next generation could develop such means?? shucks.. is this rhetorical? look around you.. the technology is here, its within our grasp.. who knows what the next generation will do with it.. they could scrap it for all i care, but there's a big possibility that whatever the next generation will develop, the means was presented to them by our generation.. that is obviously a far cry from the other case wherein cloning is not available, obviously we would not be certain at all if the next generation can develop such means..

[The_Child]

and pray tell, why can i not demonstrate absolutely that it is evolution in the making?

i beg to differ, archaeology is a science.. they don't just dig up bones and fossils to be able to fabricate a fantastical story of the origin of things in the past, but these stories must be backed up by scientific proof and findings.. if that is the case, I can just dig up my pet's bones in my backyard and claim it to be a long lost descendant of Ice Age's Scrat..

how certain are we that the next generation could develop such means?? shucks.. is this rhetorical? look around you.. the technology is here, its within our grasp.. who knows what the next generation will do with it.. they could scrap it for all i care, but there's a big possibility that whatever the next generation will develop, the means was presented to them by our generation.. that is obviously a far cry from the other case wherein cloning is not available, obviously we would not be certain at all if the next generation can develop such means..

archaeology is a science that can hardly be called hard. as you see, archaeology and history has something common, when historians explores historical events they are bound to interpret - historicism. archaeologists in the same do, they merely relate objects with other objects, and thus when one digs up an artifact, the archaeologist will build a story according to the object that is related to the artifacts, its an infinite "footnoting" if you will, an infinite reference to reference to reference to objects. from what htey dig up, they create narratives. thats archaeology. although it employs science, subjective interpretation still plays a very important part in making sense of you dug up.


you just hit the word: "who knows" "theres a big possibility" what we have are just possibilities, but we could not determine with certainty, that the next generation would be able to develop such things. there are too many variables in between that could change what you 'conceive' of as a possibility that will happen in the future. the point is its a possibility, god knows, what will happen between the now and the future. and no its not rhetoric, its being critical with determinist certainty of the future - just possibilities, possibilities.

[bluedes]

archaeology is a science that can hardly be called hard. as you see, archaeology and history has something common, when historians explores historical events they are bound to interpret - historicism. archaeologists in the same do, they merely relate objects with other objects, and thus when one digs up an artifact, the archaeologist will build a story according to the object that is related to the artifacts, its an infinite "footnoting" if you will, an infinite reference to reference to reference to objects. from what htey dig up, they create narratives. thats archaeology. although it employs science, subjective interpretation still plays a very important part in making sense of you dug up.

doesn't all of science require this "building of a story according to the object of study"....
that's the essence of building theories and hypotheses.. but the more archaeology grows in foundation, the stories based on subjective interpretation are highly tested against the current foundation of knowledge.. which is still pretty much scientific..

if you want to debate the "degree of scientific-ness" of archaeology, i cannot argue with you on that.. i am not in the position to say how "scientific" archaeology is.. as far as it is being studied, it is laid on a very scientific framework..

you just hit the word: "who knows" "theres a big possibility" what we have are just possibilities, but we could not determine with certainty, that the next generation would be able to develop such things. there are too many variables in between that could change what you 'conceive' of as a possibility that will happen in the future. the point is its a possibility, god knows, what will happen between the now and the future. and no its not rhetoric, its being critical with determinist certainty of the future - just possibilities, possibilities.

call it what you want, whether with certainty or not, but the variables are not that many at all. this is not lotto that in order to win, u just need to buy a ticket.. science has a more deterministic approach when it comes to broadening/furthering its own knowledge..

you talk of "too many variables".. care to back that up? what kind of variables are you talking about? if you are aware of the current trends in biological and genetic research, its not difficult to say that cloning will and soon be an everyday reality. people just find it hard to accept in the beginning.. but soon, it will be..

[Hellblazer 2.1]

abangan ang susunod na kabanata...

[Hellblazer 2.1]

i'm actually enjoying this.