Is Creationist Science Worth Believing?

[handsoff241]

---

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?

It is unnatural not because of "monstrous possibilities like that of frankenstein" but because the process involves something artificial ei manual gene splicing and selection, artificial insemnation, collecting eggs and sperms outside a natural body(of organisms) and dissecting them selecting what is "good genes" and planting them on surrogates which is bombarded with drugs to adop to sudden "pregnancy".

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..

There is is an ocean of difference between cloning and evolution.

In biology evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though the changes produced in any one generation are small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time,

Source: Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human being, human cell, or human tissue.
To clone early human embryos that stopped at the six cell stage. The process is as follows: an eg cell taken from a donor has its cytoplasm removed. Another cell with the genetic material to be cloned is fused with the original egg cell, transferring its cell nucleus to the enucleated donor egg. In theory, this process, known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, could be applied to human beings.

Source: Human cloning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I can see your idea of the betterment of the human specie, BUT NOT this way.

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.

You are basing this on movies, there is no succesful human clone yet. Where did you get this ideas anywya.

[Hellblazer 2.1]

there may have been a human clone. it was done by a south korean scientist. i don't know if it was successful though. and the scientist was arrested by the way.

[The_Child]

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..

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..

1.) attempt to compare to Physics and Archaeology. physics is considered hard-fact science.
attempt to compare economics with Archaeology. economics is considered a soft science, although it uses very complex math.

Attempt to do archaeology, or if you do it, try to imagine it. say you have 500 jigsaw pieces. 450 are lost. only 50 are there. How do you create the entire puzzle? you dont create it. You RECREATE it. you build narratives from this 50 pieces (artifacts) From this, you start a glorious imagination of what that artifact was in the past, what its relation is to the other 49 pieces,and what its POSSIBLE relation is with 450 lost pieces. it still scientific, but again, it is also uses historical interpretation - big time. hard-fact sciences does not do that. (have you ever joined or been to or made an archaeological excavation?)



"the variables are not that many at all" you dont have to pick up the latest issue of Genetika or EJHG, you dont have to recourse to familiarity of current research in the life sciences, you just have to keep in mind one of the most valuable elements in science - Parsimony. and/or common sense.

i will use parsimony. in explaining my point. watch:

i argue you cannot with certainty prove that human beings could provide other means of reproduction in the next generation, because what is potential is not actual. in between the actuality of potentiality, external factors may come into play. say, for example, a hypothetical scenario that: the philippine places all most of its resources to the defense budget, we are expecting that we will have an increase in defense related activities, programmes and acquisition, are we saying that is no chance in hell that the opposite will happen?


now, if your familiar with science, with the latest 'trends in genetics et al' i think you'd realize that there is such a thing as MARGIN OF ERROR, which in itself is proof enough that small probabilities exactly mean that there is no 100% certainty.

If you are familiar with the latest trends in the life sciences, i am sure that you are also familiar with basic scientific tenets, that one must doubt until one could no longer doubt, this is called academic skepticism and this is a scientific attitude.

If you are saying that human history will inevitably, with certainty, develop new forms of reproduction in the next generation, then you are either mad or you are a prophet sent by God.
Not even the greatest minds of science, will say that they are 100 % certain that such and such will happen in the future, they always place it with a condition. thsoe of them who did otherwise are judged by history as either mad or a prophet.


cheers!

[Hellblazer 2.1]

you sound like a real archaeologist, child.

[The_Child]

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..


*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*

if you are familiar with the latest trend in cognitive science, (i dont even think this is the latest, since the problem has been posed since the '80s) you'd realize that the concept of consciousness is a big problem. Nobody has pinpointed and reduced it to physical terms ergo any talk about consciousness for now is purely speculative, like the one that you just did. you could not with certainty equate consciousness with experience with personal identity vice-versa.

If you are also familiar with the study in spirit sciences, the humanities, you'd realize that the idea of superman is borrowed from nietzsche's SuperMan in the late 19th century. is term for it is Uebermensch.
If your familiar with history, you'd realize that Sparta was a product of eugenics, every spartan was a "superman" in such a way, no to mention the pre-holocaust literature, de Gobineau et al, who argued for modern eugenics even before the second world war.

Superman is nothing but a recycled concept. If your familiar with the latest trend in academics, the better term for your "superman" in reality, would be Transhumanism. "Superman" is very passe. trust me. I'm familiar with that trend of study.

[bluedes]

It is unnatural not because of "monstrous possibilities like that of frankenstein" but because the process involves something artificial ei manual gene splicing and selection, artificial insemnation, collecting eggs and sperms outside a natural body(of organisms) and dissecting them selecting what is "good genes" and planting them on surrogates which is bombarded with drugs to adop to sudden "pregnancy".

hehehe.. fine fine, i concede on that part being *unnatural*..

let me ask this question then.. with that being *unnatural* so it therefore means it is an act of God? this was our issue in the our first place.. when you say this kind of *unnatural*, does it necessarily mean it is not good?

There is is an ocean of difference between cloning and evolution.

Source: Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Source: Human cloning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can see your idea of the betterment of the human specie, BUT NOT this way.

You are basing this on movies, there is no succesful human clone yet. Where did you get this ideas anywya.

I do not base my ideas on movies.. I base my ideas on sound scientific findings and discoveries.. I am not a fan of hollywood's portrayal of these things.. it is entertaining at most but hardly close to our current reality..

the media is quiet about any successful human cloning, but proponents in Dubai are progressing much more than other countries because they don't have similar "inhibitions" like the others, so they proceed with such research unhindered..

no matter how much of the ethics that are being debated around these issues, scientists in these areas are silently going on with their research.. because a true scientist is in the pursuit of knowledge.. he would rather not let any issues on ethics slow his study down.. those ethics are better left with people specializing in those areas..

[bluedes]

there may have been a human clone. it was done by a south korean scientist. i don't know if it was successful though. and the scientist was arrested by the way.

it wasn't human, it was a dog actually.. lots of fanfare that went on with that thing..

[bluedes]

(have you ever joined or been to or made an archaeological excavation?)

say what? like you have been to an archaelogical excavation already?

its funny how you describe archaeology like that, to even compare it with physics or economics.. oh well.. that's how you put it..

"the variables are not that many at all" you dont have to pick up the latest issue of Genetika or EJHG, you dont have to recourse to familiarity of current research in the life sciences, you just have to keep in mind one of the most valuable elements in science - Parsimony. and/or common sense.

i will use parsimony. in explaining my point. watch:

man, you're really good at dodging issues and creating your own opinions to sound like it was based on something really substantial.. like you discredit roughly all existing literature and base it on an element of just Parsimony? talk about being hypocrital.. i really presumed you'd be more reasonable than that.. *tsk *tsk..

i argue you cannot with certainty prove that human beings could provide other means of reproduction in the next generation, because what is potential is not actual. in between the actuality of potentiality, external factors may come into play. say, for example, a hypothetical scenario that: the philippine places all most of its resources to the defense budget, we are expecting that we will have an increase in defense related activities, programmes and acquisition, are we saying that is no chance in hell that the opposite will happen?

now, if your familiar with science, with the latest 'trends in genetics et al' i think you'd realize that there is such a thing as MARGIN OF ERROR, which in itself is proof enough that small probabilities exactly mean that there is no 100% certainty.

If you are familiar with the latest trends in the life sciences, i am sure that you are also familiar with basic scientific tenets, that one must doubt until one could no longer doubt, this is called academic skepticism and this is a scientific attitude.

If you are saying that human history will inevitably, with certainty, develop new forms of reproduction in the next generation, then you are either mad or you are a prophet sent by God.
Not even the greatest minds of science, will say that they are 100 % certain that such and such will happen in the future, they always place it with a condition. thsoe of them who did otherwise are judged by history as either mad or a prophet.

dude, calm down.. gosh.. i am so lost for words.. i feel dizzy just reading what you have written, i honestly don't know how to respond here..


joking aside.. here's what i'll say.. get back to earth and get in touch with reality.. you are obviously way over your head with little knowledge and all that idealistic profanities..

whoever said that i was absolutely certain.. i never said that.. of all people, you should talk with me about scientific trends, statistical measures of errors, mathematics, etc, etc.

ambot na lng.. i'll just stop here and concede an impasse.. my friendly advice though.. "playing with little knowledge is dangerous and evil.."

if you really wanna learn about calculating with a certain probability and all the mathematics behind it, lemme know.. ill discuss with you the principles and theories behind it. but if you continue to talk as if you're still riding that high horse thinking you know a lot about it based on what?! just mere fabrications out of your very imaginative mind (i do give you credit for that, very imaginative, yet out of touch of reality).. then i'll just end the discussion here.. its pointless discussing..

peace!

p.s. you sure do make it sound very very real though.. and to the uninformed, they just might believe in you too..

[bluedes]

if you are familiar with the latest trend in cognitive science, (i dont even think this is the latest, since the problem has been posed since the '80s) you'd realize that the concept of consciousness is a big problem. Nobody has pinpointed and reduced it to physical terms ergo any talk about consciousness for now is purely speculative, like the one that you just did. you could not with certainty equate consciousness with experience with personal identity vice-versa.

If you are also familiar with the study in spirit sciences, the humanities, you'd realize that the idea of superman is borrowed from nietzsche's SuperMan in the late 19th century. is term for it is Uebermensch.
If your familiar with history, you'd realize that Sparta was a product of eugenics, every spartan was a "superman" in such a way, no to mention the pre-holocaust literature, de Gobineau et al, who argued for modern eugenics even before the second world war.

Superman is nothing but a recycled concept. If your familiar with the latest trend in academics, the better term for your "superman" in reality, would be Transhumanism. "Superman" is very passe. trust me. I'm familiar with that trend of study.

like as if i was talking about cognitive science..

gigitik man ko oi.. man, you're too too serious.. trying too hard to win a conversation by technicality of terms.. no fun at all anymore.. kung sa tekken pa ni, murag palaban lng ka perme ug special moves.. pamugasay na kaau.. calma lng pre, nangugat na ka.. basig mabugto na na imong liog..

ingon ani ra na The_Child oh.. the consciousness I meant here is the state of being *alive*.. like the man just lost his consciousness, his heartrate dropped below 60bpm or 70bpm, and he is not conscious of his surroundings.. medical terms dude, not philoshopical terms..

and with such consciousness, a person's individual identity is largely dictated by his personal experiences.. and you don't even limit this *consciousness* to just humans, its applicable to all living things who have brains for recording memories.. any doctor or psychologist can attest to that.. sheeesh..

nalumos naman ka sa imong philosophy gud..

Uebermensch-watchamacallit?? i'm sorry.. i was simply referring to the old comic character superman of DC comics.. why'd you have to go all the way to nietzsche or pre-holocaust or sparta or whatever.. just to show that you know the etymology of the word superman? if i wanted to know the etymology, id have a *kinder* response from google or wikipedia..

[The_Child]

like as if i was talking about cognitive science..

gigitik man ko oi.. man, you're too too serious.. trying too hard to win a conversation by technicality of terms.. no fun at all anymore.. kung sa tekken pa ni, murag palaban lng ka perme ug special moves.. pamugasay na kaau.. calma lng pre, nangugat na ka.. basig mabugto na na imong liog..

ingon ani ra na The_Child oh.. the consciousness I meant here is the state of being *alive*.. like the man just lost his consciousness, his heartrate dropped below 60bpm or 70bpm, and he is not conscious of his surroundings.. medical terms dude, not philoshopical terms..

and with such consciousness, a person's individual identity is largely dictated by his personal experiences.. and you don't even limit this *consciousness* to just humans, its applicable to all living things who have brains for recording memories.. any doctor or psychologist can attest to that.. sheeesh..

nalumos naman ka sa imong philosophy gud..

Uebermensch-watchamacallit?? i'm sorry.. i was simply referring to the old comic character superman of DC comics.. why'd you have to go all the way to nietzsche or pre-holocaust or sparta or whatever.. just to show that you know the etymology of the word superman? if i wanted to know the etymology, id have a *kinder* response from google or wikipedia..

hahahaha.
not even an iota of common sense.


p.s talking about reproduction, for all our sakes, for humanity's sake, dont reproduce.






"Ignavum, fucos, pecus a praesepibus arcent. Georgics, IV 168."