Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: columbusdude82 on January 09, 2008, 06:42:49 AM
-
A day after ordained Baptist minister Mike Huckabee finished first in the opening round to choose a Republican candidate for the White House, scientists warned Americans against electing a leader who doubts evolution.
"The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming," University of Michigan professor Gilbert Omenn told reporters at the launch of a book on evolution by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
"I would worry that a president who didn't believe in the evolution arguments wouldn't believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin," added Omenn, who was part of a panel of experts at the launch of "Science, Evolution and Creationism."
Former Arkansas governor Huckabee said in a debate in May that he did not believe in evolution.
A poll conducted last year showed that 53 percent of Americans do believe that humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life -- the theory of evolution -- while 47 percent do not.
Some of those polled said they believed in both evolution and the opposing theory of creationism -- the belief that God created mankind at a single point in time.
The evolution versus creationism debate has crept into American schools and politics, where it is mainly conservative Republicans who espouse the non-scientific belief.
In 2004, a Pennsylvania school district found itself at the center of a national storm after its education board voted to require that a statement on creationism be read to students when they began learning about evolution in science class.
The school board was ousted the following year.
"Science, Evolution and Creationism" targets the general public and teachers, and presents in simple terms the current scientific understanding of evolution and the importance of teaching it in the science classroom.
A day after his win in Iowa, Huckabee toned down his anti-evolution stance, saying in a television interview that the question of whether to teach creationism in schools was "not an issue for our president."
US President George W. Bush has said he supports teaching "intelligent design" creationism to American students, to present youngsters with differing schools of thought.
Intelligent design is a theory advocated by conservative Christian groups and some scientists in the United States, which says that complex biological organisms cannot be explained by evolutionary chance alone and must be the work of an intelligent designer -- namely God.
Omenn and the other panel members at the book launch said categorically that creationism should be banned from science classrooms.
"Scientific inquiry is not about accepting on faith a statement or scriptural passage. It's about exploring nature, so there really is not any place in the science classroom for creationism or intelligent design creationism," said Omenn.
"We don't teach astrology as an alternative to astronomy, or witchcraft as an alternative to medicine," said Francisco Ayala, a professor of biological sciences at the University of California, Irvine.
"We must understand the difference between what is and is not science. We must not teach creationism as an alternative to evolution," he said.
"Holding deep religious beliefs is not incompatible with believing in evolution," Omenn said.
"But that's different to saying the two can be taught together in science class, because religion and science are two different ways of knowing about the world. They might not be incompatible but they don't overlap each other's spheres.
"Science class should not contain religious attitudes," he added.
-
A day after his win in Iowa, Huckabee toned down his anti-evolution stance, saying in a television interview that the question of whether to teach creationism in schools was "not an issue for our president."
i would say the secular liberal who wrote this IS making it an issue for the president. besides, huck never said he didn't want evolution taught in schools, just that he didn't believe in it.
the problem is not that it's being taught, it's that alot of universities and schools are teaching it as fact.
-
i would say the secular liberal who wrote this IS making it an issue for the president. besides, huck never said he didn't want evolution taught in schools, just that he didn't believe in it.
That's like saying he doesn't "believe in" gravity... It means he is practically scientifically illiterate.
the problem is not that it's being taught, it's that alot of universities and schools are teaching it as fact.
Universities and schools tend to do that kind of thing, teaching facts... Damn those satanic facts and their constant assault on God's word!!!
-
That's like saying he doesn't "believe in" gravity... It means he is practically scientifically illiterate.
Universities and schools tend to do that kind of thing, teaching facts... Damn those satanic facts and their constant assault on God's word!!!
therein lies the problem, it's not fact. it's theory.
-
therein lies the problem, it's not fact. it's theory.
It's fact. Sorry to have to break it to you. It's as much fact as the "theory" of gravity, or electromagnetic "theory"...
-
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2
-
It's fact. Sorry to have to break it to you. It's as much fact as the "theory" of gravity, or electromagnetic "theory"...
shouldn't you be crying in you beer after OSU was bitchslapped two years in a row?
-
It's fact. Sorry to have to break it to you. It's as much fact as the "theory" of gravity, or electromagnetic "theory"...
can you prove it's a fact? no, you can't. all you can do is post a bunch of links, or quote what some scientists said.
but you, columbusdude82, cannot prove evolution is a fact. you decide to put your faith in a man that says we evolved from goo, a tadpole, a monkey or whatever it is you believe, 500 zillion years ago.
i choose not to put my faith in man.
-
I'm still wondering why it's so horrible if a future president rejects or accepts natural selection? Sure, if Bush was an atheist he may not have said that god told him to invade iraq..but i'm sure he would have come up with another reason other than it being some christian crusade on his part. I'm not worried about the president's religious convictions just how he's going to spend tax dollars, figure out social security, etc...religion, no matter what you believe, doesn't influence that...
-
How many U.S. presidents didn't believe that God created humans in their present form? Yet the US wasn't doomed.
Hitler on the other hand, not only embraced Darwin's theory of evolution, but was actually motivated by it to commit atrocities and reduce Germany and other European countries to ruins.
“Hitler believed in struggle as a Darwinian principle of human life that forced every people to try to dominate all others; without struggle they would rot and perish … . Even in his own defeat in April 1945, Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the stronger and declared the Slavic peoples to have proven themselves the stronger.”
Peter Hoffman, Hitler’s Personal Security (Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press, 1979), p. 264.
“To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy … . The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood … . Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstrating to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution.”
Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (New York: Putman, 1947), p. 28.
-
mightymouse, I'm sorry you have not had the benefit of a scientific education.
Rocky, re-read the first part of the article to get your answer.
loco, you have posted these lies before, and I have corrected you. Yours is a lame attempt at guilt by association: taint the central core of biology with Nazi eugenics.
It exposes your ignorance of what "evolution" is. If only you had taken the time to learn what it was about, you'd know that it has nothing to do with "survival of the fittest" people, or the "fittest" nation, or the "fittest" individual. It is merely the non-random differential survival of self-replicating genes.
Natural selection occurs when some genes make it into the bodies of individuals who become ancestors, while other genes do not. How can something so simple be so misunderstood?
-
can you prove it's a fact? no, you can't. all you can do is post a bunch of links, or quote what some scientists said.
but you, columbusdude82, cannot prove evolution is a fact. you decide to put your faith in a man that says we evolved from goo, a tadpole, a monkey or whatever it is you believe, 500 zillion years ago.
i choose not to put my faith in man.
You're a shining datapoint in the studies that demonstrate an inverse correlation between IQ and religiosity.
In your very limited understanding of the English language you are equating the common definition of theory with the scientific definition of theory. Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact, it really happened. The evidence is abundant. The basis for all of biology and large parts of modern medicine is based on it.
Whereas you accuse me of placing faith in a 'man' (which I do not, faith is no part of science), you place your faith in an misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent invisible sky god.
If you actually believe in creationism after being presented with the facts surrounding evolution, and you are not in fact crazy, then you are a disgrace to this species and should consider offing yourself for the benefit of the rest of us.
-
You guys might come from apes. I dont.
-
i would say the secular liberal who wrote this IS making it an issue for the president. besides, huck never said he didn't want evolution taught in schools, just that he didn't believe in it.
My sentiments exactly! A bigger concern is that too many kids can't even SPELL evolution, much less worry about their being taught such (whether they actually believe it or not).
the problem is not that it's being taught, it's that alot of universities and schools are teaching it as fact.
What you're seeing is a new tactic by paranoid atheists and naturalistic scientists. Now, you have to actually BELIEVE in evolution. Some teachers have even considered not awarding Ph.Ds to scientists, if they don't buy the "goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo" thing (hook, line, and sinker).
In another thread it was mentioned that someone was awarded a Ph.D in a scientific field (I believe it was paleontology), despite protests from some of the members of the faculty, because he was a creationist. As it turns out, the protests came not from the faculty of the school itself (who knew of his creationist views from the get-go), but from folks outside the university.
-
Which thread was that, McWay?
-
You're a shining datapoint in the studies that demonstrate an inverse correlation between IQ and religiosity.
In your very limited understanding of the English language you are equating the common definition of theory with the scientific definition of theory. Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact, it really happened. The evidence is abundant. The basis for all of biology and large parts of modern medicine is based on it.
Whereas you accuse me of placing faith in a 'man' (which I do not, faith is no part of science), you place your faith in an misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent invisible sky god.
If you actually believe in creationism after being presented with the facts surrounding evolution, and you are not in fact crazy, then you are a disgrace to this species and should consider offing yourself for the benefit of the rest of us.
you're very good at using a thesaurus but you have no idea what the word 'faith' means. look it up moron.
i have asked columbus dude to prove to me evolution is fact, he didn't do anything but say i had no scientific education. good one, i'm convinced.
now i'm calling you out. prove to me evolution is fact. calling my God names is not stating your point. it just shows your hatred, ignorance and all out dumbness on the subject. now stop it.
so, go ahead and prove it.
-
You guys might come from apes. I dont.
HA!! good one, short, sweet and to the point.
BTW, i love your avatar
-
HA!! good one, short, sweet and to the point.
BTW, i love your avatar
What you don't seem to grasp is that we ARE apes.
We are a species of African Apes.
As for your previous post, I made another thread so that this one won't get too cluttered. Join me there :)
-
mightymouse, I'm sorry you have not had the benefit of a scientific education.
Rocky, re-read the first part of the article to get your answer.
loco, you have posted these lies before, and I have corrected you. Yours is a lame attempt at guilt by association: taint the central core of biology with Nazi eugenics.
It exposes your ignorance of what "evolution" is. If only you had taken the time to learn what it was about, you'd know that it has nothing to do with "survival of the fittest" people, or the "fittest" nation, or the "fittest" individual. It is merely the non-random differential survival of self-replicating genes.
Natural selection occurs when some genes make it into the bodies of individuals who become ancestors, while other genes do not. How can something so simple be so misunderstood?
I did read it..and re-read...and all the professor is doing is making inferences...just because one has a belief that he did or did not come from apes does not mean he rejects all other scientific facts and theories...granted a guy like huckabee would not believe in natural selection---but i'm sure he agrees that certain scientific facts are just that. You can't paint all critics of natural selection with such a broad brush.
-
I also disagree with the part about global warming in this statement...
"The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming," University of Michigan professor Gilbert Omenn told reporters at the launch of a book on evolution by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
Since when is global warming a fact? There are so called experts on both sides of this argument..with many experts taking the opposing viewpoint that global warming is a fraud and that the earth is going through a naturally occuring cycle.
-
rocky, I hope you stick around with us here on this board :)
As for your post on global warming, let's not go there. The point of this thread is not that something is true or not, it's that electing a president with a disregard for science and reason and scientifically-informed policy is bad for the country. It is an indication that he is not a critical thinker.
The US president sets the tone on the agenda of scientific projects that are critical for all mankind, not least of which are space exploration, fighting HIV, and the environment.
-
rocky, I hope you stick around with us here on this board :)
As for your post on global warming, let's not go there. The point of this thread is not that something is true or not, it's that electing a president with a disregard for science and reason and scientifically-informed policy is bad for the country. It is an indication that he is not a critical thinker.
The US president sets the tone on the agenda of scientific projects that are critical for all mankind, not least of which are space exploration, fighting HIV, and the environment.
Something tells me GW Bush is not much of a critical thinker...well, at least in the last 7 years he hasn't been.
These guys are first and foremost politicians..they know how far to push agendas and when to back off especially when it comes to separating a religious issue with politics...
I don't think creationism or darwinism should be pushed as the only true origin of man...but I do think both should be taught---and let the student decide what he or she chooses to believe.
-
I don't think creationism or darwinism should be pushed as the only true origin of man...but I do think both should be taught---and let the student decide what he or she chooses to believe.
Do you propose teaching them both in science class? And if so, which creationism do you propose be taught?
Young Earth Creationism? Old Earth Creationism? Intelligent Design? These and many more are just the Christian creationisms.
Under the constitution, the US government cannot favor any one religion, so the curriculum would also have to include Hindu creation myths, Islamic creation myths, and the creation myth of every Native American tribe.
Moreover, if some people announce that they believe that the world was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that they worship Him (they call themselves 'pastafarians'), then the curriculum is also going to have to include Flying Spaghetti Monster creationism.
If you allow one, you have to allow them all.
After all this, when will science teachers get to teach anything else?
-
Do you propose teaching them both in science class? And if so, which creationism do you propose be taught?
Young Earth Creationism? Old Earth Creationism? Intelligent Design? These and many more are just the Christian creationisms.
Under the constitution, the US government cannot favor any one religion, so the curriculum would also have to include Hindu creation myths, Islamic creation myths, and the creation myth of every Native American tribe.
Moreover, if some people announce that they believe that the world was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that they worship Him (they call themselves 'pastafarians'), then the curriculum is also going to have to include Flying Spaghetti Monster creationism.
If you allow one, you have to allow them all.
After all this, when will science teachers get to teach anything else?
i'd include as part of science curriculum...but i think i'd leave it up to school boards to decide which creationism/darwinism/spaghetti monster/etc...i'd also be for leaving it out completely--only because as you said if you allow one, you allow them all--so i think the inverse should be debated.
-
rocky fortune, in deciding which, if any, creationism should be taught in the curriculum, which factor do you think should be the deciding factor?
Is it the evidence that supports that particular creationism? The number of publications in peer-reviewed scientific that support it? Or what?
I have searched far and wide for a pro-creationism scientific journal article, and have come up empty. I even put it to my creationist friends on here, and so far they have not answered that challenge.
-
How many U.S. presidents didn't believe that God created humans in their present form? Yet the US wasn't doomed.
-
rocky fortune, in deciding which, if any, creationism should be taught in the curriculum, which factor do you think should be the deciding factor?
Is it the evidence that supports that particular creationism? The number of publications in peer-reviewed scientific that support it? Or what?
I have searched far and wide for a pro-creationism scientific journal article, and have come up empty. I even put it to my creationist friends on here, and so far they have not answered that challenge.
i can't answer that...but i would not be opposed to having a pow-wow of educators, theologians, philosophers, etc to come up with a particular creationism curriculum..i think all people are entitled to seeing all sides of the box..and not just one particular side...while this might be better achieved in a collegiate setting i think it's possible to appoint members of school boards to come up with some appropriate ''origin of man'' curriculum that could open high school students eyes to the viewpoints of all both secular and religious...it's the point of education to not just teach facts and figures but to teach students to think for themselves---
-
Do you propose teaching them both in science class? And if so, which creationism do you propose be taught?
Young Earth Creationism? Old Earth Creationism? Intelligent Design? These and many more are just the Christian creationisms.
Under the constitution, the US government cannot favor any one religion, so the curriculum would also have to include Hindu creation myths, Islamic creation myths, and the creation myth of every Native American tribe.
Moreover, if some people announce that they believe that the world was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that they worship Him (they call themselves 'pastafarians'), then the curriculum is also going to have to include Flying Spaghetti Monster creationism.
If you allow one, you have to allow them all.
After all this, when will science teachers get to teach anything else?
The Discovery Institute ( http://www.discovery.org/ ) advocates Intelligent Design without favoring any particular religion, as many of it's scientists are non-religious theists, Muslims, Christians, etc.
I have read and watched some of their material and it has no mention of God, or any particular religion or holy text. They simply advocate an Intelligent designer of the universe, earth and all living things. They leave who or what the intelligent designer is up to you. You could even say the intelligent designer is "The Force", or some advanced civilisation from another planet, if you want to believe that.
-
loco, you have posted these lies before, and I have corrected you. Yours is a lame attempt at guilt by association: taint the central core of biology with Nazi eugenics.
It exposes your ignorance of what "evolution" is. If only you had taken the time to learn what it was about, you'd know that it has nothing to do with "survival of the fittest" people, or the "fittest" nation, or the "fittest" individual. It is merely the non-random differential survival of self-replicating genes.
Natural selection occurs when some genes make it into the bodies of individuals who become ancestors, while other genes do not. How can something so simple be so misunderstood?
columbusdude82,
About Hitler, how are these lies? Here it does not matter what you or I say or know about evolution. This is History. I did not just make it up. It's about what Hitler knew, accepted, understood about evolution and about what he did. Here you are talking about a US president who would doom America only because he doesn't accept evolution, yet you ignore a tyrant who accepted evolution and was motivated by it to doom many people in many nations.
And how have you corrected me? I do remember you pointing out the difference between Darwin's theory of evolution and "Social Darwinism". However...
"I assumed that Darwin's theory of evolution and "Social Darwinism" were substantially distinct, and that "Social Darwinism" was a twisting of Darwin's theory in a way that Darwin would not have approved. Then I read Charles Darwin's Descent of Man and realized that my simplistic dichotomy between Darwin and "Social Darwinism" could not be maintained." - Dr. John G. West
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933859326/ref=s9_asin_image_1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=0M437Z8APXN5YA2Q1J14&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=278240701&pf_rd_i=507846
"Dr. West claims that " the eugenic movement, which led to the sterilization of tens of thousands of Americans against their will, many of whom would not be considered mentally handicapped today, was promoted by evolutionary biologists in the name of Darwinian natural selection." While this may not be factually incorrect, it obscures and omits some rather important details. For example, while many biologists did support eugenic policies, many important biologists did not." - Mark Borrello
http://www.mnscience.org/index.php?id=138
-
i must say the ignorance in this thread is astounding.
why do you guys reject evolution? there is all kinds of proof for it and one of you guys by the name of francis crick who mapped the genome(a christian) in his book talks about the ridiculousness of creationism. it has no evidence dont you see that?
evolution has more then most theories. you deny evolution but accept gravity?
there is no room for faith in science. evolution has evidence creationism has none, case closed.
-
i must say the ignorance in this thread is astounding.
why do you guys reject evolution? there is all kinds of proof for it and one of you guys by the name of francis crick who mapped the genome(a christian) in his book talks about the ridiculousness of creationism. it has no evidence dont you see that?
evolution has more then most theories. you deny evolution but accept gravity?
there is no room for faith in science. evolution has evidence creationism has none, case closed.
We accept micro-evolution.
It is not like gravity because we personally test and observe gravity everyday. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, has never been observed.
-
only creationists make the micro/macro distinction and that's most likely because on a micro scale it's literally IMPOSSIBLE to deny the evolutionary process. It's nothing more than an intellectual defense mechanism.
These discussions are a waste of time for all sides.
Who cares
Science will continue moving foward (one might even say evolving) and Creationists will continue to live in past and continue to offer up ever more ridiculous excuses in order to reconcile reality with their peculiar folktale.
-
The splitting of a species into two new species, or the change of a species over time into another, any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, have never been observed and there is no proof of such.
-
loco, once again you display your ignorance concerning evolution. If only you'd spend one third of the time reading real science that you spend getting these quotes from creationist sites, you'd be a much better informed person.
Your conflation of evolution by natural selection and Hitler/eugenics/"social Darwinism" is getting old. It's a load of crap and you know it. Or if you don't, then you owe it to yourself to at least make an effort at informing yourself.
rocky, about your idea of working creationism into the science curriculum, tell me if you disagree with this strategy:
For an idea/theory/discovery to be included in school science curricula and textbooks,
1. Scientists at respectable research universities and institutes make the discovery, verify it, spend months rigorously testing it, etc
2. They write up their paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Harsh scrutiny from many reviewers leads to much refinement of the paper, verifying the authenticity of its claims, or maybe even rejecting altogether.
3. The paper is published in the journal, and scientists discuss it in conferences, symposia, journal discussions, etc
4. The idea becomes accepted in the scientific community.
5. Only then do we consider teaching the idea in science class in schools.
Do you agree that this is how new ideas make into the science curriculum?
If so, the onus is on you to find any creationist publications in any peer-reviewed scientific journals. OR you must reach the conclusion that creationism does not belong in science class.
-
loco, once again you display your ignorance concerning evolution. If only you'd spend one third of the time reading real science that you spend getting these quotes from creationist sites, you'd be a much better informed person.
Your conflation of evolution by natural selection and Hitler/eugenics/"social Darwinism" is getting old. It's a load of crap and you know it. Or if you don't, then you owe it to yourself to at least make an effort at informing yourself.
columbusdude82,
The above are not quotes from creationist sites. Instead of addressing my points, discussing this with me or "educating" me, you simply dismiss my posts and instead resort to insulting my intelligence and education. You tend to do that to anyone who does not accept Darwin's theory of evolution. Individuals who are smarter and better educated than you and I have both accepted or rejected evolution. So don't just assume that anybody who rejects evolution is uneducated and ignorant.
"If one considers the history of evolution, we must postulate thousands of miracles; miracles, in fact, without end."
The Miracles of Darwinism - Interview with Marcel-Paul Schützenberger. Origins & Design 172
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htm
"Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work" - Dr. Lee M. Spetner
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html
"Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html
"Sir Fred Hoyle reached the conclusion that the universe is governed by a greater intelligence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_chemical_evolution
-
But trained biologists know their stuff, and they don't reject evolution. Fred Hoyle's argument against evolution was completely dismantled by Richard Dawkins. fred should stick to his physics because he doesn't know biology.
Spetner is a creationist, and he is not a trained biologist.
I listen to the experts.
-
We accept micro-evolution.
It is not like gravity because we personally test and observe gravity everyday. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, has never been observed.
either has anything in quantum physics as we cannot see atoms and electrons are not things per se but possibilities. yet, without observing it we use quantum physics for such simple things as cellular phones.
there are many ways to defer truth, direct observation of something that by nature cannot be observed due to the timeline is no possible. your asking of evidence of observation is dishonest as we cannot observe millions of years of micro evolutions which result in what you call macro evolution.
we simply infer its reality from the evidence, namely the merits of the model, fossils, interpretation and dedection based on micro evolution etc.....
your asking for us to show you how a frog became a bird or something, something that if occured would take millions of years, so your rejection of it because it doesnt it hasnt been observed is premature.
also, before you say that i reject christ or god because i cant see him, evolution has other observable phenomenon, and tangible evidences like fossils, cell lines, genetics , medicine etc which all point to it. it has mountains of proof, from all different fields, something that strengthens its position further.
-
But trained biologists know their stuff, and they don't reject evolution. Fred Hoyle's argument against evolution was completely dismantled by Richard Dawkins. fred should stick to his physics because he doesn't know biology.
Spetner is a creationist, and he is not a trained biologist.
I listen to the experts.
So educated individuals around the world are not allowed to reject Darwin's theory of evolution unless they have a PhD in Biology? Otherwise they are automatically ignorant and uneducated? And then, even if they do get a PhD in Biology, they are labeled a creationist if they reject evolution?
I did not know that Spetner was considered a creationist by main-stream scientists. Otherwise he wouldn't be taken seriously and TalkOrigins.com would not even bother to debate him.
You did not mention Marcel-Paul Schützenberger, a highly respected mathemetician:
"Biology is, of course, not my specialty. The participation of mathemeticians in the overall assessment of evolutionary thought has been encouraged by the biologists themselves, if only because they presented such an irresistible target. Richard Dawkins, for example, has been fatally attracted to arguments that would appear to hinge on concepts drawn from mathematics and from the computer sciences, the technical stuff imposed on innocent readers with all of his comic authority. Mathematicians are, in any case, epistemological zealots. It is normal for them to bring their critical scruples to the foundations of other disciplines. And finally, it is worth observing that the great turbid wave of cybernetics has carried mathematicians from their normal mid-ocean haunts to the far shores of evolutionary biology. There up ahead, Rene Thom and Ilya Prigogine may be observed paddling sedately toward dry land, members of the Santa Fe Institute thrashing in their wake. Stuart Kauffman is among them. An interesting case, a physician half in love with mathematical logic, burdened now and forever by having received a Papal Kiss from Murray Gell-Mann. This ecumenical movement has endeavored to apply the concepts of mathematics to the fundamental problems of evolution -- the interpretation of functional complexity, for example." - Marcel-Paul Schützenberger
As for Sir Fred Hoyle, he was a respected scientist who rejected evolution. I'd hardly consider him ignorant and uneducated.
-
How funny that you read what someone else has written about Dawkins, but can't be bothered to read his writing for yourself...
-
Last night on Colbert's show he straight up said evolution is a farce.
What a nutcase :-\
-
loco, once again you display your ignorance concerning evolution. If only you'd spend one third of the time reading real science that you spend getting these quotes from creationist sites, you'd be a much better informed person.
Your conflation of evolution by natural selection and Hitler/eugenics/"social Darwinism" is getting old. It's a load of crap and you know it. Or if you don't, then you owe it to yourself to at least make an effort at informing yourself.
rocky, about your idea of working creationism into the science curriculum, tell me if you disagree with this strategy:
For an idea/theory/discovery to be included in school science curricula and textbooks,
1. Scientists at respectable research universities and institutes make the discovery, verify it, spend months rigorously testing it, etc
2. They write up their paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Harsh scrutiny from many reviewers leads to much refinement of the paper, verifying the authenticity of its claims, or maybe even rejecting altogether.
3. The paper is published in the journal, and scientists discuss it in conferences, symposia, journal discussions, etc
4. The idea becomes accepted in the scientific community.
5. Only then do we consider teaching the idea in science class in schools.
Do you agree that this is how new ideas make into the science curriculum?
If so, the onus is on you to find any creationist publications in any peer-reviewed scientific journals. OR you must reach the conclusion that creationism does not belong in science class.
how the hell should i know how new science ideas make it into school science classes..i have a degree in history.
All I am saying is that you should present all sides to a story and let the student decide what he or she wants to accept. Why is that idea/belief so hard for people to accept? If, as you believe, evolution trumps creationism and there's more evidence that evolution IS what really happened then you shouldn't have a problem with both being taught, because obviously more people will accept evolution over creationism.
-
how the hell should i know how new science ideas make it into school science classes..i have a degree in history.
All I am saying is that you should present all sides to a story and let the student decide what he or she wants to accept. Why is that idea/belief so hard for people to accept? If, as you believe, evolution trumps creationism and there's more evidence that evolution IS what really happened then you shouldn't have a problem with both being taught, because obviously more people will accept evolution over creationism.
Again, which creationism? You conceded a few posts up that there are so many of them, that if they were to be included in the science curriculum, no actual science would be taught.
And, if you allow any version of Christian creationism into the science class, then you are admitting that the book of Genesis is an accurate scientific account. That would mean the whole Bible would have to be accepted as a source of scientific information in schools.
Then, for instance, we would have to teach in astronomy class that the sun can stand still, as it did for Joshua, and that it is possible that the sun and the stars may "fall from the sky" as Jesus said... and in geology class, we would have to teach that below the earth's crust lies the molten fiery underworld where some souls go (i.e. we would have to throw out almost all of geology), and on and on.
If such crap were to be allowed, then the US would be a laughing stock among all nations for all time.
-
Again, which creationism? You conceded a few posts up that there are so many of them, that if they were to be included in the science curriculum, no actual science would be taught.
And, if you allow any version of Christian creationism into the science class, then you are admitting that the book of Genesis is an accurate scientific account. That would mean the whole Bible would have to be accepted as a source of scientific information in schools.
Then, for instance, we would have to teach in astronomy class that the sun can stand still, as it did for Joshua, and that it is possible that the sun and the stars may "fall from the sky" as Jesus said... and in geology class, we would have to teach that below the earth's crust lies the molten fiery underworld where some souls go (i.e. we would have to throw out almost all of geology), and on and on.
If such crap were to be allowed, then the US would be a laughing stock among all nations for all time.
i don't know which post you are talking about..think it was loco who said all that...i don't know how many creationisms there are or theories of evolution...what i said was that I'm not opposed to having educators getting together and working out a curriculum that could make all sides of the argument happy. I think educated people can put their differences aside and figure out what's best to EDUCATE children---as I said..present all sides and let them choose.
I also think a lot of the bible stuff that you mention is not ment to be taken literally....like there's no hell under the earth's crust, etc...although i do understand that many christian sects take it literally. I think common sense sometimes needs to be used.
-
i don't know which post you are talking about..think it was loco who said all that...i don't know how many creationisms there are or theories of evolution...what i said was that I'm not opposed to having educators getting together and working out a curriculum that could make all sides of the argument happy. I think educated people can put their differences aside and figure out what's best to EDUCATE children---as I said..present all sides and let them choose.
I also think a lot of the bible stuff that you mention is not ment to be taken literally....like there's no hell under the earth's crust, etc...although i do understand that many christian sects take it literally. I think common sense sometimes needs to be used.
You either want common sense to be used or you don't. Make up your mind. Either we teach science based on overwhelming evidence, or we teach the Bible in science class.
If you allow teaching any form of creationism to "make people happy" as you say, then you have to allow those who want to teach that there is a fiery hell under the earth's crust, or that the earth rests on the back of a giant tortoise. You can't allow some people's views into science class, but deny others.
It seems you have contradictory views on the matter. BTW I was referring to this post of yours in particular:
i'd include as part of science curriculum...but i think i'd leave it up to school boards to decide which creationism/darwinism/spaghetti monster/etc...i'd also be for leaving it out completely--only because as you said if you allow one, you allow them all--so i think the inverse should be debated.
-
You either want common sense to be used or you don't. Make up your mind. Either we teach science based on overwhelming evidence, or we teach the Bible in science class.
If you allow teaching any form of creationism to "make people happy" as you say, then you have to allow those who want to teach that there is a fiery hell under the earth's crust, or that the earth rests on the back of a giant tortoise. You can't allow some people's views into science class, but deny others.
It seems you have contradictory views on the matter. BTW I was referring to this post of yours in particular:
and you seem to want only what you believe is true to be the law of the land...
that's right...i want to give students the option to believe what they want or find acceptable to them..i actually want them to think for themselves---yeah, i know, not a very novel idea...it seems as though you want them to believe/accept one thing and one thing only--that's not education. It seems like you have a hard time accepting other points of view..so what if someone wants to believe that humans came from apes, or from god..or there really is a fiery, molten lava filled hell under the earth's crust. i don't have a problem hearing all different forms of beliefs and making up my mind on my own...i think that is what school systems should be doing. i went to 12 years of catholic school and heard one side of the argument--and it was not until i got to college did i hear the other side...I wish that during those early years in school i was given ALL SIDES--I'd rather be able to choose than leave it up to someone else to choose for me. THAT'S BEEN MY POINT DURING THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION...
-
No, I want science class to teach science, namely, the facts, theories and ideas that have stood constant scrutiny and skepticism and are backed up by mountains of solid evidence.
Either something is true or it isn't. If a new religion arises that says it believes that the water molecule is made up of nitrogen and carbon, instead of hydrogen and oxygen, do we allow their belief to be taught in science class and let the kids make up their minds which theory they like best?
Or do we ask the nitrogen-carbon crowd for evidence for their theory first, before teaching it in science class?
-
No, I want science class to teach science, namely, the facts, theories and ideas that have stood constant scrutiny and skepticism and are backed up by mountains of solid evidence.
Either something is true or it isn't. If a new religion arises that says it believes that the water molecule is made up of nitrogen and carbon, instead of hydrogen and oxygen, do we allow their belief to be taught in science class and let the kids make up their minds which theory they like best?
Or do we ask the nitrogen-carbon crowd for evidence for their theory first, before teaching it in science class?
This is how i'd include it in science...i'd include as part of science curriculum...but i think i'd leave it up to school boards to decide which creationism/darwinism/spaghetti monster/etc (from a previous post)....
hey bub..we all want things our own way...but that's not living in reality...i took bio, physics, chem, environmental science..physical science...i would not have minded a portion of my science to include theories of creationism, darwinism etc...to completely exclude something because you don't believe in it seems myopic, no?
-
rocky, do you even read my posts before replying?
Answer yes or no: Your school board (where your kids go) gets a letter from a local cult saying they believe the water molecule is made up of carbon and nitrogen, and they want that taught in science class alongside the hydrogen-oxygen "theory." That way, both ideas are taught to the kids. You, a parent, want to go vote on the initiative to teach both ideas in science class, namely that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, and that water is made up of carbon and nitrogen. Do you vote yes or no?
-
rocky, do you even read my posts before replying?
Answer yes or no: Your school board (where your kids go) gets a letter from a local cult saying they believe the water molecule is made up of carbon and nitrogen, and they want that taught in science class alongside the hydrogen-oxygen "theory." That way, both ideas are taught to the kids. You, a parent, want to go vote on the initiative to teach both ideas in science class, namely that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, and that water is made up of carbon and nitrogen. Do you vote yes or no?
I did...but you don't seem to want to accept anyone else's point of view...which is a pity because if you did..it could be good debate...all you want to do create hypothetical situations to back up your point..and they fail particularly with the one you just cited.
i vote no because it's universally agreed upon that water is H2O. it's not universally agreed upon that darwinism is what put us here...you can asked 100 people and 50 will say darwinism and 50 will say God...to me that's not like some crackpot group saying water is not made up of hydrogen and oxygen.
-
Check the poll..it's not as cut and dry as you believe...
Pew poll shows majority favor teaching creationism
Nearly two-thirds of respondents in a recent Pew Research Center poll say that they are "open" to teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools.
"Support for teaching creationism along with evolution is quite broad-based, with majority support even among seculars, liberal Democrats and those who accept natural selection theory," according to the survey. The poll involved a survey of 2,000 adults nationwide in July 2005.
According to the poll, nearly half of Americans think humans evolved over time, either through natural selection or guidance by a supreme being, while 42 percent feel that life has existed in its present form only. Evolution finds more supporters among those who are young, those who are college-educated, those who vote as Democrats, and those who hail from the northeastern or western states. Further, the poll reports that "70% of white evangelical Protestants say that life has existed in its present form since the beginning of time; fewer than half as many white mainline Protestants (32%) and white Catholics (31%) agree."
Despite this, 64 percent of respondents support teaching creationism along with evolution, while just 26 percent oppose it. Thirty-eight percent believe that creationism should supplant evolution in the curriculum.
Furthermore, creationists tend to be much more "certain" about their views, and not surprisingly, the majority of those peg their religious beliefs as the most important influence on their opinions about the development of life. By contrast, respondents who accept evolution more frequently tend to view it as the scientific consensus and cite education as the greatest influence on their opinions.
The complete survey can be found at
http://pewforum.org/surveys/origins/.
-
That is meaningless. Science is not what the majority wants. Science is what the evidence supports.
If you say no to the nitrogen-carbon theory, why would you say yes to the talking-snake theory? Just because some people say they think it's true? If the majority of americans say they believe that Jupiter is smaller than Mars, should we teach that too?
-
Rocky, to take your point one step further, since you believe the curriculum should be dictated by opinion polls. Let's move from the science curriculum to the geography curriculum.
Everyone knows how well Americans know their geography. If an opinion poll shows that 68% of Americans believe Ukraine is part of Russia, should we change the curricula and textbooks to reflect that too?
And if most Americans think the proper spelling of "tonight" is "tonite," should we change the English language textbooks to accomodate that as well?
These are some of the implications of the strategy you're suggesting. Rather than accuse me of wanting to have my own way and impose my beliefs, consider the implications of what you're saying.
-
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists
I don't know if doomed is the right word, but i do think that if religious views prevent a US President from supporting things like stem cell research we can find ourselves years behind in technological & biological advancements in the field of medicine that can affect our economy long term. BUSH was bad enough.
-
OzmO, we've missed you :) I was just about to make a "RIP OzmO" thread ;)
-
OzmO, we've missed you :) I was just about to make a "RIP OzmO" thread ;)
:)
I just haven't seen anything recently that has got my blood flowing.
But don't worry I'm alive an kicking!
-
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists
I don't know if doomed is the right word, but i do think that if religious views prevent a US President from supporting things like stem cell research we can find ourselves years behind in technological & biological advancements in the field of medicine that can affect our economy long term. BUSH was bad enough.
That's a misconception on your part, Ozmo
You forget that Bush supports and (I believe) is the first U.S. president to fund stem cell research. The only stem cell research that Bush doesn't support (as is the case with many religious people here) is embryonic stem cell research.
-
That's a misconception on your part, Ozmo
You forget that Bush supports and (I believe) is the first U.S. president to fund stem cell research. The only stem cell research that Bush doesn't support (as is the case with many religious people here) is embryonic stem cell research.
Perhaps i should have been more specific:
The potential of embryonic stem cell research. Many scientists believe that embryonic stem cell research may eventually lead to therapies that could be used to treat diseases that afflict approximately 128 million Americans. Treatments may include replacing destroyed dopamine-secreting neurons in a Parkinson's patient's brain; transplanting insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells in diabetic patients; and infusing cardiac muscle cells in a heart damaged by myocardial infarction. Embryonic stem cells may also be used to understand basic biology and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new medicines.
That's potentially BIG business either gained or lost.
-
Perhaps i should have been more specific:
The potential of embryonic stem cell research. Many scientists believe that embryonic stem cell research may eventually lead to therapies that could be used to treat diseases that afflict approximately 128 million Americans. Treatments may include replacing destroyed dopamine-secreting neurons in a Parkinson's patient's brain; transplanting insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells in diabetic patients; and infusing cardiac muscle cells in a heart damaged by myocardial infarction. Embryonic stem cells may also be used to understand basic biology and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new medicines.
That's potentially BIG business either gained or lost.
List of Benefits of Stem Cells to Human Patients
Adult Stem Cells v. Embryonic Stem Cells
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm
Forbes Magazine provided additional confirmation that adult stem cell research is far more successful that embryonic stem cell experimentation. In their September 3, 2001 issue, page 36, they quoted an article printed in the Wall Street Journal Europe by Richard Miniter.
“Of the 15 US biotech companies solely devoted to developing cures using stem cells, only two focus on embryos. Embryo stem cell research is at the drawing-board stage – not for lack of funds but for lack of promising research to finance. Venture capitalists have no agenda beyond making money; if they see embryo projects that are likely to bear fruit over the next five to seven years – the usual VC time horizon – they will fund them. That the market is speaking so loudly against embryo stem cell research probably explains why embryo researchers are so eager to reverse the ban on government funding.”
Diane Irving, Ph.D., a former professor of biology at Georgetown University and former biochemist with the National Cancer Institute, said, “I have argued that adult stem cells are better because they are closer to the stage of differentiation than embryonic or fetal cells – therefore they do not have as long a distance to travel differentiation-wise as the younger cells. Therefore there is far less of a chance for genetic errors to be accumulated in the implanted cells and less side effects for the patient to deal with.”
http://www.lifeissues.org/cloningstemcell/bradsarticle.html
These latest results show that the ES cells need to be genetically modified and extensive manipulation in vitro before they can be transplanted safely. Direct transplant of ES cells are known to give rise to teratomas and uncontrollable cell proliferation. There is already evidence that ES cells are genetically unstable in long term culture, and are especially prone to chromosomal abnormalities. The risks involved in using the cytomegalovirus promoter to drive over-expression of the transcription factor are undetermined. To avoid immune rejection, the ES cells have to be tissue-matched from a bank of stem cells created from ‘spare’ human embryos. Otherwise, a special human embryo has to be created for the purpose, by transferring the patient’s genetic material into an empty egg, a procedure prone to failure and morally objectionable to many, including scientists.
By contrast, adult stem cells could be transplanted directly without genetic modification or pre-treatments. They simply differentiate according to cues from the surrounding tissues and do not give uncontrollable growth or tumours. The adult stem cells also show high degrees of genomic stability during culture. There is no problem with immune rejection because the cells can readily be isolated from the patients requiring transplant. And there is no moral objection involved. Better yet, research can be directed towards encouraging adult stem cells to regenerate and repair damaged tissues in situ, without the need for cell isolation and in vitro expansion. By minimising intervention, risks are reduced, as well as cost, making the treatment available to everyone and not just the rich.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/stemcells2.php
-
List of Benefits of Stem Cells to Human Patients
Adult Stem Cells v. Embryonic Stem Cells
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm
Forbes Magazine provided additional confirmation that adult stem cell research is far more successful that embryonic stem cell experimentation. In their September 3, 2001 issue, page 36, they quoted an article printed in the Wall Street Journal Europe by Richard Miniter.
“Of the 15 US biotech companies solely devoted to developing cures using stem cells, only two focus on embryos. Embryo stem cell research is at the drawing-board stage – not for lack of funds but for lack of promising research to finance. Venture capitalists have no agenda beyond making money; if they see embryo projects that are likely to bear fruit over the next five to seven years – the usual VC time horizon – they will fund them. That the market is speaking so loudly against embryo stem cell research probably explains why embryo researchers are so eager to reverse the ban on government funding.”
Diane Irving, Ph.D., a former professor of biology at Georgetown University and former biochemist with the National Cancer Institute, said, “I have argued that adult stem cells are better because they are closer to the stage of differentiation than embryonic or fetal cells – therefore they do not have as long a distance to travel differentiation-wise as the younger cells. Therefore there is far less of a chance for genetic errors to be accumulated in the implanted cells and less side effects for the patient to deal with.”
http://www.lifeissues.org/cloningstemcell/bradsarticle.html
These latest results show that the ES cells need to be genetically modified and extensive manipulation in vitro before they can be transplanted safely. Direct transplant of ES cells are known to give rise to teratomas and uncontrollable cell proliferation. There is already evidence that ES cells are genetically unstable in long term culture, and are especially prone to chromosomal abnormalities. The risks involved in using the cytomegalovirus promoter to drive over-expression of the transcription factor are undetermined. To avoid immune rejection, the ES cells have to be tissue-matched from a bank of stem cells created from ‘spare’ human embryos. Otherwise, a special human embryo has to be created for the purpose, by transferring the patient’s genetic material into an empty egg, a procedure prone to failure and morally objectionable to many, including scientists.
By contrast, adult stem cells could be transplanted directly without genetic modification or pre-treatments. They simply differentiate according to cues from the surrounding tissues and do not give uncontrollable growth or tumours. The adult stem cells also show high degrees of genomic stability during culture. There is no problem with immune rejection because the cells can readily be isolated from the patients requiring transplant. And there is no moral objection involved. Better yet, research can be directed towards encouraging adult stem cells to regenerate and repair damaged tissues in situ, without the need for cell isolation and in vitro expansion. By minimising intervention, risks are reduced, as well as cost, making the treatment available to everyone and not just the rich.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/stemcells2.php
Continuing research on human embryonic stem cells could identify how undifferentiated stem cells become differentiated. It is known that turning genes on and off is central to the process. Some of the most serious medical conditions are caused by abnormal cell division and differentiation.
Better understanding of how these processes are controlled at the genetic and molecular level may lead to:
# significant information about the cause for many diseases
# new and better treatment possibilities
# potential cures for many medical conditions
Simply put, those who support human embryonic stem cell research believe it could lead to possible cures for many diseases, including:
# Rheumatoid Arthritis
# Lupus
# Scleroderma
# Diabetes
# Parkinson's disease
# Alzheimer's disease
# Heart disease
# Cancer
# Spinal cord injuries
Human stem cells could also be used to test new drugs. According to the NIH (National Institutes of Health, "to screen drugs effectively, the conditions must be identical when comparing different drugs. Therefore, scientists will have to be able to precisely control the differentiation of stem cells into the specific cell type on which drugs will be tested. Current knowledge of the signals controlling differentiation fall well short of being able to mimic these conditions precisely to consistently have identical differentiated cells for each drug being tested."
The need for transplantable tissues and organs far outweighs the available supply. Stem cells, directed to differentiate into specific cell types, could offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat many diseases.
http://arthritis.about.com/od/stemcell/i/stemcells_2.htm (http://arthritis.about.com/od/stemcell/i/stemcells_2.htm)
-
more from same site:
In August 2005, Harvard University scientists announced a break-through discovery that fuses "blank" embryonic stem cells with adult skin cells, rather than with fertilized embryos, to create all-purpose stem cells viable to treat diseases and disabilities.
This discovery doesn't result in the death of fertilized human embryos, and thus would effectively respond to pro-life objections to embryonic stem cell research and therapy.
Harvard researchers warned that it could take up to ten years to perfect this highly promising process.
As South Korea, Great Britain, Japan, Germany, India and other countries rapidly pioneer this new technological frontier, the US is being left farther and farther behind in medical technology. The US is also losing out on billions in new economic opportunities at a time when our country sorely needs new sources of revenues.
-
Since I'm in an uncommon cut and paste mode:
Embryonic Stem Cell Advantages
1. Flexible—appear to have the potential to make any cell
2. Immortal—one ES cell line can potentially provide an endless supply of cells with
defined characteristics
3. Availability—embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics
http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/pros_cons.html (http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/pros_cons.html)
-
more from same site:
In August 2005, Harvard University scientists announced a break-through discovery that fuses "blank" embryonic stem cells with adult skin cells, rather than with fertilized embryos, to create all-purpose stem cells viable to treat diseases and disabilities.
This discovery doesn't result in the death of fertilized human embryos, and thus would effectively respond to pro-life objections to embryonic stem cell research and therapy.
Harvard researchers warned that it could take up to ten years to perfect this highly promising process.
As South Korea, Great Britain, Japan, Germany, India and other countries rapidly pioneer this new technological frontier, the US is being left farther and farther behind in medical technology. The US is also losing out on billions in new economic opportunities at a time when our country sorely needs new sources of revenues.
If this is true, then that is great! So what's the problem then? And why follow that great news with "US is being left farther and farther behind in medical technology."?
I got the follwoing from one of the links you posted above:
"Despite public perceptions, embryonic stem cell research is legal in the US. In 2001, the President banned the use of federal funds for research. He did not ban private and state research funding."
http://arthritis.about.com/od/stemcell/i/stemcells_2.htm
-
Continuing research on human embryonic stem cells could identify how undifferentiated stem cells become differentiated. It is known that turning genes on and off is central to the process. Some of the most serious medical conditions are caused by abnormal cell division and differentiation.
Better understanding of how these processes are controlled at the genetic and molecular level may lead to:
# significant information about the cause for many diseases
# new and better treatment possibilities
# potential cures for many medical conditions
Simply put, those who support human embryonic stem cell research believe it could lead to possible cures for many diseases, including:
# Rheumatoid Arthritis
# Lupus
# Scleroderma
# Diabetes
# Parkinson's disease
# Alzheimer's disease
# Heart disease
# Cancer
# Spinal cord injuries
Human stem cells could also be used to test new drugs. According to the NIH (National Institutes of Health, "to screen drugs effectively, the conditions must be identical when comparing different drugs. Therefore, scientists will have to be able to precisely control the differentiation of stem cells into the specific cell type on which drugs will be tested. Current knowledge of the signals controlling differentiation fall well short of being able to mimic these conditions precisely to consistently have identical differentiated cells for each drug being tested."
The need for transplantable tissues and organs far outweighs the available supply. Stem cells, directed to differentiate into specific cell types, could offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat many diseases.
http://arthritis.about.com/od/stemcell/i/stemcells_2.htm (http://arthritis.about.com/od/stemcell/i/stemcells_2.htm)
OzmO,
You do realize that these are nothing but theories with no guarantee that embryonic stem cell research will ever produce any of the above results even if fully funded by the U.S. federal government. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, have already shown results.
The following comes from the same link you yourself posted above:
"There is no guarantee that forging ahead with embryonic stem cell research will produce the desired results. That, too, is a problem for some who oppose it. The utilization of embryonic stem cells, is at this point theoretical, unlike adult stem cells which have shown therapeutic results."
http://arthritis.about.com/od/stemcell/i/stemcells_2.htm
-
Since I'm in an uncommon cut and paste mode:
Embryonic Stem Cell Advantages
1. Flexible—appear to have the potential to make any cell
2. Immortal—one ES cell line can potentially provide an endless supply of cells with
defined characteristics
3. Availability—embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics
http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/pros_cons.html (http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/pros_cons.html)
OzmO,
you are carefully reading this stuff before you post it, right? Again, these are nothing but theories with no guarantee that embryonic stem cell research will ever produce any of the above results even if fully funded by the U.S. federal government. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, have already shown results.
The following is from the same link you posted above:
Adult Stem Cell Advantages
1. Special adult-type stem cells from bone marrow and from umbilical cord have been
isolated recently which appear to be as flexible as the embryonic type
2. Already somewhat specialized—inducement may be simpler
3. Not immunogenic—recipients who receive the products of their own stem cells will
not experience immune rejection
4. Relative ease of procurement—some adult stem cells are easy to harvest (skin,
muscle, marrow, fat), while others may be more difficult to obtain (brain stem cells).
Umbilical and placental stem cells are likely to be readily available
5. Non-tumorigenic—tend not to form tumors
6. No harm done to the donor
http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/pros_cons.html
-
Loco,
Much of Science initially starts with potential, theories and possibilities.
Should they have stopped research into electricity and not developed it into solid state electronics? They would have if they based continuing research on your argument. Most of the development in anything starts with exactly the things you put in bold.
What bothers me is that in a creationist POV funding for things like this would not be authorized. However, I think BUSH did it for political reasons to get votes from religious conservatives. And in turn stopped any federal funding. Big mistake.
I BTW am for it only if it is possbile without destroying human embryos. And it sounds like it is.
-
Loco,
Much of Science initially starts with potential, theories and possibilities.
Should they have stopped research into electricity and not developed it into solid state electronics? They would have if they based continuing research on your argument. Most of the development in anything starts with exactly the things you put in bold.
Electricity didn't take creating human embryos with the sole purpose of killing them for research and experimentation. As if it wasn't bad enough that babies get aborted because their conception wasn't planned, now we plan their conception with the sole purpose of killing them just to prove a theory? And if the theory proves correct, that means only the beginning of millions more planned conceptions of human life bound for murder for the sake of science. So much for society getting better and becoming more developed.
-
Electricity didn't take creating human embryos with the sole purpose of killing them for research and experimentation. As if it wasn't bad enough that babies get aborted because their conception wasn't planned, now we plan their conception with the sole purpose of killing them just to prove a theory? And if the theory proves correct, that means only the beginning of millions more planned conceptions of human life bound for murder for the sake of science. So much for society getting better and becoming more developed.
life is meaningless, its about quality of life, if it works out then disease may end.
-
Electricity didn't take creating human embryos with the sole purpose of killing them for research and experimentation. As if it wasn't bad enough that babies get aborted because their conception wasn't planned, now we plan their conception with the sole purpose of killing them just to prove a theory? And if the theory proves correct, that means only the beginning of millions more planned conceptions of human life bound for murder for the sake of science.
Not if they are, as they say at Harvard University, able to create these cells with out killing human embryos. Yet, this president has refused funding for it. That's a danger or a draw back of creationists thinking. Just like with cloning.
So that's poses the question: If they can do this research with out killing embryos is it ok with you loco?
-
life is meaningless, its about quality of life, if it works out then disease may end.
If you read between the lines of the Christian Bible, life is pretty meaningless to God also. But that's another story.
-
If you read between the lines of the Christian Bible, life is pretty meaningless to God also. But that's another story.
life is meaningless in eternity even if god exists, theres no end so no ultimate lessons can be learned, it just goes on and on and on, making life pointless and our finite existence worth living to the fullest.
-
Perhaps i should have been more specific:
The potential of embryonic stem cell research. Many scientists believe that embryonic stem cell research may eventually lead to therapies that could be used to treat diseases that afflict approximately 128 million Americans. Treatments may include replacing destroyed dopamine-secreting neurons in a Parkinson's patient's brain; transplanting insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells in diabetic patients; and infusing cardiac muscle cells in a heart damaged by myocardial infarction. Embryonic stem cells may also be used to understand basic biology and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new medicines.
That's potentially BIG business either gained or lost.
Loco mentioned it earlier. If embryonic stem cell research were such "BIG business", the private sector biotech companies would be providing the $$$$$$ and supporters of it wouldn't be howling about the government's (President Bush, in particular) not funding it.
The other forms of stem cell research appear to be getting a healthy share of cash, on its own, in large part because such are curing diseases RIGHT NOW and they have the potential of curing other disease in the future with virtually NONE of the bioethical controversy, that comes with embryonic stem cell research.
Stem cells from placentas, baby teeth, adult skin, bodyfat, etc. are all being used to cure ailments TODAY and TOMMORROW and there's another form of type that reportedly has all the potential of embryonic stem cell research, but again with none of the controversy. I believe it's called amniotic stem cell research.
Here's a brief blurb about it from AiG:
Many proponents of stem cell research have long suggested that embryonic stem cell lines would provide the most potential benefit to mankind. The presumption had been that embryonic stem cells have the most potential for differentiation, that is, they could ultimately be stimulated to form any type of body tissue. In actuality, most of the tissue types in the body have been produced with the use of adult stem cells. To date, essentially every significant therapeutic success in this arena has been with adult stem cells.
With AFS (amniotic-fluid stem cells) there now appears to be a third option. These cells are more mature than embryonic stem cells. Even so, this new research indicates that they have lost little, if any, ability to potentially differentiate into many, if not all, types of tissues. This degree of maturity may account for another apparent advantage of AFS. These cells do not appear to present the risk of developing tumors. In contrast, the growth of embryonic stem cells is sometimes erratic and at times uncontrollable to the extent that they will form tumor cells. AFS have not shown any predisposition toward malignant transformation. Obviously this is a major advantage for AFS.
AFS appear to be very easy to work with in the laboratory. They seem to grow well and have a long life span, reportedly significantly longer than adult stem cells in culture.
While we will need much more investigation into this area, work with AFS appears to be very promising at present. The ability to easily collect and isolate viable stem cell populations is a giant step forward. Knowledge that these cells have the ability to transform into so many tissue types is welcome. The promise, if fulfilled, that this technology would be available without the destruction of human life is priceless.
What irks me about this issue is that certain folks paint Christians as people who don't support stem cell research, OVERALL; when in actuality, many support all but one form of such (and that one form just happens to be the one that hasn't cured anything, to date).
-
Loco mentioned it earlier. If embryonic stem cell research were such "BIG business", the private sector biotech companies would be providing the $$$$$$ and supporters of it wouldn't be howling about the government's (President Bush, in particular) not funding it. They want Uncle Sam to cough the dough, because few (if anybody else) will.
The other forms of stem cell research appear to be getting a healthy share of cash, on its own, in large part because such are curing diseases RIGHT NOW and they have the potential of curing other disease in the future with virtually NONE of the bioethical controversy, that comes with embryonic stem cell research.
Stem cells from placentas, baby teeth, adult skin, bodyfat, etc. are all being used to cure ailments TODAY and TOMMORROW and there's another form of type that reportedly has all the potential of embryonic stem cell research, but again with none of the controversy. I believe it's called aminotic stem cell research.
What irks me about this issue is that Christians are almost always painted as not supporting stem cell research, OVERALL; when in actuality, many support all but one form of such (and that one form just happens to be the one that hasn't cured anything, to date).
Loco mentioned it earlier. If embryonic stem cell research were such "BIG business", the private sector biotech companies would be providing the $$$$$$ and supporters of it wouldn't be howling about the government's (President Bush, in particular) not funding it.
The other forms of stem cell research appear to be getting a healthy share of cash, on its own, in large part because such are curing diseases RIGHT NOW and they have the potential of curing other disease in the future with virtually NONE of the bioethical controversy, that comes with embryonic stem cell research.
Stem cells from placentas, baby teeth, adult skin, bodyfat, etc. are all being used to cure ailments TODAY and TOMMORROW and there's another form of type that reportedly has all the potential of embryonic stem cell research, but again with none of the controversy. I believe it's called aminotic stem cell research.
What irks me about this issue is that Christians are almost always painted as not supporting stem cell research, OVERALL; when in actuality, many support all but one form of such (and that one form just happens to be the one that hasn't cured anything, to date).
Thanks McWay, i appreciate you posting it twice. We all can use a little repetition in our lives. ;D
Many things come and go and some get support while others don't. That mere fact doesn't mean that what ever they are researching isn't worthy of funding. Take Jet engines in the 1930's for example. The allies virtually ended funding for it prior tot he war while the Germans continued research. In the end it turned out to be a mistake.
Remember the only controversy here is that embryonic stem research kills human embryos. And as Harvard has done, it is now not part of the equation.
Which brings up back to BUSH's political motivation for not authorizing funding. With a creationists in the White house we would see much more of that, retarding America's competitive edge in future technologies.
-
Thanks McWay, i appreciate you posting it twice. We all can use a little repetition in our lives. ;D
Sorry!!! That was an accident ;D !!
Many things come and go and some get support while others don't. That mere fact doesn't mean that what ever they are researching isn't worthy of funding. Take Jet engines in the 1930's for example. The allies virtually ended funding for it prior tot he war while the Germans continued research. In the end it turned out to be a mistake.
Remember the only controversy here is that embryonic stem research kills human embryos. And as Harvard has done, it is now not part of the equation.
Which brings up back to BUSH's political motivation for not authorizing funding. With a creationists in the White house we would see much more of that, retarding America's competitive edge in future technologies.
Exactly how are we behind in stem cell research? What diseases are other countries curing with embryonic stem cell research that folks in the USA are not?
And again, where's the profit from the private sector? From the link that Loco provided, only two of the 15 companies, devoted to stem cell research, are pouring any loot into embryonic stem cell research.
-
Sorry!!! That was an accident ;D !!
Many things come and go and some get support while others don't. That mere fact doesn't mean that what ever they are researching isn't worthy of funding. Take Jet engines in the 1930's for example. The allies virtually ended funding for it prior tot he war while the Germans continued research. In the end it turned out to be a mistake.
Exactly how are we behind in stem cell research? What diseases are other countries curing with embryonic stem cell research that folks in the USA are not?
And again, where's the profit from the private sector? From the link that Loco provided, only two of the 15 companies, devoted to stem cell research, are pouring any loot into embryonic stem cell research.
Many things factor in 2 of 15 companies pursuing embryonic stem cell research.
Some companies are banking on what they know they can get them a return while others are banking on things with a lesser chance of that. Some companies have the money to venture that way and some don't. That's where the federal government comes in with funding.
But let's go back to the reason for the controversy....
If human embryos are not killed is it ok with you?
-
Many things factor in 2 of 15 companies pursuing embryonic stem cell research.
Some companies are banking on what they know they can get them a return while others are banking on things with a lesser chance of that. Some companies have the money to venture that way and some don't. That's where the federal government comes in with funding.
But let's go back to the reason for the controversy....
If human embryos are not killed is it ok with you?
I don't know. If wealthy private corporations don't want to risk flushing their money down the toilet with something that has produced no results so far, why would Americans want to flush their tax dollars down the toilet the same way? And what would you do with all those embryos? You are creating embryos, human life, only to use them to make the quality of life better for another human. We are talking about human life here, but it almost sounds as if we are talking about a chicken farm instead.
-
Many things factor in 2 of 15 companies pursuing embryonic stem cell research.
Some companies are banking on what they know they can get them a return while others are banking on things with a lesser chance of that. Some companies have the money to venture that way and some don't. That's where the federal government comes in with funding.
But let's go back to the reason for the controversy....
If human embryos are not killed is it ok with you?
I'd have to look more into it. My point was that, if there are other options that have the same "potential" as embryonic stem-cell research (without any of the controversy), what's with the obsession over the embryonic stem cells for some folk, especially if the bottom line is curing diseases?
Since you mentioned politicians earlier, that reminds me of the 2004 campaign where John Kerry supporters were getting guys like Christopher Reeve to chime in on this subject, as if to imply that guys like him would never be cured of paralysis, because embryonic stem cell research wasn't being federally funded (thanks to Bush and the conservatives).
Some folks would have you believe that embryonic stem cell research is the lone savior of certain diseases and anyone would oppose embryonic stem cell research is holding back progress and may as well heave those sick people into the graves themselves.