Posted on 05/01/2011 7:24:18 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
The squabble between Darwin lobbyists who openly hate religion and those who only quietly disdain it grows ever more personal, bitter and pathetic. On one side, evangelizing New or "Gnu" (ha ha) Atheists like Jerry Coyne and his acolytes at Why Evolution Is True. Dr. Coyne is a biologist who teaches and ostensibly researches at the University of Chicago but has a heck of a lot of free time on his hands for blogging and posting pictures of cute cats.
On the other side, so-called accommodationists like the crowd at the National Center for Science Education, who attack the New Atheists for the political offense of being rude to religious believers and supposedly messing up the alliance between religious and irreligious Darwinists.
I say "supposedly" because there's no evidence any substantial body of opinion is actually being changed on religion or evolution by anything the open haters or the quiet disdainers say. Everyone seems to seriously think they're either going to defeat religion, or merely "creationism," or both by blogging for an audience of fellow Darwinists.
Want to see what I mean? This is all pretty strictly a battle of stinkbugs in a bottle. Try to follow it without getting a headache.
Coyne recently drew excited applause from fellow biologist-atheist-blogger PZ Myers for Coyne's "open letter" (published on his blog) to the NCSE and its British equivalent, the British Centre for Science Education. In the letter, Coyne took umbrage at criticism of the New Atheists, mostly on blogs, emanating from the two accommodationist organizations. He vowed that,
We will continue to answer the misguided attacks [on the New Atheists] by people like Josh Rosenau, Roger Stanyard, and Nick Matzke so long as they keep mounting those attacks.Like the NCSE, the BCSE seeks to pump up Darwin in the public mind without scaring religious people. This guy called Stanyard at the BCSE complains of losing a night's sleep over the nastiness of the rhetoric on Coyne's blog. Coyne in turn complained that Stanyard complained that a blog commenter complained that Nick Matzke, formerly of the NCSE, is like "vermin." Coyne also hit out at blogger Jason Rosenhouse for an "epic"-length blog post complaining of New Atheist "incivility." In the blog, Rosenhouse, who teaches math at James Madison University, wrote an update about how he had revised an insulting comment about the NCSE's Josh Rosenau that he, Rosenhouse, made in a previous version of the post.
That last bit briefly confused me. In occasionally skimming the writings of Jason Rosenhouse and Josh Rosenau in the past, I realized now I had been assuming they were the same person. They are not!
It goes on and on. In the course of his own blog post, Professor Coyne disavowed name-calling and berated Stanyard (remember him? The British guy) for "glomming onto" the Matzke-vermin insult like "white on rice, or Kwok on a Leica." What's a Kwok? Not a what but a who -- John Kwok, presumably a pseudonym, one of the most tirelessly obsessive commenters on Darwinist blog sites. Besides lashing at intelligent design, he often writes of his interest in photographic gear such as a camera by Leica. I have the impression that Kwok irritates even fellow Darwinists.
There's no need to keep all the names straight in your head. I certainly can't. I'm only taking your time, recounting just a small part of one confused exchange, to illustrate the culture of these Darwinists who write so impassionedly about religion, whether for abolishing it or befriending it. Writes Coyne in reply to Stanyard,
I'd suggest, then, that you lay off telling us what to do until you've read about our goals. The fact is that we'll always be fighting creationism until religion goes away, and when it does the fight will be over, as it is in Scandinavia.A skeptic might suggest that turning America into Scandinavia, as far as religion goes, is an outsized goal, more like a delusion, for this group as they sit hunched over their computers shooting intemperate comments back and forth at each other all day. Or in poor Stanyard's case, all night.
There's a feverish, terrarium-like and oxygen-starved quality to this world of online Darwinists and atheists. It could only be sustained by the isolation of the Internet. They don't seem to realize that the public accepts Darwinism to the extent it does -- which is not much -- primarily because of what William James would call the sheer, simple "prestige" that the opinion grants. Arguments and evidence have little to do with it.
The prestige of Darwinism is not going to be affected by how the battle between Jerry Coyne and the NCSE turns out. New Atheist arguments are hobbled by the same isolation from what people think and feel. I have not yet read anything by any of these gentlemen or ladies, whether the open haters or the quiet disdainers, that conveys anything like a real comprehension of religious feeling or thought.
Even as they fight over the most effective way to relate to "religion," the open atheists and the accomodationists speak of an abstraction, a cartoon, that no actual religious person would recognize. No one is going to be persuaded if he doesn't already wish to be persuaded for other personal reasons. No faith is under threat from the likes of Jerry Coyne.
Sorry, that doesn't cut it for me. If my existence was so miserable and there was no God who created me with a purpose and who loved me, then I would choose to commit suicide before I would ever think up an idea of a personal God. Rather, it is BECAUSE there is a personal, creator God who deals with each soul individually that I KNOW whom I believe and am confident in what I believe and why I believe it. Do you think only atheists and agnostics are ever confronted with deep, philosophical thoughts? Been there, done that, found the answer.
I didn't "side" with him because he insulted you, rather I HAVE read his posts - for some time now - and am confident that he is straight on those issues. I would hope you knew me well enough to know I am not shy about challenging beliefs. I have just never read a post from him that made me think he wasn't orthodox on Christian doctrines of Jesus Christ.
If I see such, I will say something. Until then, it is just Cronos who has his knickers in a knot about PSNS as well as metmom because they have refused to bow to his repeated inquisitions. I can't say as I blame them. And here you are joining in the chorus about something you yourself don't even believe! You admit you haven't taken the time to research the responses yet you pile on whenever you get the chance. I don't see that as being very honest - something you say you are. Perhaps you will know better next time.
My point was more towards the renown atheists - people like Hitchens and Dawkins. Have they made it a practice to conduct formal debates with prominent Muslims? How about Buddhists or Hindis? Have any of them written books criticizing polytheistic religions like they have the monotheistic Christian faith? I don't believe I have ever heard or seen them do so, so it does bring up the question of why, don't you think?
I know what YOU wrote james - are you considering yourself to be the type atheist is was mentioning in general? And I note that YOU are GRANTING the rights - it is apparent to you that the clone/twin has no inherent rights by being a human. That which you GRANT you can also TAKE AWAY now can't you.
Since clones are produced from this material, without fertilization using BOTH gametes, would producing clones be unethical?
Current cloning technology does not involve the sperm, it involves removing/modifying the nucleus of an egg and then replacing it with the modified nucleus/dna from an adult cell of another. Once the line is crossed in your question to produce a clone of another, then the 'ethic' boundary line is crossed imho.
Vampire Bats and the Golden Rule
Also excerpted from Shermer book - Their solution is that successful hunters regurgitate blood and share it with their less fortunate comrades, fully expecting reciprocity the next time they come home sans bacon. Of course, the bats are not aware they are being cooperative in any conscious sense. All animals, including human animals, are just trying to survive, and it turns out that cooperation is a good strategy.
So you equate yourself to an unconscience sense of cooperation in this situation. That is interesting, since you project yourself as an intellectual thinker james. What 'cooperation' are you offering clones in this case james?
Oh and to be truly consistent james, the bats should be sharing that blood with other animals - particularly their enemies - WHAT, they don't do that!
So you’re not a Christian?
From your quote I replied. You kept trying to incorporate people groups. My answer stands.
Which quote? The one I began with, specifies individuals. Why do you love to fudge and hair-split so much, Godzilla? I am seeking anomalies to the accepted dogma. Even one case would suffice to serve the purpose at hand. This is not so hard to understand, but your motives speak of intent to obfuscate the debate and cloud the argument. I ONLY NEED TO POINT TO ONE example.
Sorry James, you are not being honest on this point.
You specifically used the word 'Tribals' - plural
Yes, LOL, so? Did I mean 'tribals' to indicate all tribals on Earth, or as a collective term for those individual tribal members, who are "saved" without having heard your religious dogma? Tell me, Godzilla! If I have already invoked the individual in the beginning of this whole argument where I began with the ignorant tribal problem, and if you jumped into the thread sometime later and MADE YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS about whether I was referring to the collection of individual "saved" tribals or whether I was referring to *ALL* tribals, on Earth, it is you who's at fault. I clearly began by invoking the individual. My later comments using the plural, 'tribals' was to refer to a collection of such individuals. This is easily deduced by following all my comments on the WHOLE thread, right from the beginning. Go ahead, and be my guest in doing so. You are merely employing a distraction technique to blur the argument - which was in answering whether such tribals (now don't go "Bingo!" on the plural form, LOL!) are saved or not. Try again, Godzilla.
It wasn't until I forced you to refine your definition. Now you want to back track some more citing another reference - my my James you are all over the board - little wonder you are recognized for goal post moving extraordinare.
Yawn, Godzilla. I have more than amply clarified my stance on this. Go back, and try again. It is not my fault if you're too lazy to read the entire thread, FROM where the whole argument began.
Your point not only failed to stand, it got swept away, Godzilla. It was a counter-productive tactic that you employed to distract from the question at hand - as to how such tribals are "saved" without scriptural knowledge.
Looking to split some more frogs hairs I see. Why does it have to prove the negative James - you are open to prove the positive as well. You just assume off the bat that.
LOL, Godzilla, you surely make great, unintentional jokes.
YOU suggested that I cannot prove that "angels" didn't exist to tell those tribals about your deity.
This is what comprises of asking someone to prove a negative.
Which, if you can comprehend simple English, implies that you believe that "angels" COULD have told those tribals and thus "saved" them (your belief), and thus you have to prove this to me ("proving the positive"). Your failure to recognise your attempt at making me prove a negative, is documented on this thread and any attempt to shy away from that will only bring you embarrassment. Why do you want that, Godzilla?
You on the other hand employ the same attack you accuse me of - that being that since the proposition has not been "proven" (at least to your mobile standards), it cannot be considered true and therefore must be false.
Wrong, Godzilla. You again display your incapacity to recognise your invoking of the fallacy of 'argumentum ad ignorantiam. Go read up on the material I posted about it, earlier. This time, spend some time to understand it - go slower than you usually do.
I have declared more than once that to prove your dogmatic theories wrong, all I need to do is raise a contradiction (the tribal case, the clone, the god-outside-time-ordering-sequenced-events, etc.).
Bottom line is james, this is just a smokescreen to the fact that you cannot deny the proposition I made - just your response to it. Since you are incapable of proving it wrong via positive means, you try to turn the tables and accuse me of what you then do. Very obamaesque of you.
LOL, again invoking your fallacious "argument," Godzilla. Because I caught you attempting that, I am now Obama. Wow, I wish I could hand you a medal, Godzilla - for you surely humour me!
When those words of God are validated and protected by that same God - yes. What has the 'god' atheism brought us James? Not a whole heck of a lot to show.
Distraction, Godzilla! You must learn to make more sense. Have you heard of the term, non-sequitor? LOL!
Compared to the last 100 years and what atheistic countries did by the hundreds of millions - just because the people believed in God.
LOL, Godzilla, please think before you ink! I am not performing a comparison game here. Your fallacious "argument" basically comprises of claiming "look, my guys only killed 100,000+ people in deciding what comprises the Bible, 'your' guys killed much more, hence my guys are right!"
Sheer nonsense, Godzilla. The truth is not a popularity contest. The fact remains, deciding what the Bible is made up of, all numerous versions of it, that is, invoked violence which direct, individual revelation would have avoided. Yet, you prefer the spurious "guarantees" of man-based conveyance of what is purpoted to be the "truth" over direct, divine revelation! You are a strange believer, Godzilla!
Ignorance on the formation of the Bible as well. Tsk, Tsk. ames, really. By 'versions' you better define yourself better.
Do Bibles vary in content, Godzilla? Yes or no, Godzilla? LOL.
I quick screened your profile - i noted 3 negative comments about islam, yet the the posts of yours were overwhelming anti-Christian in nature in the first four pages. Funny that none of the anti-islam comments were in threads in the thousands as this one. Your evidence is weak.
LOL, Godzilla, you first accuse me of doing something I didn't (whereby you ended up bearing false witness) and the outright lie on my stance on Islam. You searched the first four pages? Wow, Godzilla! Report back when you search through the 4,000-odd comments of mine, the 1000-odd articles posted by me, and then judge. You noted three negative comments by me about Islam in your lazy attempt at examining the evidence, and then declare that my evidence is weak? Did you ever come across anything positive that I said about Islam? Why that haste in making that idiotic judgment, then? Why are you so deceptive, Godzilla? Don't you think you should apologise for this?
Taking the statement at face value - you BELIEVE there is no God. Are you denying that statement?
Forcing me to prove a negative again, Godzilla? LOL! It is for you to prove God exists. I raised the problem of deity and time, and about who is under who in this arrangment. Resolve it first.
We shall see, right? There is a reason why human cloning is illegal in many countries including the U.S.. Any opinions why and if it should remain so?
(1) Some time before 500 B.C. the prophet Daniel proclaimed that Israel's long-awaited Messiah would begin his public ministry 483 years after the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25-26).
Lets read what Daniel actually said.
9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
Obviously none of that happened while Christ was around or at any time. Jerusalem was not flooded. Another failed prophecy.
(2) In approximately 700 B.C. the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah (Micah 5:2). The fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Christ is one of the most widely known and widely celebrated facts in history.
Another failed Prophecy, see my post #2695 to GodZ.
(3) In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave—thirty pieces of silver, according to Jewish law-and also that this money would be used to buy a burial ground for Jerusalem's poor foreigners (Zechariah 11:12-13).
11:12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.
11:13 And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.
That isn't even a prophecy and says nothing about the Messiah being betrayed for the price of a slave. I asked you to actually read the prophecies first, but no you prefer to look foolish.
(4) Some 400 years before crucifixion was invented, both Israel's King David and the prophet Zechariah described the Messiah's death in words that perfectly depict that mode of execution. Further, they said that the body would be pierced and that none of the bones would be broken, contrary to customary procedure in cases of crucifixion (Psalm 22 and 34:20; Zechariah 12:10).
Zechariah 12:9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
The scripture doesn't say what you think it does. It clearly states that God will destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And that the inhabitants will mourn for him. None of which happened. Did the guy who composed these "prophecies" even read them himself? Another failed prophecy.
(5) The prophet Isaiah foretold that a conqueror named Cyrus would destroy seemingly impregnable Babylon and subdue Egypt along with most of the rest of the known world. This same man, said Isaiah, would decide to let the Jewish exiles in his territory go free without any payment of ransom (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1; and 45:13). Isaiah made this prophecy 150 years before Cyrus was born, 180 years before Cyrus performed any of these feats (and he did, eventually, perform them all), and 80 years before the Jews were taken into exile.
The problem is that your supposed prophecy was written after the fact. Unlike CAGW climatology, hindcasting is not predicting. Didn't they teach you about second Isaiah in Sunday School? Do you just parrot back stuff or did you actually research any of these so called prophecies?
Probability of the Bible being correct just once? 0%
It goes to show the desperation to which people sink in their efforts to discredit someone else that they have nothing valid with which to attack someone over, so they have to make something up, treat it as fact, and stalk them across threads with it, BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION.
And then they demand answers and accountability so they, without spiritual discernment of any kind, can pass judgment on whether you or I or anyone else they choose to stalk, are saved or not.
And coming from an avowed atheist of all people. Someone who doesn’t believe in God and denies the deity of Christ himself.
The hypocrisy is staggering.
I do, but you don't understand the methodology do you. Specify which animal has ever been created from a somatic cell and a male gamete? The female gamete is uniquely designed to become the zygote - it is the sperm that penetrates INTO the egg, james, not the other way around. (@.@)
BTW james, reproductive cloning generally uses "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT) to create animals that are genetically identical. This process entails the transfer of a nucleus from a donor adult cell (somatic cell) to an EGG that has no nucleus.
Not if intermediary genetic modification is performed. Then, the "clone" doesn't share the same genetics.
And then the clone isn't a 'clone', but genetically modified. Gene splicing is not the same as cloning james - and I'm sure you know the difference.
Ah, no again, Godzilla. Producing a clone does not involve the fusion of a sperm and egg. Just a somatic (body) cell and a single gamete (sex cell).
The point I am making is that the fertilization that occurs in a test tube in most aspects is still 'at the whim' of people james - it is adding an artificial layer and location into the mix. In cloning you are taking an existing nucleus/dna and inserting into a female gamete (there are two kinds of gametes james - or did you sleep through that part of sex ed?) - bypassing the natural fusion of the male and female chromosomes and the creation of a genetically unique individual.
The isolated tribal is not a strawman. The individual is real, living and breathing, existing even today.
Well, I see that you are now using the singular form of the word. VERY good james, we are making progress. And yes the individual is real, living and breathing. But then why should you care? You believe there is no God, so no skin off your nose.
The inconsistency arises from the fact that the clone is a product of an unfertilised gamete and a somatic cell, both of which are components you agree you have no ethical issues in performing research with.
Wrong again james, really let me speak for my self and don't try to put words in my mouth. YOUR question was whether it was ethical to perform research on them separately. You said specifically -
Researching the unfertilized egg (waiting for fertilization) and the sperm (that does the fertilizing) SEPARATELY tells me just that. Cloning is not researching them SEPARATELY james. I don't believe cloning to be ethical.
Clones are not the same as twins, Godzilla. They usually don't even have comparably similar life-spans. Clones tend to die faster.
I used twins as a parallel situation james. A SCNT-clone would be an identical twin because the nucleus as a whole is transfered into the egg. Life span issues are another reason cloning is unethical - for the pain and suffering inflicted.
You really should read more. Here are some videos to help, for starters:
Christopher Hitchens on Islam: http://youtu.be/an7TaDQ5Yo0
Christopher Hitchens on Islam in Britain: http://youtu.be/k-PxRDt49FA
Hitchens Schools a Muslim on Free Speech: http://youtu.be/J7aS7m3odqI
Christopher Hitchens on Child Abuse in Islam: http://youtu.be/jt_diqi2vB0
Hitchens Nails an Apologist for Islam and Jehad: http://youtu.be/9F8vgwBiKl0
Dawkins and Hitchens on the Mormon Religion: http://youtu.be/Q2I1Ogk2BmQ
Richard Dawkins Interviews a Jewish Convert to Islam: http://youtu.be/-8b3vhTO248
Richard Dawkins: "Islam Is A Great Evil": http://youtu.be/LhYus6TiGEE
Richard Dawkins: How to Debate a Muslim: http://youtu.be/VselUW4Aoxg
Geert Wilders: "Islam is a Fascist Ideology": http://youtu.be/vYD6BGrB9nE
Geert Wilders' Fitna: http://youtu.be/BgQdZgojOFI
(Geert Wilder has received death threats for this movie about Islam.)
And then we have Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasrin, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, all ex-Muslims, critical of Islam, with each of them receiving death threats.
You really should quit making bogus, empty, unjustified judgments about these people.
Bearing false witness is wrong. Have you forgotten that?
Great display of ignorance lg -
Micah 5:2 - Ephratah refers to the name of the district in which Bethlehem was located. Go learn the names of the tribes of Israel lg
your other bleats are just as void as your first on the passage.
Those other passages are applicable to the second coming of Jesus lg - but then context was always a problem with you atheist/mormons.
There was a post far back of two hands writing....circular writing from one hand to the other....that pretty much has been their arguements...rather not even arguements...pretty much questions which they really aren’t looking for answeres for...rather using the thread to take center stage....and deliver the doubt and confusion the enemy of mens souls loves to do....over and over again.
Geert Wilder is a great read....he’s been fighting and debating Islam for sometime now...but purly from a secular standpoint...but he is right thus far nonthe less.
Dawkins has gone off the deep end now...., greatly disappointing many in the science community and such.I certainly wouldnt put much weight into what he says now. He’s caught up in the NEw Age mumbo jumbo.....
.....even the brightest minds, who travel long without Christ...will fall for the nonesense that’s out there. Just a matter of time once they reject Christ....and Dawkins did just that and then fell for nonesense hook line and sinker....of late he’s said some pretty off the wall nonesense....since he “changed”...his approach to all things scientific etc. What a loss!
I challenge you to go to the site and at least read the article. There are only so many times that a person can say, "Nah, didn't happen. No, didn't go down like that. No, No, No..." before it becomes obvious that they aren't really interested in hearing something that they fear will go against what they choose to believe. I faced each one of my fears and doubts and I was able to come away absolutely sure I was on the right path. The evidence is there. Be honest about it to yourself.
That's a common propaganda technique. Accusations posing as questions.
The whole cloning issue is just for deflection to take the heat off of the atheists for taking such a beating on the *tribals* issue.
There’s no point in going there with them as all of the questions they raise are ultimately in God’s hands and it is not our responsibility to make any determination on whether a clone would have a soul and be able to be saved. That’s God’s decision, not ours.
And besides, keeping Christians occupied with nonsense questions like that, keeps them from presenting the Gospel to those who need to hear it.
The atheists on this thread have been presented the gospel and are responsible to and accountable to God for how they respond.
So, we’ll get back to the basics of post 2580 by vendome:
************************************************************************************
So, It’s about like that or you can follow the Romans Road to Salvation:
The first verse on the Romans Road to salvation is Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” We have all sinned. We have all done things that are displeasing to God. There is no one who is innocent. Romans 3:10-18 gives a detailed picture of what sin looks like in our lives. The second Scripture on the Romans Road to salvation, Romans 6:23, teaches us about the consequences of sin - “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” The punishment that we have earned for our sins is death. Not just physical death, but eternal death!
The third verse on the Romans Road to salvation picks up where Romans 6:23 left off, “but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 5:8 declares, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Jesus Christ died for us! Jesus’ death paid for the price of our sins. Jesus’ resurrection proves that God accepted Jesus’ death as the payment for our sins.
The fourth stop on the Romans Road to salvation is Romans 10:9, “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” Because of Jesus’ death on our behalf, all we have to do is believe in Him, trusting His death as the payment for our sins - and we will be saved! Romans 10:13 says it again, “for everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Jesus died to pay the penalty for our sins and rescue us from eternal death. Salvation, the forgiveness of sins, is available to anyone who will trust in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
The final aspect of the Romans Road to salvation is the results of salvation. Romans 5:1 has this wonderful message, “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Through Jesus Christ we can have a relationship of peace with God. Romans 8:1 teaches us, “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Because of Jesus’ death on our behalf, we will never be condemned for our sins. Finally, we have this precious promise of God from Romans 8:38-39, “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Would you like to follow the Romans Road to salvation? If so, here is a simple prayer you can pray to God. Saying this prayer is a way to declare to God that you are relying on Jesus Christ for your salvation. The words themselves will not save you. Only faith in Jesus Christ can provide salvation! “God, I know that I have sinned against you and am deserving of punishment. But Jesus Christ took the punishment that I deserve so that through faith in Him I could be forgiven. With your help, I place my trust in You for salvation. Thank You for Your wonderful grace and forgiveness - the gift of eternal life! Amen!”
If you are saved your nature will be changed, period. You may do the same things you knew, by instinct, were wrong or have come to an understanding they are wrong and you require a higher power to change your spirit.
You won’t be perfect but you will change never the less and be a better person.
If you don’t need God, fine.
If you don’t believe there is a God, fine.
However, you won’t be fine in the after life.
Everything here is an article of faith. If you can’t get there today, maybe tomorrow. If you can’t get there ever...for you I feel not pity but sorrow.
I do, but you don't understand the methodology do you. Specify which animal has ever been created from a somatic cell and a male gamete? The female gamete is uniquely designed to become the zygote - it is the sperm that penetrates INTO the egg, james, not the other way around. (@.@)
Ahem, your point being? I didn't ask you to detail the mechanism. I said cloning involves taking one gamete and one somatic cell, and making a living clone out of the two. At no point does whether a sperm cell is used or an egg cell is used, matter. You surely are a strange person, Godzilla! If this is the quality of your argument... LOL.
BTW james, reproductive cloning generally uses "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT) to create animals that are genetically identical. This process entails the transfer of a nucleus from a donor adult cell (somatic cell) to an EGG that has no nucleus.
Thanks for the fun facts, Godzilla! Not that it matters an ounce to support your argument. None of this is in dispute, here, your meaningless distractions, notwithstanding.
And then the clone isn't a 'clone', but genetically modified. Gene splicing is not the same as cloning James - and I'm sure you know the difference.
Immaterial, Godzilla. Fact remains that a sentient being ends up as the product of a single gamete and a somatic cell, which is not a twin. Try again, Godzilla. My diaphragm hurts from the free laughs you've provided thus far.
The point I am making is that the fertilization that occurs in a test tube in most aspects is still 'at the whim' of people James - it is adding an artificial layer and location into the mix. In cloning you are taking an existing nucleus/dna and inserting into a female gamete (there are two kinds of gametes James - or did you sleep through that part of sex ed?) - bypassing the natural fusion of the male and female chromosomes and the creation of a genetically unique individual.
Thanks for the facts again, Godzilla, but they still don't matter to support your fallacy. If you fail to recognise the difference between a spontaneous (ahem, deity-created) twinning, and cloning, it is not my problem. Explaining the mechanism of cloning is completely irrelevant to the argument - just as is your nonsensical assumption whether I know two kinds of gametes exist or not. What were you thinking, Godzilla?!! Your tactics are all out in public!
Well, I see that you are now using the singular form of the word. VERY good James, we are making progress.
I BEGAN with the individual case, Godzilla. You made false assumptions, after ignoring what I began with, and of course, continue to employ distractions that have no relevance to what was asked. Bad going, Godzilla!
And yes the individual is real, living and breathing. But then why should you care? You believe there is no God, so no skin off your nose.
A ha! Now we come full-circle, Godzilla! Did you forget what my intent was? Do you remember me telling you about how if I prove an exception to your "absolute" rules from dogma, the entire dogma collapses? Now you know why I care, Godzilla. Now get back, and answer. Quit the meaningless distractions.
Wrong again James, really let me speak for my self and don't try to put words in my mouth. YOUR question was whether it was ethical to perform research on them separately. You said specifically -
Researching the unfertilized egg (waiting for fertilization) and the sperm (that does the fertilizing) SEPARATELY tells me just that. Cloning is not researching them SEPARATELY James. I don't believe cloning to be ethical.
Thanks for the clarification, Godzilla. Cloning does not involve sperm fusing the egg. How do you conclude cloning to be unethical then, Godzilla? (BTW, fun fact: "waiting for fertilization" etc. are irrelevant when the fact remains that both the egg and the sperm contribute 50% each of the genes that comprise the individual.)
I used twins as a parallel situation James. A SCNT-clone would be an identical twin because the nucleus as a whole is transfered into the egg. Life span issues are another reason cloning is unethical - for the pain and suffering inflicted.
If the lifespans are not the same, there is something different beyond mere twinning, isn't there, Godzilla? They just cannot be the same in terms of procedure for creating each one of them. A clone and a twin may share the same genetics, but the formation mechanisms are worlds apart. One forms when the blastocyst splits spontaneously into two ("God did it!") while the other involves taking a gamete and a somatic cell to create an individual. If you fail to see the difference, I am not to blame, Godzilla, LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.