If the diamonds are 4.2 billions years old, ALL the carbon will be carbon-12 no matter the source of the original carbon. Any carbon-14 would have decayed within a matter of 10's of thousands of years (that's why carbon-12 dating isn't accurate past 30,000 years or so.)
You are thinking of carbon -14 dating which is something different than what was discussed in the referenced article. Carbon-12 and carbon-13 are both stable isotopes of carbon and do not decay. Carbon-14 (formed continuously by cosmic rays in the atmosphere) is not a stable isotope and is the carbon isotope used in the short-term 'carbon dating' you refer to. The article, though, referred to the ratio of the stable isotopes carbon-12 and carbon-13 present in the ancient carbon reservoir. Life forms preferentially consume carbon-12 so an ancient reservoir unusually rich in the 'light' carbon-12 suggests that it was created in the presence of life forms.
...I strongly believe that you can never prove whether or not a Creator exists.
Certainly not with the information available to us at present and in the forseeable future. However, as scientific discoveries have been made, it has become more difficult than it was before those discoveries were made to believe that a creator does NOT exist.
It begins to feel like believing that Tolstoy's "War and Peace" was written by a chimpanzee repeatedly pressing every key on a computer keyboard at random for years until the combination that created a great novel occurred.
Diamond formation requires life? I never knew this.
No, diamond formation does not require life. If you RTFA, it referred to the "carbon" in the diamonds...in particular to the presence of high concentrations of carbon-12 which is a feature usually associated with organic life. The presence of the carbon-12 in the diamonds suggested that the 4.2 billion-year-old diamonds [which are composed of carbon] were formed at a time when life was present on the earth.
...since that means the universe exploded into existence with no creator and then life arose spontaneously on the billions of habitable planets scattered around. Recent analysis of ancient diamonds suggests that life existed on earth 4.2 billion years ago while the earth itself is now thought to be 4.6 billion years old which only allows 400 million years for the formation of oceans on a newly-formed rocky earth followed by the spontaneous auto-formation of ancient bio-molecules, membranes, and proteins that could function as a living cell. Hardly seems long enough. Now we are told that our solar system with its incredibly beautiful planet that is our home might itself be very rare. Maybe there really is a creator after all? Either that or we are the product of an astounding string of 1-in-a-trillion coincidences. Which is easier to believe?
The third party sites can tie up blocks of seats and then resell them with a gouging profit, similar to what ticket scalper sites do for concert tickets. Ticketmaster's website blocks out bots to stop that. Maybe ryanair should put in some anti-bot stuff to keep out the third party automatic bookings of blocks of seats. Ryanair probably shouldn't cancel out the end-user tickets, though, since that just ticks off the innocent buyers who might not even know that they aren't buying their tickets from the airline.
..."first, the sun is a 'light in the dome of the sky' for one thing, and also the moon was probably there before water formed on the earth.
Actually, there's at least one way that the order in Genesis for even the 'lights in the dome of the sky' phrase would agree with our current scientific understanding of the creation process. In Genesis, the sun appears to be created twice, first with 'let there be light' and second as a 'light in the dome of the sky.' However, it's possible that the second 'lights in the dome of the sky' reference refers to the impact that created the current moon and caused the earth to begin its current fast rotations (although it's slowed a little over the billions of years.) We don't know what the original fledgling-earth might have been like before that huge impact but it's probable that it had water and could have supported life, based on its distance from the sun.
Watched the video...all the way through. The first half goes through the list of stuff he wanted to do before he died...and ticked off what he had managed to do. The last 10 minutes have the summarized advice for life...be earnest...tell the truth...apologize when you screw up, etc. Most of the rest is anecdotal stories underlining his points. It's a good lecture, entertaining, humorous, light-hearted, and well-illustrated. The amazing thing is all of the people who say watching it has changed their life. Perhaps it gives them a sense of optimism and hope that was missing from their life before? Or maybe it is an example for them of someone who faces his impending death with courage and dignity? Yes, it is those things but those are out there, everyday, everywhere, all of the time.
Most christians know, that Mark did not mention the resurrection chronologically in the original.
This is wrong. There is still a Chapter 16 as the last chapter in even the 'short' version of Mark (i.e. the Codex Sinaiticus version) and it is only about the resurrection of Jesus. In the codex version, Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Salome go to the tomb, find it empty, find a young man in a white robe sitting in the tomb who tells them that Jesus has been raised and is on his way to Galilee where they will be able to see him themselves.
So...yes...Mark mentioned the resurrection of Jesus "chronologically" in EVERY version of Mark's gospel.
One of the main reasons I have decided that the bible is a load of rubbish is not just that Genesis only takes 7 'days', but the way things are done are in the wrong order, so it doesn't really even make much sense as a metaphor..
I've never seen any problem with referring to the events in terms of 'days.' But...the wrong order? Really? From Genesis...
Let there be light... God then separated the light from the darkness...the first day
God made the dome...God called the dome "the sky" Let the water under the sky be gathered into a single basin so that the dry land may appear...
Let the earth bring forth vegetation...every kind of plant that bears seed...
Let there be lights in the dome of the sky...
Let the water team with an abundance of living creatures and on the earth let birds fly...
Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals of all kinds...
Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...
Based on our present understanding of the big bang and evolutionary process, the order in Genesis is almost exactly the order that the earth formed and life developed: Big Bang==>Sun==>Rocky Earth==>Atmosphere==>Condensed Water==>Single Celled Organisms==>Photosynthesis produces oxygen==>aquatic animals==>birds==>mammals==>primates==>Us
The only thing that is slightly wrong in the order in Genesis is the 'lights in the sky' coming after the formation of the Earth (although the Moon and many of the stars might have come after) and the idea that plants producing seeds and fruit came before animals when flowering plants actually are apparently more recent than that, based on the fossil record. Considering the kind of people that God had to work with 4,000 years ago when Genesis was written, those 'errors' don't seem like a big deal. I mean, if I were alive 4,000 years ago and I tried to imagine and write a story of creation, I wouldn't have come up with anything remotely resembling the real process sequence. If you asked 1,000 people to do that 4,000 years ago, none of them would have either. So yes, I believe that the book of Genesis was inspired by God, as is the rest of what we call the 'Bible' today.
He's writing from the outside looking in...as if he doesn't know who is doing the stupid stuff he points to...and yet Microsoft pioneered a lot of it...like the detailed scans of the system before it will install anything or even update...
There's an underlying Microsoft philosophy in all of that that 'you're fortunate to even have the opportunity to get out cool software so do everything we say and we might let you have it. IBM's philosophy was always more like 'we are so grateful that you want to try our stuff...thank you...and how can we make it easier for you...and just pay us on the honor system if you like it.'
Gasoline comes from oil. Most of the electricity in the United States is generated from coal, natural gas, hydroelectric power, and wind power. The handful of power plants that are burning "oil" are burning something called "residual fuel oil" which is a very low value remainder in a barrel of oil that oil refiners often have difficulty finding a market for, due to its sulfur content. So...building nuclear power plants will produce more electricity but it will not increase gasoline supplies or lower gasoline prices. The new nuclear power plants will allow plants burning natural gas and coal to shut down...but supplies of natural gas and coal in the US are abundant...so abundant that natural gas produced in Alaska is not even recovered but either burned in flares as a "waste" or reinjected into the ground.
Nuclear power plants are also very expensive, use an enormous amount of concrete (which requires a LOT of combustion fuel to produce) produce toxic waste which requires permanent long-term storage, and have the potential, in the event of an accident, to permanently contaminate thousands of square miles of countryside.
The logistics for combat forces are key...and transportation is the most important component of logistics. Flying the freight is extremely expensive and can never be sustained for long...even for a country as wealthy as the US used to be. If you cannot control the ground (and air) sufficiently to transport your supplies by truck, rail, ship, and pipeline, you are not winning...and the flying vehicles would be good only to give you enough supplies to beat a retreat. Unmanned flying vehicles might reduce the need for pilots and they might provide a method of transporting freight above the ground but they will never be a significant transportation component...although their builders will certainly insist otherwise...as long as those federal contract dollars are flowing.
They use a chemical reaction to crack the water, and then use the hydrogen from the water and oxygen from the air to run a fuel cell. The real questions are: What is in these membranes?
No, the real question is why would anyone with even a rudimentary high school education in physics or chemistry believe something like this? It takes more energy to 'crack' the water into hydrogen and oxygen than you will get back when you use the hydrogen that you produced along with the oxygen from the air to 'run' the fuel cell to make electricity. What will supply that energy to 'crack' the water? Gasoline? Solar Power? Some other source of chemical energy? It doesn't matter what's in those membranes...spewiful polymer, magic dust, whatever. This scheme is the 21st-century equivalent of the 19th-century hucksters selling 'Snake Oil Elixir' with awesome powers to heal whatever was wrong. The only difference is that those 19th century guys had to travel around in horse-drawn wagons to reach a crowd of dozens while the 21st century guys have a global audience of millions of eager customers via the the internet and youtube.
My IBM (nee Lenovo) Thinkpad T40 still works flawlessly after being bungied to the back of a motorcycle in rainstorms. Let's see how those models do in THAT test.
There are no "thorny ethical issues." It is immoral to sacrifice one life to benefit another and it is immoral to experiment with human embryos. It is also immoral to experiment with racially unpopular groups, mentally retarded people, impoverished people, uneducated/unaware people, or undeveloped people, be they 'embryos', babies, or children. We are called upon by God to respect life and this fails to do that. Sorry...
There's always the tiny, miniscule chance that God created the universe in one enormous explosion, followed by the creation of our little planet, which then began to rotate to give it 'day' and 'night,' and accumulate water from the nearby 'hood to form oceans. Then God might have created life and sent it to His new planet where it grew and developed, filled the oceans with fishes of every kind...and then...people!
Under this ridiculously improbable scenario, discovering life on Mars wouldn't make any difference either way to our future, which would lie only with God, our creator.
Going back 70,000 years, then, there were only 2,000 of us...and...let's be honest...we were probably a skinny, not-too-bright, not-too-strong, disease-ridden, sorry-assed bunch of H. Sapiens. The Neanderthals obviously outnumbered us by many times over and could have rid the world of our kind. Thank you Neanderthals for sparing us...and we're sorry about anything we might have done to you...later.
AMD processors are great. I've used them exclusively for the last 9 years. But AMD has a fundamental business problem that will prevent them from competing as the article says. They are out of money. It takes a lot of money to build the state-of-the-art fabrication facilities that are needed to be in the business that AMD and Intel are in. AMD builds a new fab and then they sell the products so cheap that they never come close to recovering the money they spent to build the product. Then they go out to investors for more money and the cycle starts again. After doing this a few times, their debt piles up, their stock tanks, and their ability to borrow money slips away. The bottom line is that whatever new cool product AMD is going to build will have to made in their current fabs and in the fast-moving semiconductor business, if you're not updating your fabs, you're dying. AMD slashed prices over and over to get market share from Intel and max out their production but their sales prices were way below their fab replacement costs. Intel said fine...have some more rope. Now...no more new fabs. AMD just never learned how to sell their products and their technology any way other than with a low price. Yes, Intel didn't play fair and pressured computer companies to buy Intel but AMD's problems were far deeper than that. AMD needed an accountant to tell them 'wait a minute...your fab will only last for 5 years so you've got to sell that product for 50 percent more than you are or you won't stay in business.' Yes, it's a competitive market and Intel sets the price for their competing products and AMD can't control that...now. But I've also watched AMD sell their products for dirt cheap prices even when they had Intel in a hammerlock...and I'd scratch my head at how little money AMD would make even in those good times when AMD was setting the price points.
Blu-ray uses a 405nm laser while HD uses a 650nm laser. Photons emitted by the Blu-ray laser therefore will contain 60 percent more energy than the HD photons. Bottom line is that one would expect a shorter-wavelength laser would use more power, all other things being equal. Maybe blu-ray is the wrong format for laptops, though I don't know why anyone would want to watch a high-res movie on a little laptop screen anyway.
The short of it is these people should not be dictating to scientists. Why?
The nazis had 'scientists' doing macabre experiments on human subjects that often led to the death of the subjects. The WWII Japanese used human subjects for their own experiments. Are you saying that ethics and religion should have no voice in the conduct of scientific investigations? The pope is injecting a consideration of morality into the discussion and that can never be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
If the diamonds are 4.2 billions years old, ALL the carbon will be carbon-12 no matter the source of the original carbon. Any carbon-14 would have decayed within a matter of 10's of thousands of years (that's why carbon-12 dating isn't accurate past 30,000 years or so.)
You are thinking of carbon -14 dating which is something different than what was discussed in the referenced article. Carbon-12 and carbon-13 are both stable isotopes of carbon and do not decay. Carbon-14 (formed continuously by cosmic rays in the atmosphere) is not a stable isotope and is the carbon isotope used in the short-term 'carbon dating' you refer to. The article, though, referred to the ratio of the stable isotopes carbon-12 and carbon-13 present in the ancient carbon reservoir. Life forms preferentially consume carbon-12 so an ancient reservoir unusually rich in the 'light' carbon-12 suggests that it was created in the presence of life forms.
...I strongly believe that you can never prove whether or not a Creator exists.
Certainly not with the information available to us at present and in the forseeable future. However, as scientific discoveries have been made, it has become more difficult than it was before those discoveries were made to believe that a creator does NOT exist.
It begins to feel like believing that Tolstoy's "War and Peace" was written by a chimpanzee repeatedly pressing every key on a computer keyboard at random for years until the combination that created a great novel occurred.
Diamond formation requires life? I never knew this.
No, diamond formation does not require life. If you RTFA, it referred to the "carbon" in the diamonds...in particular to the presence of high concentrations of carbon-12 which is a feature usually associated with organic life. The presence of the carbon-12 in the diamonds suggested that the 4.2 billion-year-old diamonds [which are composed of carbon] were formed at a time when life was present on the earth.
creator and then life arose spontaneously on the billions of habitable
planets scattered around. Recent
analysis of ancient diamonds suggests that life existed on earth
4.2 billion years ago while the earth itself is now thought to be 4.6
billion years old which only allows 400 million years for the formation
of oceans on a newly-formed rocky earth followed by the spontaneous
auto-formation of ancient bio-molecules, membranes, and proteins that
could function as a living cell. Hardly seems long
enough. Now we are told that our solar system with its
incredibly beautiful planet that is our home might itself be very
rare. Maybe there really is a creator after
all? Either that or we are the product of an astounding
string of 1-in-a-trillion coincidences. Which is easier
to believe?
The third party sites can tie up blocks of seats and then resell them with a gouging profit, similar to what ticket scalper sites do for concert tickets. Ticketmaster's website blocks out bots to stop that. Maybe ryanair should put in some anti-bot stuff to keep out the third party automatic bookings of blocks of seats. Ryanair probably shouldn't cancel out the end-user tickets, though, since that just ticks off the innocent buyers who might not even know that they aren't buying their tickets from the airline.
..."first, the sun is a 'light in the dome of the sky' for one thing, and also the moon was probably there before water formed on the earth.
Actually, there's at least one way that the order in Genesis for even the 'lights in the dome of the sky' phrase would agree with our current scientific understanding of the creation process. In Genesis, the sun appears to be created twice, first with 'let there be light' and second as a 'light in the dome of the sky.' However, it's possible that the second 'lights in the dome of the sky' reference refers to the impact that created the current moon and caused the earth to begin its current fast rotations (although it's slowed a little over the billions of years.) We don't know what the original fledgling-earth might have been like before that huge impact but it's probable that it had water and could have supported life, based on its distance from the sun.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/moon_making_010815-1.html
Watched the video...all the way through. The first half goes through the list of stuff he wanted to do before he died...and ticked off what he had managed to do. The last 10 minutes have the summarized advice for life...be earnest...tell the truth...apologize when you screw up, etc. Most of the rest is anecdotal stories underlining his points. It's a good lecture, entertaining, humorous, light-hearted, and well-illustrated. The amazing thing is all of the people who say watching it has changed their life. Perhaps it gives them a sense of optimism and hope that was missing from their life before? Or maybe it is an example for them of someone who faces his impending death with courage and dignity? Yes, it is those things but those are out there, everyday, everywhere, all of the time.
Most christians know, that Mark did not mention the resurrection chronologically in the original.
This is wrong. There is still a Chapter 16 as the last chapter in even the 'short' version of Mark (i.e. the Codex Sinaiticus version) and it is only about the resurrection of Jesus. In the codex version, Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Salome go to the tomb, find it empty, find a young man in a white robe sitting in the tomb who tells them that Jesus has been raised and is on his way to Galilee where they will be able to see him themselves.
So...yes...Mark mentioned the resurrection of Jesus "chronologically" in EVERY version of Mark's gospel.
One of the main reasons I have decided that the bible is a load of rubbish is not just that Genesis only takes 7 'days', but the way things are done are in the wrong order, so it doesn't really even make much sense as a metaphor..
I've never seen any problem with referring to the events in terms of 'days.' But...the wrong order? Really? From Genesis...
Let there be light...
God then separated the light from the darkness...the first day
God made the dome...God called the dome "the sky"
Let the water under the sky be gathered into a single basin so that the dry land may appear...
Let the earth bring forth vegetation...every kind of plant that bears seed...
Let there be lights in the dome of the sky...
Let the water team with an abundance of living creatures and on the earth let birds fly...
Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals of all kinds...
Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...
Based on our present understanding of the big bang and evolutionary process, the order in Genesis is almost exactly the order that the earth formed and life developed: Big Bang==>Sun==>Rocky Earth==>Atmosphere==>Condensed Water==>Single Celled Organisms==>Photosynthesis produces oxygen==>aquatic animals==>birds==>mammals==>primates==>Us
The only thing that is slightly wrong in the order in Genesis is the 'lights in the sky' coming after the formation of the Earth (although the Moon and many of the stars might have come after) and the idea that plants producing seeds and fruit came before animals when flowering plants actually are apparently more recent than that, based on the fossil record. Considering the kind of people that God had to work with 4,000 years ago when Genesis was written, those 'errors' don't seem like a big deal. I mean, if I were alive 4,000 years ago and I tried to imagine and write a story of creation, I wouldn't have come up with anything remotely resembling the real process sequence. If you asked 1,000 people to do that 4,000 years ago, none of them would have either. So yes, I believe that the book of Genesis was inspired by God, as is the rest of what we call the 'Bible' today.
He's writing from the outside looking in...as if he doesn't know who is doing the stupid stuff he points to...and yet Microsoft pioneered a lot of it...like the detailed scans of the system before it will install anything or even update...
There's an underlying Microsoft philosophy in all of that that 'you're fortunate to even have the opportunity to get out cool software so do everything we say and we might let you have it. IBM's philosophy was always more like 'we are so grateful that you want to try our stuff ...thank you...and how can we make it easier for you...and just pay us on the honor system if you like it.'
The "normal" core temperature of a healthy human body varies by a degree or two over the course of a day without any harm.
You should have said "The 'normal' core temperature of a healthy human female body varies by a degee or two..."
Gasoline comes from oil. Most of the electricity in the United States is generated from coal, natural gas, hydroelectric power, and wind power. The handful of power plants that are burning "oil" are burning something called "residual fuel oil" which is a very low value remainder in a barrel of oil that oil refiners often have difficulty finding a market for, due to its sulfur content. So...building nuclear power plants will produce more electricity but it will not increase gasoline supplies or lower gasoline prices. The new nuclear power plants will allow plants burning natural gas and coal to shut down...but supplies of natural gas and coal in the US are abundant...so abundant that natural gas produced in Alaska is not even recovered but either burned in flares as a "waste" or reinjected into the ground.
Nuclear power plants are also very expensive, use an enormous amount of concrete (which requires a LOT of combustion fuel to produce) produce toxic waste which requires permanent long-term storage, and have the potential, in the event of an accident, to permanently contaminate thousands of square miles of countryside.
The logistics for combat forces are key...and transportation is the most important component of logistics. Flying the freight is extremely expensive and can never be sustained for long...even for a country as wealthy as the US used to be. If you cannot control the ground (and air) sufficiently to transport your supplies by truck, rail, ship, and pipeline, you are not winning...and the flying vehicles would be good only to give you enough supplies to beat a retreat. Unmanned flying vehicles might reduce the need for pilots and they might provide a method of transporting freight above the ground but they will never be a significant transportation component...although their builders will certainly insist otherwise...as long as those federal contract dollars are flowing.
They use a chemical reaction to crack the water, and then use the hydrogen from the water and oxygen from the air to run a fuel cell. The real questions are: What is in these membranes?
No, the real question is why would anyone with even a rudimentary high school education in physics or chemistry believe something like this? It takes more energy to 'crack' the water into hydrogen and oxygen than you will get back when you use the hydrogen that you produced along with the oxygen from the air to 'run' the fuel cell to make electricity. What will supply that energy to 'crack' the water? Gasoline? Solar Power? Some other source of chemical energy? It doesn't matter what's in those membranes...spewiful polymer, magic dust, whatever. This scheme is the 21st-century equivalent of the 19th-century hucksters selling 'Snake Oil Elixir' with awesome powers to heal whatever was wrong. The only difference is that those 19th century guys had to travel around in horse-drawn wagons to reach a crowd of dozens while the 21st century guys have a global audience of millions of eager customers via the the internet and youtube.
My IBM (nee Lenovo) Thinkpad T40 still works flawlessly after being bungied to the back of a motorcycle in rainstorms. Let's see how those models do in THAT test.
There are no "thorny ethical issues." It is immoral to sacrifice one life to benefit another and it is immoral to experiment with human embryos. It is also immoral to experiment with racially unpopular groups, mentally retarded people, impoverished people, uneducated/unaware people, or undeveloped people, be they 'embryos', babies, or children. We are called upon by God to respect life and this fails to do that. Sorry...
Isn't text messaging at least 6x more valuable than Hubble data?
There's always the tiny, miniscule chance that God created the universe in one enormous explosion, followed by the creation of our little planet, which then began to rotate to give it 'day' and 'night,' and accumulate water from the nearby 'hood to form oceans. Then God might have created life and sent it to His new planet where it grew and developed, filled the oceans with fishes of every kind...and then...people!
Under this ridiculously improbable scenario, discovering life on Mars wouldn't make any difference either way to our future, which would lie only with God, our creator.
Going back 70,000 years, then, there were only 2,000 of us...and...let's be honest...we were probably a skinny, not-too-bright, not-too-strong, disease-ridden, sorry-assed bunch of H. Sapiens. The Neanderthals obviously outnumbered us by many times over and could have rid the world of our kind. Thank you Neanderthals for sparing us...and we're sorry about anything we might have done to you...later.
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity of military analysts on the major networks, is a Pentagon information apparatus...
Duh.
AMD processors are great. I've used them exclusively for the last 9 years. But AMD has a fundamental business problem that will prevent them from competing as the article says. They are out of money. It takes a lot of money to build the state-of-the-art fabrication facilities that are needed to be in the business that AMD and Intel are in. AMD builds a new fab and then they sell the products so cheap that they never come close to recovering the money they spent to build the product. Then they go out to investors for more money and the cycle starts again. After doing this a few times, their debt piles up, their stock tanks, and their ability to borrow money slips away. The bottom line is that whatever new cool product AMD is going to build will have to made in their current fabs and in the fast-moving semiconductor business, if you're not updating your fabs, you're dying. AMD slashed prices over and over to get market share from Intel and max out their production but their sales prices were way below their fab replacement costs. Intel said fine...have some more rope. Now...no more new fabs. AMD just never learned how to sell their products and their technology any way other than with a low price. Yes, Intel didn't play fair and pressured computer companies to buy Intel but AMD's problems were far deeper than that. AMD needed an accountant to tell them 'wait a minute...your fab will only last for 5 years so you've got to sell that product for 50 percent more than you are or you won't stay in business.' Yes, it's a competitive market and Intel sets the price for their competing products and AMD can't control that...now. But I've also watched AMD sell their products for dirt cheap prices even when they had Intel in a hammerlock...and I'd scratch my head at how little money AMD would make even in those good times when AMD was setting the price points.
Blu-ray uses a 405nm laser while HD uses a 650nm laser. Photons emitted by the Blu-ray laser therefore will contain 60 percent more energy than the HD photons. Bottom line is that one would expect a shorter-wavelength laser would use more power, all other things being equal. Maybe blu-ray is the wrong format for laptops, though I don't know why anyone would want to watch a high-res movie on a little laptop screen anyway.
Here's what he meant to say: Most of the ISPs threw us out of their office but Microsoft thinks a filter on every computer is a great idea.
The short of it is these people should not be dictating to scientists. Why?
The nazis had 'scientists' doing macabre experiments
on human subjects that often led to the death of the subjects. The WWII
Japanese used human subjects for their own experiments.
Are you saying that ethics and religion should have no voice in the
conduct of scientific investigations? The pope is injecting
a consideration of morality into the discussion and that can never be
wrong.