Kang added that since cord blood stem cells are later than embryonic stem cells, they have little chance of causing the fatal teratoma.
``Embryonic stem cells are omni-potent in that they can divide into any thing even including a tumor cell. But cord blood stem cells are developed enough not to cause such troubles while retaining as powerful a differentiation capacity at the same time,'' he claimed.
Let's forget about the moral/ethical reasons for not pursuing embryonic stem cell research - let's look at it from a scientific (*gasp* - a conservative Christian talking about science!) point of view. Less capacity to cause cancer = a good thing, no?
The "faith" you describe is a "blind faith" - something I don't quite remember espousing.
In issues of science and morality, faith requires me, in the face of seemingly "imperical" evidence, to discount anything that has direct contradictions with Scripture. We disagree on the very basis of our discourse. When God and humanity disagree, I choose God. Humanity has shown itself all too often to be shifting, dark, and distorted. I believe in an unchanging God.
You point to regions where there is no evidence of a flood. Since when does a lack of evidence tend to suggest no such event? There are areas where evidence of major flooding (of the magnitude described in Genesis) has been observed. You have a lack of evidence, I can show you evidence. Scientific method would tend to slant toward the side that it did happen.
While you and I may very much disagree about the account of Noah, I do not simply accept this account in blind faith. Is justification of the account required? No. Will I attempt to reconcile my faith and science? Absolutely!
However, the facts are in the Bible - I believe all Scripture to be God-breathed and as such, inerrant. Have minor details been slightly distorted due to translation semantics? Perhaps. Is the whole of scripture, including all major details, corrupted? Absolutely not.
Can I address each and every concern that science has raised? No, not at this time. Am I confident that science will never ultimately disprove the Scriptural accounts? Completely.
...and as an aside...if there were two of each animal...what did the carnivores eat?
As an aside...check your facts...
Genesis 6:21 "You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."
Genesis 7:2-3 "Take with you seven (footnote mentions it could be seven pairs...) of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth."
A bit off-topic, but an important distinction. Cape Canaveral is the Military Base in florida. Kennedy Space Center is the NASA complex. Is Glenn stating that he feels the moon would be a military base or just a space launching point. True, there are launches from Canaveral - but they're done by the military. This point was stressed on a recent trip I took to the Kennedy Space Center.
What does help is (a) the strengthened cockpit doors
That is, until some "Pilot" (aka would-be-terrorist) has himself locked INSIDE the cockpit, thus thwarting any efforts of passengers to avoid disaster (aka, Somerset, PA)
The government is running scared, with the popularity of VoIP. With traditional switched phone systems, the government has all sorts of regulation (read: revenue). With VoIP; however, the regulation has gone away, simply because it is difficult, if not impossible to distinguish voice packets from data packets. Thus, the telcos see an easy route to fall under the radar of regulation.
Be careful what you wish for - regulation has its ups and downs, but I'm pretty sure I don't opt for NO regulation.
I realize regulation and taxation are two different entities, but the government doesn't often regulate that which it doesn't also tax.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed.
From the Korea Times: http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/200411/kt200411261 7575710440.htm
Let's forget about the moral/ethical reasons for not pursuing embryonic stem cell research - let's look at it from a scientific (*gasp* - a conservative Christian talking about science!) point of view. Less capacity to cause cancer = a good thing, no?
- Another Brandon (my last name is Danner)
The "faith" you describe is a "blind faith" - something I don't quite remember espousing.
In issues of science and morality, faith requires me, in the face of seemingly "imperical" evidence, to discount anything that has direct contradictions with Scripture. We disagree on the very basis of our discourse. When God and humanity disagree, I choose God. Humanity has shown itself all too often to be shifting, dark, and distorted. I believe in an unchanging God.
You point to regions where there is no evidence of a flood. Since when does a lack of evidence tend to suggest no such event? There are areas where evidence of major flooding (of the magnitude described in Genesis) has been observed. You have a lack of evidence, I can show you evidence. Scientific method would tend to slant toward the side that it did happen.
While you and I may very much disagree about the account of Noah, I do not simply accept this account in blind faith. Is justification of the account required? No. Will I attempt to reconcile my faith and science? Absolutely!
However, the facts are in the Bible - I believe all Scripture to be God-breathed and as such, inerrant. Have minor details been slightly distorted due to translation semantics? Perhaps. Is the whole of scripture, including all major details, corrupted? Absolutely not.
Can I address each and every concern that science has raised? No, not at this time. Am I confident that science will never ultimately disprove the Scriptural accounts? Completely.
...and as an aside...if there were two of each animal...what did the carnivores eat?
As an aside...check your facts...
Genesis 6:21
"You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."
Genesis 7:2-3
"Take with you seven (footnote mentions it could be seven pairs...) of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth."
Last time I checked, 7 2...
A bit off-topic, but an important distinction. Cape Canaveral is the Military Base in florida. Kennedy Space Center is the NASA complex. Is Glenn stating that he feels the moon would be a military base or just a space launching point. True, there are launches from Canaveral - but they're done by the military. This point was stressed on a recent trip I took to the Kennedy Space Center.
What does help is (a) the strengthened cockpit doors
That is, until some "Pilot" (aka would-be-terrorist) has himself locked INSIDE the cockpit, thus thwarting any efforts of passengers to avoid disaster (aka, Somerset, PA)
The government is running scared, with the popularity of VoIP. With traditional switched phone systems, the government has all sorts of regulation (read: revenue). With VoIP; however, the regulation has gone away, simply because it is difficult, if not impossible to distinguish voice packets from data packets. Thus, the telcos see an easy route to fall under the radar of regulation.
Be careful what you wish for - regulation has its ups and downs, but I'm pretty sure I don't opt for NO regulation.
I realize regulation and taxation are two different entities, but the government doesn't often regulate that which it doesn't also tax.
So, should this pass? Who I am to say?