See my reply to Retric above. Sick people are being healed in incredible ways with adult stem cells, right at this moment.
This particular researcher and line of research has actually repaired spinal columns in rats, and is confident that it will work for people in within a reasonable period of time. How stupid do you have to be to stop researching this!?!
Scientists working with adult stem cells have already done this work with humans while as you quoted, embryonic research is still working with rats.
t's flame bait because you don't know if it's more or less promising research.
I'm sorry I didn't post the multitudes of papers available on the subject. I figured anyone who can get on the internet and view slashdot was fully capable of using Google to do a little research to backup my claim.
So if thousands of well-educated people in their field say this shows promise and someone outside their field says no it's pointless then either they're clueless or they're trying to start a flame war.
Oh, so I must be the only one who came up with adult stem cells as an alternative? There are thousands of scientists who believe adult stem cells are the better alternative. While embryonic stem cell research makes a Slashdot headline for actually doing something, adult stem cell research has had MANY results already.
So, with incredible results already being done, why focus on the back-burner? It's like continuing to research the vacuum tube when we've got transistors.
Because it is a promising and helpful line of research. I mean if you want to stop other people from researching something, I think the onus is on you to provide a scientific and proven reason why they should do it. Otherwise it is just your unscientific opinion against theirs and there is no reason to give your opinion about what someone else is doing more weight than their own.
Adult stem cell research is MUCH more promising than embryonic stem cell research. A simple Google search will provide you with all the evidence you need to justify it.
My point is, why not go after the more promising research and be completely clear of any moral issues in ANYONES opinion? It's like a win-win situation for everyone with absolutely no strings attached! How stupid can you be to pass that up!?
BTW, thanks to whoever modded me flamebait. It was an honest question someone couldn't handle.
There are better ways to gather stem cells than from an embryo. Adult stem cells are a better alternative, so why not push forward with research there? You're not skirting any moral lines, and you have more potential.
I guess my ultimate question is WHY NOT dump embryo research and head towards alternatives? Why the focus on embryos (life)?
"Your whole post is nothing more than a fallacious argument from incredulity, not to mention betraying an enormous and rather sad ignorance of evolution specifically and science in general."
Ignorant? I argue you're the one with the blind fold on. If you want to get right down to it, how ignorant is someone who believes a theory that the mathmatical (yes, let's use some science here) probably of it is CRAZY I couldn't even get all the numbers in all the pages available in the world! Or how about the fact that no mutations can produce a new feature? How come the big bang doesn't agree with the second law of Thermodynamics?
Please! Answer my questions in my original thread before calling me ignorant.
"As to water canopies, for one moment fathom that atmospheric pressure that sea level would be at with a water canopy of any size."
It would be something like the world-wide hyperbaric chamber. Take a look at the effects of a hyperbaric chamber, especially for critically wounded people.
"I hate to tell you this, but you have bought into a big load of bullshit to support your Biblical literalism."
I could say the same for you (with less harsh language). Sounds to me you have a problem with the Bible.
"Evolution happens all the time."
Where? I don't see ANYTHING in a transition process.
I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't take a wizard to see the world isn't getting better.
"not only are you going to have to demonstrate why creation does not explain observations, but why your side does emperically."
Looks a bit better...
"Unless what you really want taught is your religious beliefs, in which case, stay away from my kids' school. I want them taught science in the science class, and not given sermons by people who believe in Global Floods in Water Canopies and other such idiocies."
Creationism is science. You must have missed that part. I could easily argue (and have multiple times elsewhere, including in my original thread) that evolution is the idiocy of our time. If that's all man can come up with, we're in sorry shape.
Why shouldn't Intelligent Design (or Creation) be taught in schools?
My problem with evolution (besides the fact I believe it impossible, more on that later) is that it's a theory that everyone treats as fact. Quite the opposite is true. If you are going to teach a theory, why not teach a few more theories that make just as much sense? What makes people so willing to immediately shut ID or Creationism out without a single thought?
Is is really that crazy or kooky that an intelligent being (God) could have created the universe and all that is within it in 6 literal days? Or is it just as crazy or kooky that everyone treats a theory that involves unfathomable mathmatical problems, and plain doesn't make sense logically?
I just take God's Word at face value. That said, I do not believe it's possible God created using evolution. As another thread far above this one mentioned, why would God use something as long and drawn out as evolution is supposed to be when He could just speak it into existence? That's a good point, and one of many.
The Bible does not leave room for any sort of evolution or time gap theory. One member incorrectly translated the Hebrew meaning of day in the term of "Back in my father's day", meaning a wide span of time. The Hebrew word used (yom) for day in Genesis 1-2 is without a doubt a 24-hour period of time. This was done by God (who doubtless could have done everything in a split second) for a reference for Israelites to follow (as written in the Bible). You can get that information right from Google, or for a better source use www.icr.org (which, by the way, has papers written by extremely intelligent men educated by non-Christian colleges for those of you who might consider their education biased). Therefore it was created, not through evolution, but by God simply speaking it into existence. If a professing Christian believes evolution was the way God went about Creation, then he/she needs to step back and re-evaluate their faith because the Bible leaves no doubt. If Christ died for your sins, was buried, and rose again and you believe that with all your heart, then you'd better believe Creation because He said that's the way things went about.
While reading through this thread I saw a lot of attempts to shut ID and/or Creationism down as mere lore or stories but praise the wonder of evolution. Have you stepped back and realized the impossibility of evolution? How can the big bang (an explosion!) go from uncontrollable chaos to the order (over hundreds of billions of years...or is it hundreds of trillions? The numbers keep changing on me)? What about the second law of thermodynamics? Why don't we see (without a single doubt) evolution happening as stated by Darwin today? Why is the world getting worse, instead of better as evolution would have it? Why do things such as disease and homosexualism exist today? Doesn't that contradict evolution as it attempts to better man and the universe? You would have thought we were over that 8 trillion years ago...
I also read some threads arguing about fossils not being able to be explained by ID/Creationists ("we say they are there because God is testing our faith"...ugh). That is a silly claim, because we do have some very good evidence to support a world-wide flood did happen, which cause a great deal of re-working of the earth's surface (erosion is a simple thing, take a garden hose and spray it into the ground) and fossilized remains quickly (look at how quickly Mount Saint Helens fossilized stuff!). As for the flood being possible, the Bible speaks of a water canopy which covered the earth much like a shield blocking radiation and creating a greenhouse type effect underneath (allowing for some incredible plant and animal life, and also explaining the extended lifetimes of humans mentioned in Genesis). During the flood this canopy would have had to collapse upon the earth. This also would have moved our continents around a bit, much like a garden hose being pointed at the groun
Slashdot Mirror
How about RAID-60? You can loose up to four drives (two per sub-array).
See my reply to Retric above. Sick people are being healed in incredible ways with adult stem cells, right at this moment. This particular researcher and line of research has actually repaired spinal columns in rats, and is confident that it will work for people in within a reasonable period of time. How stupid do you have to be to stop researching this!?! Scientists working with adult stem cells have already done this work with humans while as you quoted, embryonic research is still working with rats.
t's flame bait because you don't know if it's more or less promising research.
b y_stem_cell_transplants.html
e msuccess.htm
1
m
l ls.html
I'm sorry I didn't post the multitudes of papers available on the subject. I figured anyone who can get on the internet and view slashdot was fully capable of using Google to do a little research to backup my claim.
So if thousands of well-educated people in their field say this shows promise and someone outside their field says no it's pointless then either they're clueless or they're trying to start a flame war.
Oh, so I must be the only one who came up with adult stem cells as an alternative? There are thousands of scientists who believe adult stem cells are the better alternative. While embryonic stem cell research makes a Slashdot headline for actually doing something, adult stem cell research has had MANY results already.
http://www.marrow.org/MEDICAL/diseases_treatable_
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=860
http://www.lifeissues.org/cloningstemcell/adultst
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=1964
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/prentice.ht
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2918stem_ce
etc.
So, with incredible results already being done, why focus on the back-burner? It's like continuing to research the vacuum tube when we've got transistors.
Because it is a promising and helpful line of research. I mean if you want to stop other people from researching something, I think the onus is on you to provide a scientific and proven reason why they should do it. Otherwise it is just your unscientific opinion against theirs and there is no reason to give your opinion about what someone else is doing more weight than their own. Adult stem cell research is MUCH more promising than embryonic stem cell research. A simple Google search will provide you with all the evidence you need to justify it. My point is, why not go after the more promising research and be completely clear of any moral issues in ANYONES opinion? It's like a win-win situation for everyone with absolutely no strings attached! How stupid can you be to pass that up!? BTW, thanks to whoever modded me flamebait. It was an honest question someone couldn't handle.
There are better ways to gather stem cells than from an embryo. Adult stem cells are a better alternative, so why not push forward with research there? You're not skirting any moral lines, and you have more potential. I guess my ultimate question is WHY NOT dump embryo research and head towards alternatives? Why the focus on embryos (life)?
"Your whole post is nothing more than a fallacious argument from incredulity, not to mention betraying an enormous and rather sad ignorance of evolution specifically and science in general."
Ignorant? I argue you're the one with the blind fold on. If you want to get right down to it, how ignorant is someone who believes a theory that the mathmatical (yes, let's use some science here) probably of it is CRAZY I couldn't even get all the numbers in all the pages available in the world! Or how about the fact that no mutations can produce a new feature? How come the big bang doesn't agree with the second law of Thermodynamics?
Please! Answer my questions in my original thread before calling me ignorant.
"As to water canopies, for one moment fathom that atmospheric pressure that sea level would be at with a water canopy of any size."
It would be something like the world-wide hyperbaric chamber. Take a look at the effects of a hyperbaric chamber, especially for critically wounded people.
"I hate to tell you this, but you have bought into a big load of bullshit to support your Biblical literalism."
I could say the same for you (with less harsh language). Sounds to me you have a problem with the Bible.
"Evolution happens all the time."
Where? I don't see ANYTHING in a transition process.
I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't take a wizard to see the world isn't getting better.
"not only are you going to have to demonstrate why creation does not explain observations, but why your side does emperically."
Looks a bit better...
"Unless what you really want taught is your religious beliefs, in which case, stay away from my kids' school. I want them taught science in the science class, and not given sermons by people who believe in Global Floods in Water Canopies and other such idiocies."
Creationism is science. You must have missed that part. I could easily argue (and have multiple times elsewhere, including in my original thread) that evolution is the idiocy of our time. If that's all man can come up with, we're in sorry shape.
Why shouldn't Intelligent Design (or Creation) be taught in schools?
My problem with evolution (besides the fact I believe it impossible, more on that later) is that it's a theory that everyone treats as fact. Quite the opposite is true. If you are going to teach a theory, why not teach a few more theories that make just as much sense? What makes people so willing to immediately shut ID or Creationism out without a single thought?
Is is really that crazy or kooky that an intelligent being (God) could have created the universe and all that is within it in 6 literal days? Or is it just as crazy or kooky that everyone treats a theory that involves unfathomable mathmatical problems, and plain doesn't make sense logically?
I just take God's Word at face value. That said, I do not believe it's possible God created using evolution. As another thread far above this one mentioned, why would God use something as long and drawn out as evolution is supposed to be when He could just speak it into existence? That's a good point, and one of many.
The Bible does not leave room for any sort of evolution or time gap theory. One member incorrectly translated the Hebrew meaning of day in the term of "Back in my father's day", meaning a wide span of time. The Hebrew word used (yom) for day in Genesis 1-2 is without a doubt a 24-hour period of time. This was done by God (who doubtless could have done everything in a split second) for a reference for Israelites to follow (as written in the Bible). You can get that information right from Google, or for a better source use www.icr.org (which, by the way, has papers written by extremely intelligent men educated by non-Christian colleges for those of you who might consider their education biased). Therefore it was created, not through evolution, but by God simply speaking it into existence. If a professing Christian believes evolution was the way God went about Creation, then he/she needs to step back and re-evaluate their faith because the Bible leaves no doubt. If Christ died for your sins, was buried, and rose again and you believe that with all your heart, then you'd better believe Creation because He said that's the way things went about.
While reading through this thread I saw a lot of attempts to shut ID and/or Creationism down as mere lore or stories but praise the wonder of evolution. Have you stepped back and realized the impossibility of evolution? How can the big bang (an explosion!) go from uncontrollable chaos to the order (over hundreds of billions of years...or is it hundreds of trillions? The numbers keep changing on me)? What about the second law of thermodynamics? Why don't we see (without a single doubt) evolution happening as stated by Darwin today? Why is the world getting worse, instead of better as evolution would have it? Why do things such as disease and homosexualism exist today? Doesn't that contradict evolution as it attempts to better man and the universe? You would have thought we were over that 8 trillion years ago...
I also read some threads arguing about fossils not being able to be explained by ID/Creationists ("we say they are there because God is testing our faith"...ugh). That is a silly claim, because we do have some very good evidence to support a world-wide flood did happen, which cause a great deal of re-working of the earth's surface (erosion is a simple thing, take a garden hose and spray it into the ground) and fossilized remains quickly (look at how quickly Mount Saint Helens fossilized stuff!). As for the flood being possible, the Bible speaks of a water canopy which covered the earth much like a shield blocking radiation and creating a greenhouse type effect underneath (allowing for some incredible plant and animal life, and also explaining the extended lifetimes of humans mentioned in Genesis). During the flood this canopy would have had to collapse upon the earth. This also would have moved our continents around a bit, much like a garden hose being pointed at the groun