CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should Genetic Engineering be continued?
Genetic Engineering has many applications into modern life. It involves taking the genes of one organism and implanting it into another organism. In effect, the characteristics of the genes from organism A can be introduced into organism B. The possibilities of this are unrivaled. For example, there would be huge leaps in medicine and agriculture. However, this also raises concerns. Examples include animal organ farming for people and possible health issues for people in the long term. Should it be continued?
Yes, but you have to agree that strict regulation must be put into place. Those that choose to be guinea pigs can do so but those that do not should have that right. And if we speak on that the US let's GE foods bypass any type of accountability law in place.
infact, I think we should regulater it even more than our foods are currently regulated,
and while we're at it, regulate the food more,
but everything needs to be regulated (close your ears conservative)
because it's human nature to take advantage of anything not regulated, whether it's the financial industry, food, cloning, or what have you, at the expense of our fellow man.
but a need for regulation does not justify complete abondonment, especially when it's something that can help so many people.
check this out: "Bush policies institutionalize GMO contamination
If we were to ban GMOs today, as is more than justified, some contamination from commercialized GM food crops will nonetheless carry forward in the gene pool of those (and related) species. This includes contaminants from our largest farmed GM crops, including soybeans, yellow corn, cotton, and canola, as well as the smaller crops: Hawaiian papaya, zucchini, and crookneck squash. Newly added - in this year's harvest - are GM sugar beets and white corn. There are also GM tomatoes and potatoes no longer on the market, but whose genes and seeds, to some degree, continue to persist "out there." But the dirty laundry list actually includes over 100 different experimental GM crops, field trialed at more than 50,000 sites in the US since 1986.
Although the government is supposed to make sure that these trials won't contaminate the surrounding environment, a 2005 report by the USDA Office of Inspector General harshly condemned the USDA's abominable oversight. "Current regulations, policies, and procedures," said the report, "do not go far enough to ensure the safe introduction of agricultural biotechnology." The agency's weaknesses "increase the risk that regulated genetically engineered organisms will inadvertently persist in the environment."
But George Bush's pro-biotech response was to further weaken the agency's GMO oversight - and he's trying to do it quickly, before Obama steps in. The proposed ruling makes gene escape more likely, even from GM crops designed to produce pharmaceutical drugs and industrial chemicals."
infact, I think we should regulate it even more than our foods are currently regulated, and while we're at it, regulate the food more, but everything needs to be regulated (close your ears conservative)
THIS IS ME SCREAMING..... Also, VERY STRICT POLICY WILL ONLY DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF GENETIC ENGINEERED FOOD because it will only be more costly to produce, and it will be a waste of time.
We do have a choice. Anyone who says otherwise is an ignorant fool. Never in the history of the world, you say? Well, there's a first time for everything. For every new thing that scientists research, you could say that as well.
Who declares whether research is legal? Politicians. Who are politicians? People just like you or me, who have been voted for by other people like you and me. Politicians are the people, voted for by the people.
Who follows what the politicians declare? Scientists. Who are scientists? I am a scientist. You are a scientist. Your friend is a scientist, and so is his father. Who is deciding what to research? Scientists.
So, the people are the politicians. The people are the scientists. The people are the ones who vote for decisions that allow or forbid scientists to research.
So, how is it that the people have no choice? We have every choice. The reason I am here is to convince more people of certain things to create a majority in order to allow or prevent certain things.
The above was from a neutral view. Now I will give my opinion.
The most effective stem cells come from human babies in the womb (whatever terms you use, that is what they are). Does that mean that sixteen babies, sixteen people with skills and ideas and lives of their own, were stolen from this world to grant a single man (who has already lived a good deal longer than hundreds of billions of people) could live a little longer.
What if one of those babies turned out to be a great scholar? He/she may have found a cure for cancer, or founded a colony on the moon, or Mars, or may have become a great leader in the world. Don't say it's impossible. I know just how possible it is. I know a girl who, while still in college, has discovered a new life form and is working on developing a new energy source. I know a boy who is questioning old scientific theories and coming up with entirely new ones, also in college. I know a girl who is interviewing many people with many different views, lifestyles, and locations to create a film with a message for the world. She is in college as well.
I am not an incredible person. I am not in an incredible community. I am not in any amazing clubs. Most people have never even heard of my city, let alone things that go on here. But I still know incredible people, and, I'm sure you know some as well. I believe that all of these people will change the world, however slightly. I believe that you will change the world, and that I will. Everyone changes the world, some more or less than others.
How much have we lost by killing so many? For stem cells, for research, you say. How much more would we know with all of those minds alive?
You sound depressed. I have a task for you. Go on a walk. Say hi to someone. Anyone. Find someone who needs help, and help them. Get physical exercise. Live a little.
But there is something you must always remember. There are no shackles. You can do anything you want to do. You can be anyone you want to be. That is what makes us dangerous to each other. The more we can do, the more we can hurt. That is why we have morals. But not everyone listens to these.
To say that we have no choice, to say that something cannot be done because no one has done it before, that is ridiculous.
You have low reading comprehension, and little to no understanding of how stem cell research works.
1. There was nothing "depressing" about my post. In fact, it's quite hopeful. Genetic engineering has a lot of wonderful potential and I'm all for it, so I have no idea where you got that idea.
2. Stem cells are taken from discarded cell clusters from in vitro procedures. Not a fetus nor even potential fetus is now or ever has been necessary to obtain stem cells. It is only the wild rantings of the religious and their basic primitive fear of all things science which has continued your's and other's silly mind-set that it is somehow tied to abortion.
An unspecialized cell found in fetuses, embryos, and some adult body tissues that has the potential to develop into specialized cells or divide into other stem cells. Stem cells from fetuses or embryos can develop into any type of differentiated cells, while those found in mature tissues develop only into specific cells. Stem cells can potentially be used to replace tissue damaged or destroyed by disease or injury, but the use of embryonic stem cells for this purpose is controversial. Also called progenitor cell .
1. I agree that you know more about stem cells than I do, as it is not a topic I have researched fully. As such, I am at a disadvantage here. However, I cannot agree that it has nothing to do with fetuses. And you may note that I did not say that I was certain that stem cells from fetuses were necessarily used, I said the most effective were from them, and afterwords made use of a little word called "if." If (See? I used it. This means I am not saying because here, as I am not certain.) you did not notice this, then it is your reading comprehension that is low. According to test scores, my reading comprehension is actually high. I am receiving top scores in English classes as well, so this is not a question of my reading comprehension. How you came to that conclusion is beyond me. I believe that the both of us are intelligent, although perhaps in different ways.
2. I did not say that your post was depressing, I said that you appear to me to be depressed. Normally, I would not respond to someone who is talking in an area that I know little about. It is the fact that you believe that we have no choice that made me respond. We have every choice.
3. Religious people do not fear science. Religious people make use of science to prove our views. I have a very religious cousin who is actually becoming a doctor and working with genetic engineering herself. I know a religious girl who has discovered a new life form and is working on a new energy source. My mother was a high school biology and chemistry teacher, but also teaches religion to second graders. My aunt is very religious, but majored in chemistry and now also teaches. I have gone to Catholic schools all my life, and our science teachers are very good (you may notice that Catholic school students tend to be on par mentally with public school students one grade above them. this is why children find it easier to switch from Catholic schools to public schools than to switch from a public school to a Catholic school). Another cousin I have is also very religious and is studying to be a meteorologist. I have a sister who majored in biology and a brother who is the top of all of his college math and programming classes, on such a level that his teachers have used his work in their own demonstrations in other states. Both of them are highly religious. The best science teacher I ever had was also highly religious. My religion teacher uses science to teach religion. Religious people are not afraid of science, you idiot. A load of those famous scientists in history were religious. It's atheists who are afraid, because they do not underwstand and fear that, if they understand, they will come to believe. So, If you are not afraid of learning about religion, read Mere Christianity. If you are confident that there is no God, then reading it will only give you more information to allow you to argue against religious people more accurately then "they're wrong." Because I'm going to ask you this: Why are we wrong? What proof have you of this?
goddamit, you sound like a smart person, which is all the more reason I hate religion. Religion obviously stole you from logic.
You look at things, I know, from a specific perspective, which is why you assumed my original post was myself depressed.
I'm actually happy, most friends say I'm something of a comedian mostly because I'm smart and I say the ironic stuff first, before they think of it.
Point being, you're coming at this entire issue from a position of ignorance. Unfortunately. Not your own fault.
Some of the most religious people you will ever meet are Jesuits. Granted not the born again crowd, but they've been around since before Protestants, and there's a reason.
They would give a couple paragraphs just like me, atheist as I am. Almost word for word and the current atmosphere you would assume them goddless lost depressed.. etc. Why?
Because, it's not about preconceived notions of what others tell you what it is, and it certainly is not about taking sides on some political issue, as I thought I described when going into my account of my friend's now deceased father. (all true btw, very rich, could fly his father back and forth for months, bought him almost a year of life. US doctors were off officially by 1.5 years because of stem cells) It is about what it is.
How I described it, is how it happens.
Not a potential life has ever in Western society (I don't know what the Russians are doing) has ever been sacrificed for a stem cell. It's a boogey man. You fell for it. Get over it and educate your silly ass peoples.
I know someone who was lucky enough to spend an extra 1.5 years with his dad because of stem cells, and goddamit, I hope my great grandkids someday get the same oppotunity.
It is not your stance on religion that makes me think that you are depressed. as I said before, it is because you stated that we have no choice.
Religious are not ignorant. Atheists are. I am not a Jesuit, but I am a Catholic. Catholics are the original Christianity, founded by Jesus Christ Himself.
I ask you to educate yourself on why we believe. It is not a question of how we were raised. I have met a man who was once althiest, but has traveled through just about every faith, including New Age (which he himself says is pretty dumb). Catholicism was the one faith he could not argue against, and so he has become Catholic and now travels the world preaching to people and helping the needy. He was not raised Catholic, and he is certainly not ignorant.
Jesus was a man who actually did live. This is fact, which we know because his death is recorded by the people who killed him, and because many different groups of people, even those who do not believe. And he did die. I don't know about you, but I think that, if he were really blasphemous, he would not have died for a lie. And he would probably have died of leprosy, as he was in contact with many lepers. As well, there are details about the Messiah (Jesus) predicted by Jews centuries before Jesus was born.
Religion did not steal me from logic. Logic re-enforces my religious views. There is much proof that God exists, but perhaps we should continue this particular discussion in the debate (which we are both already involved in) that better fits this topic.
I cannot agree that no life has been sacrificed for a stem cell.
I do not say that extending a man's life is a bad thing, but I do not think that it is good to hope that your descendants will get the same, as this would be hoping for them to have such conditions in the first place.
And that you think people have a choice in whether we pursue a science bellies your theastic opinions. You run around claiming you know what's best for everyone - you and your type - yet you know nothing of human behavior.
Name a science people quit pursuing?
Oh there have been many the religious have tried to stop, from theories of gravity to the earth rotating around the sun instead of vice-versa, and gallows were filled with the heads of these infidels who dared defy your cartoonish religion.
And now here we are again, you preaching the evils of science and twisting hope with fatalism.
Science is good, it's done far more good than yours or any one else's religion. And one of the best things about science, is human evolution demands by our very genetic make-up, that we continue to pursue it.
It's a good thing. Those against it are the only depressing part of the equation.
Jesus was a man who actually did live. This is fact
No it isn't. There is not a single source outside of the bible which mentions this person even in passing. Every text he appears in is a religious text, not a single personal journal, not a historical document, nothing. Just your silly book.
Religion did not steal me from logic. Logic re-enforces my religious views
Name one logical belief your religion holds. Name one issue your religion supports based on logic. I see none from anti-condom stances in Africa, to anti-gay stances, to again, their disdain for all things science.
I cannot agree that no life has been sacrificed for a stem cell.
I give you facts, and you base your opinion of it still on feelings. Misguided and self-destructive feelings at that. Typical theist.
but I do not think that it is good to hope that your descendants will get the same, as this would be hoping for them to have such conditions in the first place.
Again, a complete lack of logic, this time mixed with some kind of weird denial of reality. The diseases that stem cells can potentially help cure, will not magically disappear, and so neither should any possible cure.
Oh, and illegal things are illegal for reasons.
We're discussing why it was illegal, and I've won this debate in no uncertain terms. And it is no longer illegal, so I can just as easily say "oh and legal things are legal for a reason."
That is not a legitimate point either way - even though it supports my side technically.
I am assuming that by bellies you did not mean the plural version of "the front or under part of a vertebrate body from the breastbone to the pelvis, containing the abdominal viscera; the abdomen," as this does not make sense (and rather confused me for a few moments. Perhaps you meant belies (note the single "l"), "to show to be false; contradict." However, this makes hardly any more sense, and so I remain confused. Perhaps you were writing whilst in a state of hypnogogia, as little of what you wrote rings true.
Putting aside your befuddling opening sentence, I do not claim to know the best for everyone. In fact, I often do not speak at all. I tend to leave decisions to other people as much as possible. Regardless of how much I know on a topic, I tend to stumble over my own words, or just let people go and do what they want to avoid an argument. I hate arguments, but once I am in one I find that I cannot quit. Debates are not supposed to be arguments, but it appears that every debate on this site is an argument. And you speak of my "type". I must inquire what this "type" may be, as you know so little of me. Less than you probably think you know.
You claim I know nothing of human behavior. I know a lot about human behavior. I have spent my entire life observing human behavior. And humans do not take kindly to being pushed around.
Science, that is, systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation, is often not pursued fully. Every time any person has quit anything that involves any level of systematic thought is a science quit.
Those the religious of the time rejected were also rejected by the scientists of the time. And, in order for the religious to reject them, they must have been a part of the religious to begin with.
I have never preached the evils of science. That was all you.
I agree that science is good. I do not agree that it has done more good than religion. to separate the two in such a way is difficult. Many religious have used science according to religion to work good. This is the combination of science and religion that is good. Religion without science is pointless, and science without religion is pointless and desperate. I do not see why "your type" gallivants about preaching about how bad preaching is and separating what makes no sense to separate as though it were your religion to do so. You claim you know what's best for everyone, yet you know nothing of humanity itself.
I am not against science. Your blatant ignorance of religion is depressing.
Jesus was a man who actually did live. this is a fact. You will not find his name printed as "Jesus Christ" outside of the Bible, but if you researched at all before responding by your mere unproven ideas you would find crucifixion records of Jesus of Nazareth, as well as notice of his existence in textbooks and in the history of multiple different cultures, including those that utterly hated him. There is no way he would not be recorded, as he was considered by some cultures a major criminal and by others a great problem. King Herod would not simply kill a load of children on a whim, for one thing. People would not give themselves to horrid deaths for something they merely made up. Saint Paul was a person who hated Christians and was one of the people who captured and killed them, and yet he was suddenly converted to the point of being more devoutly Christian than those who had been Christian all along. And, you must admit, for something to be big enough to do the whole B.C./A.D. thing, it had to have actually been something.
Name one logical belief your religion holds. Name one issue your religion supports based on logic.
Name one belief that my religion holds that is not logical, and one issue my religion supports that is not based on logic. I am a Roman Catholic.
As I have told you before, we do not disdain science. Why you continue to say that we do is beyond me. Saying no to condoms is saying no to pre-marital sex. Logically, if one does not have condoms, they will be less inclined to do such things. As for gay relationships, the purpose of a relationship is marriage. The purpose of marriage is to continue the human race. This is the logical reason for marriage. It is not logical to marry one of the same gender, as there is no logical purpose.
I give you facts, and you base your opinion of it still on feelings. Misguided and self-destructive feelings at that. Typical theist.
I give you facts, and you base your opinion of it still on feelings. Misguided and self-destructive feelings at that. Typical atheist.
Again, a complete lack of logic, this time mixed with some kind of weird denial of reality. The diseases that stem cells can potentially help cure, will not magically disappear, and so neither should any possible cure.
I am not denying that such conditions exist. I actually said that they exist. It is illogical to hope that your descendants will retrieve this cure, as your descendants do not yet have this condition, as they do not yet exist, and as they do not yet have this condition there is a great probability that they will not, so, hoping that they get the cure for a condition that they do not yet have is the same as either hoping that they get this condition in the first place, or retrieve treatment which they do not require, which could have negative effects.
And what is illegal anywhere, for any reason, at any time, or is even undergoing the possibility of becoming illegal, has a reason for being so. Legal things do not necessarily have this reason, as they could be legal merely because no one has yet made them illegal. Things that are made legal from being illegal were at one time illegal and fall under my first statement. Have a nice day.
Putting aside your befuddling opening sentence, I do not claim to know the best for everyone. In fact, I often do not speak at all. I tend to leave decisions to other people as much as possible.
Then why did you begin arguing about god, if not to let all know you have some holy preordained conclusion to this question, which should not be questioned lest we all burn in hell?
Debates are not supposed to be arguments, but it appears that every debate on this site is an argument. And you speak of my "type". I must inquire what this "type" may be, as you know so little of me. Less than you probably think you know.
Debates are arguments. The level of hostility depends on whether you bring along an invisible friend and claim based on this that you are correct.
"Type" means any who claim to have an invisible friend who knows better than anyone else.
Science, that is, systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation, is often not pursued fully. Every time any person has quit anything that involves any level of systematic thought is a science quit.
And again, what logical reason would there be for "quiting" this science? And give me an example of a science people have stopped pursuing.
You've done neither.
I have never preached the evils of science. That was all you.
Then pray tell, what would be the reason for discontinuing genetic engineering, if it were not some evil that should come of it?
Many religious have used science according to religion to work good. This is the combination of science and religion that is good. Religion without science is pointless, and science without religion is pointless and desperate.
No, many religions misquote scientific studies, or fund bogus ones with no concern for actual science, in order to "prove" bs like man and dinosaurs frolicked through the garden of eden.
Science does just fine without religion. Religion on the other hand, left to its own devices, generally leads to massive wars, wide-spread poverty, disease rampant due to prayer instead of medicine, and all kinds of Dark Age type stuff. Woohoo religion.
Jesus was a man who actually did live. this is a fact. You will not find his name printed as "Jesus Christ" outside of the Bible, but if you researched at all before responding by your mere unproven ideas you would find crucifixion records of Jesus of Nazareth, as well as notice of his existence in textbooks and in the history of multiple different cultures, including those that utterly hated him. There is no way he would not be recorded, as he was considered by some cultures a major criminal and by others a great problem. King Herod would not simply kill a load of children on a whim, for one thing.
There is no record of "Jesus of Nazareth" outside of religious sources which made him up.
In fact, there was no one named Jesus of that time that anyone knows about.
There were a shitload of Yeshua's, which was later mistranslated. This name was as common as Michael today. Still though, not a single Yeshua from Nazareth, with 12 disciples crucified for any type of incursion during that period.
In all likelihood, Jesus is a completely made up story based (almost word for word you will find) on various earlier Egyptian gods and god/men found in the Book of the Dead. Nearly every story was already told in that book at one point or another, from virgin birth, to blood sacrifice, to walking on water.
Here's a good start to understanding where this silly myth came from link
Granted it's one religion debunking another, but they used historical fact instead of fairy tales, and do not try to push Judaism whilst explaining where this made up person, Jesus, really came from.
Your blatant ignorance of religion is depressing
Mhm. I was raised Catholic. From grades 3-7 went to a school where the Bible was taught in half-hour blocks, 5 days a week, every single semester.
I went to a Catholic University where 18 religious credits were required, and I fulfilled that requirement before transferring to UNLV.
I've read the Bible through at least half a dozen times, I even dated a preacher's daughter through high school, and we had to spend long hours discussing this silliness every Sunday.
It makes less and less sense the more one is exposed to it - unless of course they allow themselves to become brainwashed, in which case they begin to sound... well a little like you.
Name one belief that my religion holds that is not logical, and one issue my religion supports that is not based on logic. I am a Roman Catholic.
walking on water, turning water to wine, rising from the dead, bringing Lazarus back from the dead, curing disease with a touch, raining frogs, turning humans into salt, angels swooping down and destroying cities, the entire earth flooding even though there isn't enough water on earth to technically do this, fitting all million or so pairs of species on a single boat, surviving inside a whale for several days, parting a giant body of water, virgin births, being impregnated by a god...
I could go on and on. Your turn. Answer the original question.
I give you facts, and you base your opinion of it still on feelings. Misguided and self-destructive feelings at that. Typical atheist.
Again, trying to throw my argument back at me will not work.
Your premise was, you think genetic engineering should cease because babies are hurt. I explained why this is false. You choose to continue your misguided stance based on your feelings.
My argument is based on facts. 1. Genetic engineering has the potential to cure disease. 2. No children or fetus needs be harmed for genetic engineering to continue.
Typical atheist, I'm using logic, facts, and a desire for the greater good.
Typical theist, you're using fear and misinformation to prevent any good at all from happening.
It is illogical to hope that your descendants will retrieve this cure, as your descendants do not yet have this condition
And reread the rest of your reply in that section. Do you see how tortured this logic is? That is what happens when you state an argument in the name of religion, then back it up with logic. It's like oil and water.
Of course I hope there is a cure for any disease any descendant of anyone should ever get. Of course I hope they don't get the disease also. You realize this is not mutually exclusive right?
Not pursuing cures is not magically going to make any diseases disappear.
Here's your exact logic from that paragraph. I mean the exact same logic put in another situation.
Me "You should bring a life preserver if you're going out on that boat."
You "I'm going out on a boat, but I'm not bringing a life preserver because I hope my boat doesn't sink."
Me "Yeah, but boats sometimes sink, it's not going to not sink just because you hope it doesn't."
You "Why are you hoping my boat sinks?"
Me "No, it's just safer to bring a life preserver."
You "You shouldn't worry about life preservers, just instead hope my boat doesn't sink."
Then why did you begin arguing about god, if not to let all know you have some holy preordained conclusion to this question, which should not be questioned lest we all burn in hell?
I began arguing about God because I am defending my beliefs.
Debates are arguments. The level of hostility depends on whether you bring along an invisible friend and claim based on this that you are correct.
"Type" means any who claim to have an invisible friend who knows better than anyone else.
Debates are not arguments. Arguments are blind scratchings of anger. Debates are the presentation of different views in the desire to inform and to be informed.
You have changed your argument from me thinking I know better than everyone else to me having an imaginary friend who thinks she knows better than anyone else. You say that I claim this imaginary friend exists. I do not. I do not claim to know better than anyone else. If you knew anything about me you would know just how funny that comment is. However, I'm not going to post such information where anyone could read it.
And again, what logical reason would there be for "quiting" this science? And give me an example of a science people have stopped pursuing.
You've done neither.
There are many reasons for quitting science, most of them because they have undesired or unnecessary effects. I have not given specific examples because, if i give a specific example, you will argue on that specific example and not look at the bigger picture. I have instead given you the bigger picture, which only a total dunce wouldn't recognize. You are now only arguing for the sake of not being proved wrong. I assumed you had some level of intelligence. Sorry if I was wrong.
Then pray tell, what would be the reason for discontinuing genetic engineering, if it were not some evil that should come of it?
Genetic engineering itself is not evil. There are many good cures for disease which could come from genetic engineering, even though it could be misused. My arguments against genetic engineering are against such misuse. However, my argument towards you was directed specifically at stem cells research.
No, many religions misquote scientific studies, or fund bogus ones with no concern for actual science, in order to "prove" bs like man and dinosaurs frolicked through the garden of eden.
Science does just fine without religion. Religion on the other hand, left to its own devices, generally leads to massive wars, wide-spread poverty, disease rampant due to prayer instead of medicine, and all kinds of Dark Age type stuff. Woohoo religion.
I do not believe that "man and dinosaurs frolicked through the Garden of Eden." This is a symbolic story, and is not to be taken literally. How you got through religion classes without learning this simple fact is beyond me. You must have either forgotten or not learned it in the first place.
Science is pointless without religion. Life is pointless without religion. The universe is pointless without religion. Science is but a trivial detail of pointlessness without religion. Religion, on the other hand, has a point. However, without science, religion would be blind and lose this point.
If religious people have misquoted scientific studies, they are not truly religious. Any person who feels the need to twist known fact to save their belief does not believe. One who truly believes would not fear fact.
There is no record of "Jesus of Nazareth" outside of religious sources which made him up.
In fact, there was no one named Jesus of that time that anyone knows about.
There were a shitload of Yeshua's, which was later mistranslated. This name was as common as Michael today. Still though, not a single Yeshua from Nazareth, with 12 disciples crucified for any type of incursion during that period.
In all likelihood, Jesus is a completely made up story based (almost word for word you will find) on various earlier Egyptian gods and god/men found in the Book of the Dead. Nearly every story was already told in that book at one point or another, from virgin birth, to blood sacrifice, to walking on water.
Here's a good start to understanding where this silly myth came from link
Granted it's one religion debunking another, but they used historical fact instead of fairy tales, and do not try to push Judaism whilst explaining where this made up person, Jesus, really came from.
Not all of the twelve were crucified, for one thing. And Jesus did in fact exist. There are records. Look for them before you respond in anger.
All religions have some amount of truth in them. Catholicism has the most truth, and Satanism has the least (the only truth here being that Satan exists). Everything else has various pieces of truth, however misunderstood or out of context, because all religions take root in the Catholic, catholic God.
Mhm. I was raised Catholic. From grades 3-7 went to a school where the Bible was taught in half-hour blocks, 5 days a week, every single semester.
I went to a Catholic University where 18 religious credits were required, and I fulfilled that requirement before transferring to UNLV.
I've read the Bible through at least half a dozen times, I even dated a preacher's daughter through high school, and we had to spend long hours discussing this silliness every Sunday.
It makes less and less sense the more one is exposed to it - unless of course they allow themselves to become brainwashed, in which case they begin to sound... well a little like you.
I feel sorry for you. Sorry that you no longer believe, if you ever have. I know that there are many non-Catholics in Catholic schools.
I am curious as to what qualifies a person, to your mind, to be a preacher.
I am also curious about your fascination with the Bible. Most people do not read it all the way through, let alone multiple times.
I also wonder what Catholic school only teaches about the Bible in religion class. This is only part of religious education. My religious education did not cover the Bible in detail until Jr. High, and then was only like dipping toes into the detail. High school is when I really began to learn about the Bible. Perhaps this was not what you meant, however. if you were taught only about the bible, it is no wonder that you are now an atheist, for you would have no knowledge about the other parts.
I assure you that I am not brainwashed. However, I have no way of proving this to you over the internet, and I have no interest in other forms of communication with you.
Your Catholic education only makes your ignorance more depressing.
walking on water, turning water to wine, rising from the dead, bringing Lazarus back from the dead, curing disease with a touch, raining frogs, turning humans into salt, angels swooping down and destroying cities, the entire earth flooding even though there isn't enough water on earth to technically do this, fitting all million or so pairs of species on a single boat, surviving inside a whale for several days, parting a giant body of water, virgin births, being impregnated by a god...
These do not need to be proved by logic, as they are proved by the fact that they happened. Just as the fact that life exists does not need to be proved by logic, because it does exist.
Besides that, most of what you listed are things we believe, but not our beliefs (granted a few are beliefs). To get a better idea of our beliefs, think about the Nicene Creed. You should know this, as you have had such a wonderful education.
Again, if I give you a specific example, you will argue only against that specific example and not the bigger picture.
Your premise was, you think genetic engineering should cease because babies are hurt. I explained why this is false. You choose to continue your misguided stance based on your feelings.
My argument is based on facts. 1. Genetic engineering has the potential to cure disease. 2. No children or fetus needs be harmed for genetic engineering to continue.
I was arguing about stem cell research. You persist in changing arguments quite well. You should find a career in it.
Typical atheist, I'm using logic, facts, and a desire for the greater good.
What is this thing you call the greater good? Where did you get this idea? :)
Typical theist, you're using fear and misinformation to prevent any good at all from happening.
How so? I did not realize.
Oh, and you will find that your example about the boat is not like what I said. To mike it like what I said, you would have to say, "I hope you need a life-preserver on that boat." rather than, "You should bring a life preserver if you're going out on that boat." Because you did not say, "We should have this method available just in case my descendants get this condition." And that is the root of that. It's a meaningless thing, and I suggest we drop it. That is not the issue.
If we are to feed the 6 billion plus people on the plant then the only way we can do it is with genetic engineering. We have the power to engineer plants with all the benefits of a wide range of plants with none of the downsides. And no, genetic engineering will not lead to new types of virus' or poisons or inhumane side affects. These genetically engineered plants go through many many tests to make sure they are safe and reliable before they are released into the public. Furthermore, the only way to eliminate these supposed side effects, (If you believe there are any) is to continue studying genetic engineering.
Its a historical fact that technologies advance with time, one example is the Television, 75 years ago the only TV's available were small, black and white, grainy, and extremely expensive;
nowadays however, you can get televisions as big as you choose, with colors as vivid as life itself, for relatively inexpensive.
Therefor, i stand fimrly behind my supposition that we as a society should in fact continue to genetically engineer plants.
Oh, and no... its not "playing god," even if you believe it is... so what? The only people that would be opposed to us 'playing god' would be religious people, who hold no sway in a debate about science. So, unless they can provide real evidence as to why 'playing god' is bad, they can be completely ignored.
There are some downsides. Aside from the vicious way corporations use the technology of patented genotypes, practicality is clear. Genetic diversity is valuable because it makes a species more resilient; a field of cloned plants can all be wiped out by a single change in their environment. Viruses and bacteria will have an easier way with the plants, as their mutation is not as stunted. Then we get to the idea of obsolescence: like computers, your crops will have to be re-bought with a newer, better version every few years when the last version just can't survive. But you are right about poisonous side effects. If GM can be done right, we could possibly eliminate pesticides from our diet. But the long-term effects are too complicated for you or I to predict, unless you happen to be a biochemist.
Another example is the automobile, which kills hundreds of thousands every year, and is likely a huge contributor to cancer as well as global warming. Yes, history dictates that technology advances, but it is clearly not a sustainable pattern.
Agree about religious people not belonging in a science argument.
If you really want to get into the issue, read Vandana Shiva's Earth Democracy.
I have to add something I just figured out! I found the pattern, the patent technology is a threat because it is pro pesticide.chemical. What that means is that the majority of the GE involving food is actually engineering crops to be pesticide resistant. I see a way to make money here and so do the big companies that patent seeds. It's not a coincidence that all the companies that patent seeds are at the same time companies that supply pesticides herbicides etc. An important time is happening right now and new laws are trying to be pushed by congress and the USDA. We are in a very dangerous times as the Economy is pushed to be the most important debate and anything to make it larger will be pushed through the lines faster without proper scrutiny. Check this out http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/EthanolCornPR_1_15_09.cfm
Okay, I can't tell if you're supporting the pesticide-resistant plants or not, but here's a little...thingy.
There's this weed that copies some amount of genetic information (don't ask how, I sincerely don't know.) I have a sister who knows about it because she is a florist, and a sister who used to work on grounds crew at college, who encountered it while weeding. I have also encountered it myself in my wild strawberries.
It tries to look like the plants around it, but they have slight differences (as they don't actually become those plants). I have no idea if they are edible or not, and I don't feel like testing that.
But, if they are making pesticide-resistant plants, what if those weeds copy that in particular? Do we want pesticide-resistant weeds?
Okay, I know, not the strongest argument. And it's not a big thing to me. Just thought I'd say.
"Another example is the automobile, which kills hundreds of thousands every year, and is likely a huge contributor to cancer as well as global warming. Yes, history dictates that technology advances, but it is clearly not a sustainable pattern."
I hope you aren't implying that the automobile has not advances in the past 100 years it has been around. WE as a society have been developing alternative energy fuels for close to 20 years, further more cars have been continually becoming cleaner and more efficient. So yes they have most definitely been advancing in recent years.
"a field of cloned plants can all be wiped out by a single change in their environment." So can a field of non-cloned plants... whats your point? I'm not advocating that we replace all crops in the world with the same one-of-a-kind cloned wheat or w/e. im simply saying GE plants are beneficial.
"Then we get to the idea of obsolescence: like computers, your crops will have to be re-bought with a newer, better version every few years when the last version just can't survive." Farmers have been "genetically engineering" their plants for years. Albeit not in a lab, but they have been picking the best of the crop to replant etc. So this argument is logically flawed for that reason, plus farmers have to buy new seed every year. So instead of equating it to a computer it is more like a book you get from a library (Assuming you check one out every 2 weeks or so) you will be getting a new one next week, so what difference does it make if its by a different author? (in regards to cost).
"Farmers have been "genetically engineering" their plants for years. Albeit not in a lab, but they have been picking the best of the crop to replant etc. So this argument is logically flawed for that reason, plus farmers have to buy new seed every year."
That is called a hybrid. I'm sorry but you are full of misinformation and you sound like a spokesperson for GM crops. You must really believe all the news you hear. I can tell you this because this debate has come up before and more studies have popped up in the past 10 years providing much information on the potential harm of GM crops; especially on the environment. I've found hundreds of scholarly reports and I'm convinced that Genetic engineering in plants is not being monitored properly. What's the danger? Well, simply put, our food supply is in great danger. You should really read up on the debate: both sides.
The reason that farmers have to buy new seeds ever year is because of Genetic Engineering! Take a look at a company called Monsanto. Oh yeah, they used to make agent orange. (they still haven't payed up on the lawsuits from our veterans and the Vietnamese) They now patent seeds. First off, you should not be able to patent ANYTHING that is from nature. (I just read an article today that the FDA is going to allow patenting of animals.) This is just absurd. They have a very long trail of greed and it shows if you're willing to do a little bit of digging. Another big company is called Syngenta. They are just as bad. My definition of bad involves killing locals to get your crops into place, paying off politicians to pass things through the FDA and USDA, suing small farmers because your "patented seeds" pollinated in their fields (let me add that this is a current trial), etc, etc....Why do you think the world seed shelter was created?!
If you knew anything on this debate you'd quickly change your position.
(sorry for the aggressive sentences but you really need to read up- 6 months ago I wouldn't of had a problem with GM/Genetic Engineering but after seeing who's the most powerful and what they're doing with that technology, I can't stand for it, I really can't. It goes against everything I believe in. )
I get what you are saying, and i agree patenting animals is absurd. I will agree with you that the ways we are going about implementing and regulating GE crops may be wrong. But i would still argue that we need to pursue GE crops in the future. So the following arguments i am going to make are going to be on the merits of GE crops themselves, not about the implementation of such.
But either way, the only way we will be able to feed all the people in this world is through GE crops. If we don't grow GE crops, then millions of people wills starve due to a lack of food. So we have two choices: Either we disallow GE and allow millions of people to starve. Or, we allow them and allow the technologies to progress to a much safer point, and allow people to eat. Now, i will agree that exchanging all natural plants for GE plants NOW would be bad, but given time to develop teh technologies and slowly replace the worlds agriculture with higher yield GE crops will inevitably benefit the planet.
You seem to make many arguments agains the way GE plants are regulated and implemented, but not many against GE plants themselves.
This is true because there was a prior debate on this site titled something dealing with GMO's and their effects on the environment. I spent much, much time on this.
The millions of people starving without GE crops is a bunch of bull. The GE GM crop companies, typically seed companies and chemical companies, are the power behind GM crops. If we had research being created based off of a non monetary basis then I'd feel better but truth is we're not. I'm sorry but there are more problems with GE plants than benefits. They negatively impact the environment and personal health. The main problem is that this research is hard to come by. Why? That's because the money flow is going towards what will make more money, not what will make the best sense.
from the document: And, as it was with biotechnology, the new technologies don’t need to be socially useful or technically superior (i.e., they don’t have to work) in order to be profitable. All they have to do is chase away the competition and coerce governments into surrendering control. Once the market is monopolized, how the technology performs is irrelevant.
Dr. Michael Antoniou, a British molecular scientist points out, gene-splicing has already resulted in the "unexpected production of toxic substances... in genetically engineered bacteria, yeast, plants, and animals with the problem remaining undetected until a major health hazard has arisen".
It would be a lot less expensive to curtail meat consumption. Actually, better in pretty much every way possible. The stats about the drawbacks to meat production are so ridiculous that I wonder if our meat-obsessed culture is a way to starve the Third World :-\
I think Genetic diversity is enough of an argument to avoid GE plants.
No, Brits. Re-read the first paragraph you quoted. They certainly have advanced, but technological advancement is not sustainable. Even if we use solar energy, we'll still be using up tremendous resources for everything we produce. We take more out of our environment than we put back in, thus it's unsustainable in the long-term.
Precisely my point! Science couldn't prove all religions, because all religions cannot agree on even the basics. Of course you think science support YOUR religion. Do you know anyone who believes sciences disproves their religion?
This is just a case where people need to recognize their own foolishness. 40 percent of Americans with incomes between $25000 and $35000 think the lottery will pay for their retirement.
People seem to have the mentality that logic and probability applies to everyone but themselves.
I think science supports my religion because it does. I'm sure some other religions go along with some parts of science, but none fully.
Religion is not like the lottery. Religion is like science. Religion is the truth. There is only one truth, and all religions have some amount of truth in them. However, only on religion is the complete truth. Science is also the truth. And so, science supports religions in various amount depending on how much truth they have. However, only one religion is supported fully.
I think science supports my religion because it does. I'm sure some other religions go along with some parts of science, but none fully.
Religion is not like the lottery. Religion is like science. Religion is the truth. There is only one truth, and all religions have some amount of truth in them. However, only on religion is the complete truth. Science is also the truth. And so, science supports religions in various amount depending on how much truth they have. However, only one religion is supported fully.
And of course you don't see why the argument "...but my religion ACTUALLY IS fully supported by science!" might be a little naive, considering that most other major religions make the exact same claim. So why should I believe you over them?
If this were the case there would be no "christian scientists", because mainstream science would support Christianity. Why do so many evangelical Christians dispute, disregard, and ignore entire fields of science? They declare that the scientists have it wrong and that only the Bible has the answer. They dispute radiometric testing of chemistry, Evolutionary theory of Biology, planetary formation of astronomy, and the geologic column of Geology.
Religion is not like the lottery.
No? There is only one grand-prize winner in the lottery. How many religions did you say were the "complete truth"? In the lottery you get prize money, with religion, pick the right one and win eternal life.
Religion is like science
No it's not. Religion relies on faith and emotion. Science relies on evidence and reason. Science becomes more unified over time. Religion becomes more divided over time. Science is falsifiable. Religion is unfalsifiable. Religion is subjective. Science is objective.
Christians cover a wide variety of beliefs. I am a Catholic. Other branches of Christian may believe other things, and that is why they may not agree with some science. Also, no every scientist has been correct on everything. Scientists have disproved other scientists in the past. I am not saying that religion can disprove science. I am saying that science can disprove science. As for your other concerns, watch the video in my other response.
Sorry, Britrule909, that's just ridiculous. Try researching. It will help you a bit.
Yeah, some genetic engineering isn't bad, although it's not the only possible way. The fact that we've survived on earth for so many years before we could do such things is proof enough.
As for side-effects, there are always side effects. You can't disagree. Do you think they don't try to eliminate side-effects in medicines? Look at what they've got, commercials in which almost all the time is spent talking about side-effects.
And, if you get a side-effect from doing something, do you do it again to get rid of the side effect? True, it may solve one problem, but it will create more. And, no matter how much testing someone does, they cannot try everything. Scientific experiments involve highly controlled areas in which single variables are tested at a time.
Look at it this way. What are all of the possible side-effects of dropping a rock in a body of water. Scientists can change the size of the body of water, testing each individual size. They can change the size of the rock, testing each individual size. They can change the shape of the body of water, testing each individual shape. They can change the shape of a rock testing each individual shape. Any shape or size they do not test may have different results, but with numerous testing, they can assume that it follows some sort of logical pattern and draw their graphs and such.
But then they have to test the effect of these effects on surroundings. How does the movement of water change? How do these changes effect objects in or around the water? Do tell me, how, exactly, would one test the effects of the movement of water on every single thing that could possibly be near a body of water at varying distances and locations around the body of water? One would have to gain a sample of every single object on Earth to do so, and perform numerous tests with each. Then they would have to search for differences in each type of object, such as size or density. They would also have to test for the possible movement of these objects. If these objects get wet and move away because they are wet, a scientist would have to experiment with what happens to the water that is now moving by being carried away upon an object that is moving due to this water.
Then there is the difference in the water. Is this muddy water? If so, how muddy? All previous tests would need to be repeated with different levels of mud. Are there plants growing in the water? Every previous test repeated with different levels of different plants. A scientist would need numerous samples of every kind of water plant on earth. Then there is the question of how the placement of these plant could effect water currents, so every test must be repeated until every possible placement and amount is observed.
How about the type of rock? It's chemical properties could be entirely different with each, as well as it's density. All previous tests must be repeated with different types of rock. This would require samples of every kind of rock on earth. You may think that this is irrelevant, but, some kinds of rock might absorb water. Some might dissolve. Some might break. We are searching for side-effects here, not any specifically, just side-effects in general. And these would be any effects besides the specific effect that was originally desired. Meaning, of all the effects that would be, pick one. All the others are side effects.
Also, one must test in every temperature on earth, and on every altitude, and in every possible current pattern, and on every sort of slope and every number of slopes.
One must also test in every possible amount of light on earth, and at every time of day and night. It would also be necessary to test in every possible gaseous environment, testing individually every possible combination and concentration of every element in it's gaseous form. One may, for further complete-ness, wish to re-test everything in the same way, but with solid and liquid environments. Also test in every amount of pressure, and in all levels of all sorts of waves (like sound waves, radio waves, etc.)
Please note that, in order to do all of this, one must first develop technology to reach the center of the earth, and we must discover every object, and every variation of these objects. This includes every life form. It would also take an infinite amount of time to test for every possible variation of everything, as well as far more greatly advanced technology to control such things, or indeed produce them, without killing ourselves in the process.
Now, even this is not a complete test of what all of the side-effects are, as I limited it to earth. If you want it to be complete, you need to repeat all of the tests, this time with every possible temperature in the universe, from 0K up infinitely. The same with energy levels of light, all levels of gravity and all directions of gravity, as well as all combination of the gravity of various objects. Oh, and every time I said "earth" before, just replace it with "the universe."
Even this is probably incomplete, as I probably haven't thought of every possibility. That is why I used many vague words, such as "object," rather than listing every object in existence, as I do not have this sort of information. So, you only desire one of those infinite effects. All of the others are side-effects, so that would be infinite side-effects. You must then account for all possible effects of these side-effects.
That was something as simple as dropping a rock into a body of water. So, think of something as complex as genetic engineering. A scientist cannot possibly imagine every test that would be necessary to determine what, exactly, all of the side-effects are. And, supposing the scientist could, the scientist would not have the infinite amount of time and resources to accomplish all of this testing. And, if you stretch it and say a scientist could even do that, then you have the question of preventing these, and the very prevention would require repeating the whole process to test for new side-effects, and, upon fixing these, the tests would begin again.
Scientists cannot predict every possible situation, and, as such, cannot test for every possible situation. No matter how much someone knows, there is always something that could screw something up.
You may think, yeah, like all of those things would ever happen. They just need to think realistically. Think of this: Even before I got to the really out-there stuff, it was already infinite. The other stuff was just to be complete. And besides, even if there are only two side-effects, those are still side-effects, and the fixing of one might make three more. fix one of those, it might make one more, but that's still one. I don't believe that there is anything that has no side-effects, so the more you try to stop, the more will be there. So, they might fix the biggies until there's only little side-effects. Not as bad, but still there.
Okay, next thing. Yes, technologies advance with time. Yes, we may come closer to achieving things. But, no matter how far technology advances, it's not magic, and it has to have an explanation behind it. There are some things that are simply impossible, no matter how hard you think.
So, yeah, TV's advance. They get bigger and better, they can make larger-than-life images in 3D with perfect picture. Maybe in the future we'll even get gadgets to improve our sight and make reality look sharper. That's all in the realm of possibility.
But, no matter how advanced, a TV is still a TV. It may have a picture of a fantasy world, and the creator of this world may have worked out every little detail to make it look like it's real, but you can't walk through the TV to get there. It's virtual. It defies reality to actually enter it. It's impossible, no matter how hard you try. If you disagree with me, go walk into your TV.
I'm not going to take a position on whether or not it's "playing God." That's a matter of opinion. But, the fact is, religious people do have a say in scientific debates. We aren't idiots who believe in Santa Claus and the Toothfairy. We're serious people who have real facts and real reasoning and real proof. We have as much a right to argue in science as idiots who scream "la la la" and close their eyes to the great, big, obvious reality of what actually exists. We have more logical answers, in fact. If you want to discuss that, then open a discussion for it and tell me. I'll gladly join.
Oh, and by the way, you might find that we're pretty hard to ignore. Besides, why should you ignore someone who's arguing with you? If you are confident that what you believe is true, then why not enlighten me? If you're afraid that I'll make you believe, then you already believe.
Yeah, some genetic engineering isn't bad, although it's not the only possible way. The fact that we've survived on earth for so many years before we could do such things is proof enough.
As for side-effects, there are always side effects. You can't disagree. Do you think they don't try to eliminate side-effects in medicines? Look at what they've got, commercials in which almost all the time is spent talking about side-effects.
Genetic Engineering is as old as the earth. Humans didn't invent it, we just took existing methods which other organisms use to insert their DNA into other cells, and borrowed them.
I support it for no other reason than I want my future offspring to have advanced medical treatment than was ever even a possibility to me... and for them to have the choice of razor sharp claws or scales... those would be nice as well.
You contradicted yourself in the same sentence. I congratulate you on a new level of stupidity. "No other reason than" refers to one reason. You gave two.
So the last argument was like 6 years ago and GE or GMO has extremely developed. Scientists have litteraly made cats glow in the dark! GMO Should definietly be continued. It is helpful to plants and it also helps humans adapt to the world. Who knows? Maybe we can actualy be able to live forever.
