The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

monosharp

Lads (and lassies) not that I don't find the current conversation interesting but its not exactly on topic is it ?

That and its most certainly not a creationism vs sanity science issue. Nor a christian vs atheism issue, nor a religious vs non-religious issue.

People have their own opinions on abortion be they religious or non-religiously minded. Christians can use the Bible to support a pro or anti-choice/abortion stance and do.

As for my opinion, I have no problem at all with abortion up to a certain stage of development.

monosharp

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

What does it stand for?
I'm assuming it's nothing to do with Horatio Caine.

Actually it does. CSI stands for Complex Specified Information. It has as much basis in science or reality as does most of the science Mr Caine regularly utilises.

CSI is basically measuring how long a string of characters is, i.e > addition.

You must first of all however flip a coin decide arbitrarily whether or not this particular string of characters is 'designed'. Or at least thats JC's particular take on it.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity#Criticisms

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

I think that you are morallly wrong to discriminate purely on the basis of capacity/ability. The only situation where capacity enters the equation is where you cannot save both people ... and YOU must decide who lives.

It's akin to you walking along a riverbank and two people fall in and you have only one 'life-buoy' and you must decide who you can save with the buoy ... because you cannot save them both ... so how do you ethically decide who to throw the buoy to???

Capacity undoubtedly enters into it ... but this is an in extremis situation ... and you should save them both if you have two buoys or a boat that is capable of saving them both.

We both recognise that capacity enters into it, we just differ on exactly when that difference should become relevant

J C wrote: »

'reasonable' is a bit of a weasel word ... you draw the line by providing standard medical treatment and see what happens ... otherwise you begin to act as God ... which would be a very peculiar position for an Atheist to find himself in!!!!:):D

reasonable is not a weasel word, it's the only criteria by which we can legitimately judge anything, although many people seem to think that "because the bible says so" is also legitimate for some reason

J C wrote: »

... and when would that be?

I've already told you, the earliest stages when it's still basically a ball of cells and no more aware than a toe nail

J C wrote: »

a computer booting up is a very appropriate analogy ... as it has the capacity to come fully 'to life' without any further intervention from anybody ... just like a developing foetus.

It's an appropriate analogy to someone who disapproves of abortion but it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to compare a microscopic ball of cells to a fully formed, fully functional object that just isn't using it's capacities at the moment. You already know it's a bad analogy because you recognise that the diference in capacities matters, you just disagree on when it matters. If your analogy is good then following your own analogy, if two people are at risk and you can only save one, the morally correct course of action is to save the person who's awake and let the sleeping person die as if someone's life is worth more because they're awake. Strange logic I'm sure you'll agree

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Lads (and lassies) not that I don't find the current conversation interesting but its not exactly on topic is it ?

That and its most certainly not a creationism vs sanity science issue. Nor a christian vs atheism issue, nor a religious vs non-religious issue.

People have their own opinions on abortion be they religious or non-religiously minded. Christians can use the Bible to support a pro or anti-choice/abortion stance and do.

As for my opinion, I have no problem at all with abortion up to a certain stage of development.

... almost everything is affected by your worldview ... and the issue of abortion is indeed viewed very differently by Creationists and Atheists.
Creationists have the transcendant Word of God (and their own intellect) for guidance ... and Atheists simply make it up as they go along!!!!

... for example, your view is that abortion is OK 'up the a certain (undefined) stage of development' is effectively meaningless ... and it allows anybody to define the 'stage of development' however they like (and you have no legitimate basis to stop them doing so). This is indeed happening and some people perform abortions at anytime up to the delivery of the baby (as in so-called partial birth abortion) where delivery is stopped and the child is dismembered in the birth canal at 9 months gestation!!!
Some Atheists (and their 'fellow travellers') are even claiming that infanticide is justified up to one year after birth where a baby has some (again undefined) disability!!!

... murder is murder ... and once you start justifying murder, nobody is safe.

Abortion is inter-generational eugenics ... based on the temporary disability of the foetus to survive outside the womb ... and it moves into the realm of full eugenics when abortion is performed because a supposed 'genetic defect' is detected in the baby!!!!:(

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We both recognise that capacity enters into it, we just differ on exactly when that difference should become relevant.

... its a lot more than that ... and you know it.
... your position is one that facilitates abortion to the maximum possible extent ... while my position only allows it where the mother's life in in real and present danger from the pregnancy and no alternatives are available to save the baby as well ... which is the same standard that is applied to all adult:adult killing.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

reasonable is not a weasel word, it's the only criteria by which we can legitimately judge anything, although many people seem to think that "because the bible says so" is also legitimate for some reason

... one man's reasonable ... is another mans 'unreasonable' ... and that is why things like speed limits, drink-drive limits and anything else that we wish to legally control are specified ... we don't have a law that states that somebody can drive once they only have a 'reasonable' level of alcohol consumed ... nor do we say that you only have to drive at a 'reasonable' speed.

Of course, if we wanted to effectively have no speed limits we would introduce the idea that people only needed to drive at a 'reasonable' speed.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I've already told you, the earliest stages when it's still basically a ball of cells and no more aware than a toe nail

... and anybody else that likes can and do use your crterion to justify abortion/infanticide right up to one year after the baby is born (using the same self-serving excuse of 'disability/lack of sentience')!!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's an appropriate analogy to someone who disapproves of abortion but it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to compare a microscopic ball of cells to a fully formed, fully functional object that just isn't using it's capacities at the moment. You already know it's a bad analogy because you recognise that the diference in capacities matters, you just disagree on when it matters. If your analogy is good then following your own analogy, if two people are at risk and you can only save one, the morally correct course of action is to save the person who's awake and let the sleeping person die as if someone's life is worth more because they're awake. Strange logic I'm sure you'll agree

the analogy shows up abortion for what it truly is the taking of an innocent Human Life without just cause!!!
... you're the one who believes that 'degree of sentience' is the method by which you choose who is to live or die ... and I have ruled it out completely (in part for the precise reason you have invalidly proffered against me) ... the fact thet is would allow the murder of sleeping people!!!

I have said that in extremis (and only in extremis) when we must choose who is to live, because one or both are going to die if we don't, that capacity has to be the determinant of that decision.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

... its a lot more than that ... and you know it.
... your position is one that facilitates abortion to the maximum possible extent ... while my position only allows it where the mother's life in in real and present danger from the pregnancy and no alternatives are available to save the baby as well ... which is the same standard that is applied to all adult:adult killing.

My position facilitates it slightly more than you. Your reason for rejecting my position is that discriminating on the basis of capacity is wrong and then you do it yourself.

J C wrote: »

... one man's reasonable ... is another mans 'unreasonable' ... and that is why things like speed limits, drink-drive limits and anything else that we wish to legally control are specified ... we don't have a law that states that somebody can drive once they only have a 'reasonable' level of alcohol consumed ... nor do we say that you only have to drive at a 'reasonable' speed.

Of course, if we wanted to effectively have no speed limits we would intorduce the idea that people only needed to drive at a 'reasonable' speed.

But we don't have the same speed limit on every road. We have a reasonable limit depending on the circumstances. I can't give an exact, one size fits all answer to your question. It depends on the circumstances.

J C wrote: »

... and anybody else that likes can and do use your crterion to allow abortion/infanticide right up to one year after the baby is born (using the same self-serving excuse of 'disability/lack of sentience')!!!

Ummmm, have you actually read my criteria? Aware and sentient. That fits the description of a foetus after about 7 weeks.

J C wrote: »

the analogy shows up abortion for what it truly is the taking of an innocent Human Life without just cause!!!
... you're the one who believes that 'degree of sentience' is the method by which you choose who is to live or die ... and I have ruled it out completely (in part for the precise reason you have invalidly proffered against me) ... the fact thet is would allow the murder of sleeping people!!!

You know what, now that you've given the same straw man for a fifth time it all makes sense. Oh wait no it doesn't.

J C wrote: »

I have said that in extremis (and only in extremis) when we must choose who is to live, because one or both are going to die if we don't, that capacity has to be the determinant of that decision.

Then we don't differ in the belief that a very early foetus is less important than a fully grown woman, we differ only on what the definition of "in extremis" is. I consider a woman's right to bodily integrity enough to be considered "in extremis", you don't.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

I was pointing out that Atheists should be against Abortion

I think I missed your reasoning - could you summarise why an atheist should be against abortion?

J C wrote: »

but many don't seem to be

Is it possible to remove the stereotyping from this discussion?

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

... and it may surprise you to learn that Christians can be faced with the very same ethical dilemmas as Atheists!!!

No it doesn't. I think christians are human and don't actually get much, if any, "morality" from god.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

I think that you are morallly wrong to discriminate purely on the basis of capacity/ability. The only situation where capacity enters the equation is where you cannot save both people ... and YOU must decide who lives.

How about letting god decide?

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

a computer booting up is a very appropriate analogy ... as it has the capacity to come fully 'to life' without any further intervention from anybody ... just like a developing foetus.

No it doesn't. A fetus most definitely needs intervention.

Sam Vimes

But anyway J C (for the second time), I asked you what you would accept as an example of an increase in CSI. You said:

J C wrote: »

... a complex new functional organ in a number of steps would be an example of increasing CSI ... should be possible with short-generation organisms like Fruit Flies (if Materialistic Evolution exists) ... but has never been observed!!!

I gave you the example of single-celled organisms that evolved into multi-celled organisms (an entirely new genus) and developed a primitive skin. Since skin is an organ I have met your criteria but you have already declared this to be an expression of previously existing CSI. Would I be right in saying that you have contradicted yourself and that, as I suspect, even if you were presented with a brand new internal organ like a lung spontaneously developing you would still dismiss it as an expression of existing CSI and that there is actually nothing that could ever be presented that you would admit to being an increase in CSI?

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ummmm, have you actually read my criteria? Aware and sentient. That fits the description of a foetus after about 7 weeks.

Then we don't differ in the belief that a very early foetus is less important than a fully grown woman, we differ only on what the definition of "in extremis" is. I consider a woman's right to bodily integrity enough to be considered "in extremis", you don't.

... so if somebody interferes with my bodily integrity by giving me a slap on the back I can kill him?????:(
... and if I want to produce Human Foetuses to experiment on them ... can I do so because this is also an in extremis situation?

You are 'talking through your hat' (an occupational hazard for Atheists and their 'fellow travellers') in my experience!!!!
An in extremis situation is a 'life or death' situation ... and slapping me on the back or a healthy woman with a normal pregnancy are not in extremis 'life or death' situations!!!

...and deliberately creating Human Beings in order to experiment on them and kill them is to say the least unethical even if they are not 'sentient' at the time!!!!

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
a computer booting up is a very appropriate analogy ... as it has the capacity to come fully 'to life' without any further intervention from anybody ... just like a developing foetus.

doctoremma
No it doesn't. A fetus most definitely needs intervention.

... not really ... a normal pregnancy will proceed without any intervention needed.

Children, at all stages of their lives 'post-birth' often do need intervention ... but this isn't a reason to kill them either!!!:(

J C

... I see that Italy's premier science funding agency the Italian National Research Council (CNR) is funding the publication of a Creation Science book.

A model of best practice that their eqivalent Science Research Academies in other countries could profitably follow.

Physicist and CNR President Luciano Maiani has said, that CNR's publishing side independently approved the funds for the book but CNR did not specifically back the book.
While stressing that the Creation Science book doesn’t reflect CNR’s position on evolution, President Maiani has, defended the decision to publish the book, saying: “I’d like to stress both the fact that the intellectual research is an open enterprise, as well as my personal endorsement against any form of censorship. The freedom of expression is guaranteed by the article 21 of [Italy’s] Constitution.”

Professor Miani is obviously a man of integrity and fairness and this decision is a model of true liberalism and civilised tolerance.

The Atheistic Evolutionists are whinging at this small gesture of equality and they are seething that this has happened.
I would ask all persons of integrity and good-will to pray for Professor Maiani and everyone else involved in this very brave decision to support academic freedom in the teeth of what is likely to be considerable opposition from the forces of censorship within Atheism and its 'fellow travellers'!!!!

Among the evolutionists voicing dismay, zoologist Ferdinando Boero of University of Lecce wrote an open letter saying “We are in front of the paradox that, while the Vatican {Pontifical] Academy of Science endorses evolutionism, the VP of the biggest scientific institution in Italy denies it.”
Strange days indeed!!!

Nicola Cabibbo, President of the (Vatican) Pontifical Academy of Sciences, has expressed strong disapproval of CNR funding such a book. “The Catholic Church has accepted the thesis of evolutionism. It is interesting that while the Church has devoted many conferences to the topic this year, the VP of CNR organized conferences in favor of creationism.”

So because the Vatican is now apparently throwing its lot in with evolutionism it wants to silence Creation Science.
I can assure the Roman Catholic hierarchy that Creation Scientists will not be signing any confidentiality agrements or taking any 'oaths of silence' when it come to 'blowing the whistle' on the whole load of baloney that Evolution truly is!!!!:eek::eek:

... quotes above from various press sources.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

... not really ... a normal pregnancy will proceed without any intervention needed.

I'm sorry. Perhaps your biological knowledge is far greater than mine because I was under the impression that a fetus was, until fairly late, completely unable to survive without intervention by the mother.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

I'm sorry. Perhaps your biological knowledge is far greater than mine because I was under the impression that a fetus was, until fairly late, completely unable to survive without intervention by the mother.

... a foetus is dependent on its mother ... but it requires no intervention from her.

Post-birth children are physically independent of their mother ... but they require considerable intervention from their parents!!!

... but none of these demands justifies killing any of them!!!

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

... so if somebody interferes with my bodily integrity by giving me a slap on the back I can kill him?????:(
... and if I want to produce Human Foetuses to experiment on them ... can I do so because this is also an in extremis situation?

Yes J C, if someone who does not possess the capacities to be either aware or sentient slaps you you have my full permission to kill them but I don't see that ever happening tbh

And I wholeheartedly support stem cell research and did even when I was totally against abortion. Part of the inconsistency that made me change my position in the first place

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...and deliberately creating Human Beings in order to experiment on them and kill them is to say the least unethical even if they are not 'sentient' at the time!!!!

Yes, JC, it would be completely unethical to deliberately create human beings in order to experiment on them. I guess we can all be thankful that THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN, except in your propaganda-addled brain.

Stem cells are usually derived from human embryos that are unsuitable for implantation in IVF procedures (maybe not all but I would support such a rule as it might bridge a few ethical issues). Not all fertilised eggs are viable - a woman will probably spontaneously abort several such embryos in her lifetime and this parallels the fact that when we fertilise eggs in a Petri dish, a handful of them are not going to make human beings, no matter how much you want them to.

There's some irony in the fact that stem cell research might depend on a process regarded as one of the most humanitarian outputs of modern science. IVF is a triumph in human endevour, a life-affirming event (for those who want children) and available to all types of people. And so religious people, willing to reject their childless fate "determined by god" to take full advantage of everything that modern medicine has to offer in order to fulfill their selfish desires, then cry "unfair" when the waste cellular products (and cells are taken very early) of this process are diverted into research into the type of cure that will prove to be another milestone in human civilisation.

And as an aside, there are tumours with more sentience than early embryos, with beating heart tissue, vascular systems and even hair/bone/teeth. These cellular masses are responsive to several stimuli yet nobody objects to removing these from a body.

Sam Vimes

doctoremma wrote: »

And as an aside, there are tumours with more sentience than early embryos, with beating heart tissue, vascular systems and even hair/bone/teeth. These cellular masses are responsive to several stimuli yet nobody objects to removing these from a body.

That is both fascinating and gross

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes J C, if someone who does not possess the capacities to be either aware or sentient slaps you you have my full permission to kill them but I don't see that ever happening tbh

... you are switching tack ... the point that I was making is that mild interference with bodily integrity (such as slapping somebody on the back or normal pregnancy, aren't acceptable reasons for the person being affected to kill the other person ... even though some people engage in double-think on this issue when it comes to pre-born children.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And I wholeheartedly support stem cell research and did even when I was totally against abortion. Part of the inconsistency that made me change my position in the first place

... and I support adult stem cell research (which has produced many of the promising results expected from it) ... but I condemn the embryonic variety (which has produced no worthwhile results).

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That is both fascinating and gross

... the whole trade in aborted foetal body parts for research purposes and the deliberate generation of Human Beings for research purposes is indeed gross ... but it is certainly not fascinating!!!

... and the Book of Revelation predicts that the end times 'Babylonian' commerce system that is destroyed by God's intervention will include the trade in the bodies and souls of men!!!

Re 18:9 ¶ "The kings of the earth who committed fornication and lived luxuriously with her will weep and lament for her, when they see the smoke of her burning,
10 "standing at a distance for fear of her torment, saying, 'Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! For in one hour your judgment has come.'
11 "And the merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her, for no one buys their merchandise anymore:
12 "merchandise of gold and silver, precious stones and pearls, fine linen and purple, silk and scarlet, every kind of citron wood, every kind of object of ivory, every kind of object of most precious wood, bronze, iron, and marble;
13 "and cinnamon and incense, fragrant oil and frankincense, wine and oil, fine flour and wheat, cattle and sheep, horses and chariots, and bodies and souls of men.

... and here are some examples of this 'trade':-
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-102926524.html
http://www.ascb.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=359&Itemid=31

... this is one example of how this business apparently 'works' in America
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=110&dat=20000209&id=2q4oAAAAIBAJ&sjid=n1UDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6495,3535151
Apparently the going rate is $50 for eyes, $150 for lungs and hearts ... and $999for an eight week brain!!!
... and this is the stuff that the public knows about!!!!

... interestingly there isn't a squeak out of the 'pseudo-liberals' about these outrages!!!!

Many people saw fetal tissue treatments as a field with great potential for progress. It also suggested a way to stick it to anti-utilitarian pro-lifers by turning abortion into a promising economic and life-enhancing endeavor.
10-20 years ago it was touted as 'the next big thing' ... but has since turned out to be a bit of a disaster.
Early trials on patients with brain problems seemed promising. Then gruesome teratomas began forming inside the patients' heads.

...and here is a legal precedent on the issue:-
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-95681237/fetal-tissue-transplant-parkinson.html
... and it basically says that the patient has no case against the doctor if these experimental treatments leave them worse off than before the treatment ... a case of 'buyer beware' no doubt!!!

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Yes, JC, it would be completely unethical to deliberately create human beings in order to experiment on them. I guess we can all be thankful that THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN, except in your propaganda-addled brain.

Stem cells are usually derived from human embryos that are unsuitable for implantation in IVF procedures (maybe not all but I would support such a rule as it might bridge a few ethical issues). Not all fertilised eggs are viable - a woman will probably spontaneously abort several such embryos in her lifetime and this parallels the fact that when we fertilise eggs in a Petri dish, a handful of them are not going to make human beings, no matter how much you want them to.

There's some irony in the fact that stem cell research might depend on a process regarded as one of the most humanitarian outputs of modern science. IVF is a triumph in human endevour, a life-affirming event (for those who want children) and available to all types of people. And so religious people, willing to reject their childless fate "determined by god" to take full advantage of everything that modern medicine has to offer in order to fulfill their selfish desires, then cry "unfair" when the waste cellular products (and cells are taken very early) of this process are diverted into research into the type of cure that will prove to be another milestone in human civilisation.

...ethically performed IVF is indeed life-affirming ... but if death is a deliberate by-product then it it cannot be considered either ethical or life-affirming.

... and I am not even going to 'go there' for the moment, on the issues raise by research into Human Cloning and the creation of Human/animal Chimeras.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, the creationist, and all Christians, hold that inability to see, hear, walk, etc. are not the way humans are supposed to be. And so we make efforts to help those so disabled. But there is no moral wrongness involved.

There isn't?

Creationists believe that humans are not this way because of the effects of sin. Sin is moral wrongness, correct?

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

... all examples of rapid speciation/divergence ... using existing genetic diversity / CSI!!!!!

Right .... :rolleyes:

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Right .... :rolleyes:

... good that we agree on something!!!

Genghiz Cohen

Quick point

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And I wholeheartedly support stem cell research and did even when I was totally against abortion. Part of the inconsistency that made me change my position in the first place

Stem Cells can come from anywhere, my sister is working with stem cell that generally come from donated bone marrow.
It's just that bone marrow can only grow into a limited number of different cells whereas embryonic stem cell can grow into any cell type.

J C wrote: »

... and I support adult stem cell research (which has produced many of the promising results expected from it) ... but I condemn the embryonic variety (which has produced no worthwhile results) and amounts to little more than a latter day form of cannabalism.

Someone is misinformed, as I said above, both embryonic and donated stem cell are useful for the same processes.

(The information above is what I can glean from my sister trying to explain what she does for a living, some of it may be false.)

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

... you are switching tack ... the point that I was making is that mild interference with bodily integrity (such as slapping somebody on the back or normal pregnancy, aren't acceptable reasons for the person being affected to kill the other person ... even though some people engage in double-think on this issue when it comes to pre-born children.

I'm not switching tack, you switched tack, or straw manned me as it's better known. I said that the criteria on which my decision was based was that a very early foetus does not have capacity to be aware or sentient and you compared it to a situation where you are killing someone who has both of those capacities. As I said, straw man

Sam Vimes

But anyway J C, for the third time (can he make the "ignoring difficult questions" hat trick?), I asked you what you would accept as an example of an increase in CSI. You said:

J C wrote: »

... a complex new functional organ in a number of steps would be an example of increasing CSI ... should be possible with short-generation organisms like Fruit Flies (if Materialistic Evolution exists) ... but has never been observed!!!

I gave you the example of single-celled organisms that evolved into multi-celled organisms (an entirely new genus) and developed a primitive skin. Since skin is an organ I have met your criteria but you have already declared this to be an expression of previously existing CSI. Would I be right in saying that you have contradicted yourself and that, as I suspect, even if you were presented with a brand new internal organ like a lung spontaneously developing you would still dismiss it as an expression of existing CSI and that there is actually nothing that could ever be presented that you would admit to being an increase in CSI?

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But anyway J C, for the third time (can he make the "ignoring difficult questions" hat trick?), I asked you what you would accept as an example of an increase in CSI. You said:


I gave you the example of single-celled organisms that evolved into multi-celled organisms (an entirely new genus) and developed a primitive skin. Since skin is an organ I have met your criteria but you have already declared this to be an expression of previously existing CSI. Would I be right in saying that you have contradicted yourself and that, as I suspect, even if you were presented with a brand new internal organ like a lung spontaneously developing you would still dismiss it as an expression of existing CSI and that there is actually nothing that could ever be presented that you would admit to being an increase in CSI?

... the fact that some algae is found as single cells and also as conglomerates of cells doesn't constitute new CSI.
it is obviously a pre-existing capacity of this particular Kind.

There are numerous examples of much more dramatic and rapid/instantaneous speciation happening all the time ... and these processes use existing CSI as well.

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Quick point
Stem Cells can come from anywhere, my sister is working with stem cell that generally come from donated bone marrow.
It's just that bone marrow can only grow into a limited number of different cells whereas embryonic stem cell can grow into any cell type.


Someone is misinformed, as I said above, both embryonic and donated stem cell are useful for the same processes.

(The information above is what I can glean from my sister trying to explain what she does for a living, some of it may be false.)

... theoretically foetal stem cells can give rise to any other cell ... but this is not working out in practice when these cells and their products are used in adults, they go 'haywire' and create all kinds of problems ... I guess it is God telling a sinful and selfish Humanity that they shouldn't go there!!!!

Adult stem cells have less theoretical potential but their products work well in adults. I guess the secret is in the word 'adult' as both donor and recipient!!!:eek:

... during another part of my life I have personally seen animal Chimeras ... and the thoughts of what might happen if this technolgy is to be used to produce full Human/animal Chimeras seriously concerns me!!!


http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://myblahg.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/GoatBoy.jpg&imgrefurl=http://myblahg.com/%3Fp%3D2142&usg=__rg-yeJiy8223Njfxhk2B4y8eoFM=&h=336&w=410&sz=29&hl=en&start=45&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=b8QJj8AnPIWb6M:&tbnh=102&tbnw=125&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhuman%2Banimal%2Bchimeras%26start%3D36%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-ie:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7GPEA_en%26ndsp%3D18%26tbs%3Disch:1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1555639/Chimera-embryos-have-right-to-life-say-bishops.html

These monstrosities shouldn't be created in the first place. Killing them at two weeks or gestating them to full term are both unethical options.

... and here is the first 15% Human/Sheep.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2007/03/26/va1237239726942/Hybrid-5429113.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/lifestyle/half-man-half-sheep/story-e6frf00i-1111113226041&usg=__3n4NlTzGtab_lLCkOQLFb4YvJlk=&h=240&w=350&sz=38&hl=en&start=221&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=PS2OsEGp3a8umM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhuman%2Banimal%2Bchimeras%26start%3D216%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-ie:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7GPEA_en%26ndsp%3D18%26tbs%3Disch:1

... this is where evolutionism inevitably leads you