RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god.

RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

FangsNfeet -> RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god. (1/14/2008 9:08:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Ummm...Fangs? The fact that people perform medical experiments on prisoners hardly changes my mind about this. If anything, this only confirms my revulsion. So what is it about Christianty that you are revulsed by? After all, I'm merely speaking of science. In Science, to learn everything, you must examine and experiment with everything and every one. Welcome to science. Not religion, ethics or morals, just the science. Instead of religion or more specific Christianity, are you also revulsed by Science and its means to explore?

Lordandmaster -> RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god. (1/14/2008 10:24:22 PM)
"Science" doesn't hold it as a tenet that God gave us the earth to use as we see fit (or however you phrased it). "Science" doesn't lay out any moral position whatsoever about how we use the earth and its resources. That's up to us to determine. The most that science can do is provide the knowledge with which we can weigh the consequences of one particular approach against another. And I'll say that your supposed Christian guidelines about how we may use the earth and its resources are partly to blame for the environmental problems that are just about to become serious enough to threaten life on a massive scale. I'll even say that they belong to a time before anyone knew very much about how nature works. (I don't believe those guidelines came from God, in case that's unclear.) Now, frankly, I don't actually believe that the way you've characterized Christianity is in conformity with good Christian dogma, but most Christians seem to believe some version of it (at least two people said the same kind of thing right here in this thread), and the cherished viewpoint of adherents to a religion is, after all, more important than whatever the dogmatists may say. Rarely do dogmatists have better ideas than ordinary practitioners, but this might be one of those rare cases. Let me know if that wasn't sufficiently clear.

kinkyviolet -> RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god. (1/14/2008 10:51:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I do not believe God doesn't exist. Double negative. This sentence means "I believe God exists." WRONG. CuriousLord already explained it, but not to my satisfaction, so I'm going to rub it in a little more. "I do not believe God doesn't exist," while not exactly grammatically correct, does not contain a double negative. It contains two single negative statements: "I do not believe" and "God doesn't exist." What he means is that he does not believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true. (The correct way to say this would have been, "I do not believe that God doesn't exist." The missing "that" is a very common grammatical error - one which I often make, as well. Actually, I'm not even sure that it's a definite rule, but it does help to clarify the meaning of such sentences.) By the way, quit arguing about the meanings of words. Every single word in every single language was made up at some point. The definitions are numerous and vary depending on the context and the writer or speaker. The dictionary.com link you provided (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic) listed several different meanings of the word "agnostic," a few of which matched the definition CuriousLord was using. Also, if you read the "Word History" section under the American Heritage Dictionary definition, you will learn the origin of the word, which also supports CuriousLord's usage. So, quit arguing about the definitions of words! Language is not a science - it is an art. There are rules in place to facilitate clear communication, but language is not something that can be quantified. There are no absolutes. Getting back to the topic...my personal belief is that there is no such thing as the "supernatural" (i.e. magic), only science that we do not yet or cannot understand. As we and our understanding of the universe evolve, so will our capabilities. This research in question does have a very useful purpose, an article about which FullCircle posted a link to on the VERY FIRST PAGE (and yet there are still people on the third page wondering "Why green flourescent pigs?"). For those of you that don't like to read, at least those I haven't lost already, I'll summarize: The green flourescent pigs are useful because stem cells taken from them and injected into other animals will be easy to distinguish from the other animals' normal cells, and therefore it will be easy to track the growth of said cells, thus accellerating stem cell research. As for the ethical implications, I don't think there is any cause for alarm. The green pigs don't look any less healthy or happy than ordinary pigs in the pictures in the aforementioned article. And I don't believe they are being treated cruelly. Altering their DNA so they're colored differently doesn't seem any worse than killing them for food (which I fully support, by the way). The End. (There is much more to say, but I think I've said enough.)

seeksfemslave -> RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god. (1/15/2008 3:36:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kinkyviolet quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I do not believe God doesn't exist. Double negative. This sentence means "I believe God exists." long winded explanation from Violet Missing full stop more like. Full stop = period which really means an interval OK ? Either that or choke choke Sinergy is right lol

wankerforuse -> RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god. (1/15/2008 4:41:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissMagnolia WTF is wrong with you people? No one bitches about pink pigs. Why are green pigs being reviled and treated like second class, erm, pigs? EQUALITY FOR PIGS OF ALL COLOURS!! Here here well said MissMagnolia.

meatcleaver -> RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god. (1/15/2008 4:52:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle Well if I was to say atheism is just another religion CL would appear for the next four pages. I think we’ve all had that argument anyway. Actually, we already had that argument. I think Atheists are as full of crap as any believer of any other philosophy. Believe what you want, just dont insist it is provable empirically. Agnosticergy Atheism is not a belief, it is a rational position in the absence of evidence for something existing, namely, god. Saying atheism is a belief is like saying someone who doesn't believe in fairy tales holds a faith, its absurd. Most atheists I know have their position because no evidence for god has ever been produced. Saying nothing is there when there is no evidence for something being there is not a belief, it is merely being rational. If you told me a pink elephant in a tutu was dancing Swan Lake on your lawn, I wouldn't believe you until you showed me proof. The same with god. There is only one position that is illogical and that is believing the writings of an ancient people who tried to explain their existence, to be literally true and hold to that position despite the advancement in human knowledge and thought. While I can accept agnosticism to be a legitimate position, it is rather an anemic one and doesn't require any thought whatsoever but hey, no one can make you think or hold a position. Why would I be agnostic about a pink elephant in a tutu dancing Swan Lake? My position is the same where god is concerned. Look at all his miracles and genocides and smiting of people in hurricane Katrina and all those suffering across the world because he can't give a monkey's toss that his creation is so cruel and arbitary. Why would a sane person believe in such nonsense? Just look at the absurdity of Jesus, god incarnate. He went round curing people who suffered from the deseases he himself created and then people praise him for being merciful. Not only that, this Jesus wanted people to believe he was the son of god (actually he didn't, there is no primary record of Jesus saying anything but hey, when has lack of evidence stopped people believing in something) so god(jesus) died on a cross to save people. Is that really rational? In any other field other than religious belief, it is enough to get you certified and taken away in a straitjacket.

camille65 -> RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god. (1/15/2008 5:28:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bipolarber Interesting. So they've been able to manipulate pig's DNA (one of the closest bio analogs to humans in the animal kingdom) to change their pigmentation. So now they are flourecent green. This means that they have taken a step closer to finding cures for various genetic diseases. Such cellular manipulation could lead to cures for MS, sickle cell anemia, diabetes... "Scientists are playing God!" Has been the luddite battle cry since Mary Shelly took time out from her opium den parties by the lakeside in Geneva to pen "Frankenstien." Yet, this this same battle cry certainly doesn't mind when science "plays God" enough to eliminate the black death, eliminate smallpox, or make polio a thing of the past. Funny how the religious nutcases bitch about science so much they want to stick their noses into every classroom across the USA to teach kids a fairy tale. Yet, they don't seem to mind the televisions and internet technology that science has provided them, so that they can drain money from the weak minded and the elderly by promising them a place in the afterlife. (i.e. more fairy tales) These are the same pricks who burned Bruno at the stake for saying there might be life elsewhere in the universe, and who threatened both Galileio and his family (specifically his 12 year old daughter) with torture if he kept spouting his blasphemy about the Earth going around the sun. Fuck religion. Science has given more real answers than any church ever has. Churches have only sought to control my mind, take my money, and sell me down the river. It's a shame in my mind that this post which goes into the reasons for having made glow in the dark piggies has been totally squashed by the old god/not god, god/not my god/ your god/not a god thing.For me this is fascinating and wonderful news, the more we learn the more we can change,

meatcleaver -> RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god. (1/15/2008 12:49:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: camille65 It's a shame in my mind that this post which goes into the reasons for having made glow in the dark piggies has been totally squashed by the old god/not god, god/not my god/ your god/not a god thing.For me this is fascinating and wonderful news, the more we learn the more we can change, The OP did suggest that sientists saw themselves as god. That invites a rational argument about whether god exists. Well the rational amongst us are still waiting for the evidence that god exists. Whether he does or not is immaterial because he obviously doesn't smite those playing around with his creation or cares enough to protect people from the cruel and arbitary nature of his creation. Because of god's obvious neglect, we need science to find solutions to our problems ourselves

FangsNfeet -> RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god. (1/16/2008 7:57:59 PM)
Science has this one little statement "Survival of the fittest." Man is at the top of the food chain and we can do whatever we want with what's below us. Religiously, most gods have given us the land. Science Theory suggest that we currently dominate the world. Either way you look at, Man is on top. As for the OP, we're acting as a creator because we have the power and technology to do so in our evolutionary track. We're changing, creating, and destroying all sorts of life. However, very few scientist if any, are declairing themselves a god for being able to create and manipulate various parts of life. Rather than being gods, we just want to be better people with better world. That's not called playing god, it's improvement of what we started off with.

dcnovice -> RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god. (1/16/2008 8:02:35 PM)
quote: Science has this one little statement "Survival of the fittest." I don't think that came from science, actually. Wasn't it from the Social Darwinians, who tried to apply evolutionary theory to human affairs?

FangsNfeet -> RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god. (1/16/2008 8:12:15 PM)
"Survival of the fittest" is a Scientific Theroy based on life. To live, you must adapt and manipulate your environment for safety and reproduction. With humans or other species, survival depends on being the smartest and toughest to have our needs. If and when you can't adapt, you're screwed. There goes living and your gene pool.

dcnovice -> RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god. (1/16/2008 8:20:26 PM)
I'll defer to the scientists (which I am not) among us, but I think it's important to remember that science's study of natural selection is descriptive, not prescriptive. Animals that survive aren't morally superior, simply better adapted to a particular ecosystem at a particular time. Out of curiosity, I Googled the phrase "survival of the fittest" and found an interesting intro to the topic at dear old Wikipedia: "Survival of the fittest" is a phrase which is a shorthand for a concept relating to competition for survival or predominance. Originally applied by Herbert Spencer in his Principles of Biology of 1864, Spencer drew parallels to his ideas of economics with Charles Darwin's theories of evolution by what Darwin termed natural selection. Although Darwin used the phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for "natural selection",[1] modern biologists prefer the latter phrase. The phrase is a metaphor, not a scientific description;{{cn} and it is not generally used by biologists, who almost unanimously prefer to use the phrase "natural selection" exclusively.

MistressNoName -> RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god. (1/16/2008 8:30:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle Well if I was to say atheism is just another religion CL would appear for the next four pages. I think we’ve all had that argument anyway. Actually, we already had that argument. I think Atheists are as full of crap as any believer of any other philosophy. Believe what you want, just dont insist it is provable empirically. Agnosticergy Though neither side has empirically proven their theories, the atheists are at least a step ahead of the theists in their attempts to offer proofs of the lack of existence of any god... http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm MNN

brainiacsub -> RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god. (1/16/2008 8:33:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Science has this one little statement "Survival of the fittest." I don't think that came from science, actually. Wasn't it from the Social Darwinians, who tried to apply evolutionary theory to human affairs? Actually, the phrase "survival of the fittest" was penned by Charles Darwin and is synonomous with "Natural Selection", the mechanism which makes evolution possible. Later, sociologists adapted the principles of Natural Selection and created the "psuedo-science" of Social Darwinism which includes survival of the fittest as one of it's tenents.

dcnovice -> RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god. (1/16/2008 8:34:16 PM)
quote: Later, sociologists adapted the principles of Natural Selection and created the "psuedo-science" of Social Darwinism which includes survival of the fittest as one of it's tenents. That's what I was thinking of.

PanthersMom -> RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god. (1/16/2008 10:40:49 PM)
and what would charlotte's web say now? "holy shit! glowing pigs!" PM

luckydog1 -> RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god. (1/16/2008 10:56:45 PM)
Why do human scientists seem to think that they are God? Are there any kinds of scientists besides human ones?

Lordandmaster -> RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god. (1/16/2008 11:12:28 PM)
Wasn't it Herbert Spencer? Anyway, it wasn't Charles Darwin, and it's not a scientific theory. quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Science has this one little statement "Survival of the fittest." I don't think that came from science, actually. Wasn't it from the Social Darwinians, who tried to apply evolutionary theory to human affairs?

brainiacsub -> RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god. (1/17/2008 10:02:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Wasn't it Herbert Spencer? Anyway, it wasn't Charles Darwin, and it's not a scientific theory. quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Science has this one little statement "Survival of the fittest." I don't think that came from science, actually. Wasn't it from the Social Darwinians, who tried to apply evolutionary theory to human affairs? Herbert Spencer and Charles Darwin were contemporaries. You are correct that Herbert Spencer used the term first in his own book published a few years before Darwin published "The Origin of Species". Darwin even acknowledged Spencer in "Origins" for use of the term. However, Darwin gets credit for it because it was so central to explaining Evolutionary Theory. After all, chapter four was titled "IV. Natural Selection; or the Survival of the Fittest. Illustrations of the Actions of Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest. I don't mean to be obtuse here, but since this thread has morphed into a debate about religion and the believers are quite comfortable quoting from their bible, I thought I'd quote from mine. I'd much rather explain the significance of the green pigs, but I think folks have lost interest and would much rather discuss the merits of their religious beliefs.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Why do human scientists seem to think that they are god. (1/17/2008 11:48:22 AM)
To all and sundry: while it is true that is not possible to prove the existence of God it is definitely possible to infer from evidence that a God exists. The most intractable fact is that we exist and judged only by science appear to have emanated from nothing. This is a mystery of such magnitude that causes scientists to quietly drop below the parapit. Darwinists are not scientists they are guessmen. Listing the failings of moral philosophies used to explain God's will, ie religion, is basically irrelevent. Natural selection is a mindless circular tautology that has nothing to say about the origins of life at its root and the development of species from that root.. It just tries to organise things that exist and that have come into existence in ways that it cannot, in fact does not even try, to explain. Greater Science exists in turning Pigs green. lol When they can fly than I will believe Darwin was right.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875