3-D Printing your next Organ

[Ben Kenobi]

Hope you don't mind if I listen to actual medical doctors and researchers in the field, rather than you?

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/65/8/3035.short

Sure. Embryonic cells are completely unnecessary.

And no, your point is to prohibit others from using them, based on your world view.

Since I believe that embryos are persons, I believe that 'using them' is wrong. We shouldn't kill other people. There are better alternatives.

[Ben Kenobi]

Its meaning is perfectly clear. It is mythology written by men, for men (because women were so much property) with no understanding of science, biology or medicine.

Yet it writes what so many deny and in the very outset - that we are all made in the image of God, men and women. Your critique doesn't even pass muster.

The vocabulary for those concepts didn't even exist.

You are astonishingly ignorant.

Oh, and this is the same book that refers to talking snakes and women being made out of a guy's rib? God could create the whole universe from nothing, but when he decided to make a woman, he needed to borrow the guy's rib?

That is from Genesis yes. The real question for me isn't whether this is true, but simply how old this part is. It was old 4 thousand years ago. Where did it come from?

Oh, and he didn't want them to have sex (tree of knowledge and all that), but he made them with sex organs?

Hrm? He says no such thing. In fact he says precisely the opposite. "It is not good for man to be alone". He curses Eve by saying that she would suffer birthing pains - which raises the question as to what it was like before the fall. If God clearly intended for them not to have sex in the Garden, why would he curse eve in this way.

Let alone use it as justification to shove my world view down anyone's throat by force of law?

I know, it's fantastic isn't it? The idea that men could launch themselves into space and return home with the computing power of a graphics calculator.

[Ben Kenobi]

bk you are going to hell bro

Then I will have good company.

[MichaeltheGreat]

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/co...5/8/3035.short

Sure. Embryonic cells are completely unnecessary.

So, one article in one journal regaring one range of subjects defines the entire state of the medical field because it agrees with your preconceptions? And where does that heading that says "This Article has been Retracted" fit in?

Since I believe that embryos are persons, I believe that 'using them' is wrong. We shouldn't kill other people. There are better alternatives.

Now we're making progress boyo. First step is to admit it's a personal belief system. You act according to your belief system, and the rest of us can act accoring to medical and scientific concensus. Win-win.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yet it writes what so many deny and in the very outset - that we are all made in the image of God, men and women. Your critique doesn't even pass muster.

In your circular logic. I think it's a typo. "God" was meant to be read right to left, and we're all made in the image of Dog. Hey, I think I'll go found a religion and get tax exempt status. The Church of Dog.

You are astonishingly ignorant.

Suck me, you obtuse prat. Show me the comtemporaneous vocuabulary in ancient Greek, Aramaic or even Latin for cellular or molecular biology, physics or biochemistry. There is none. You had a whole world full of people as clueless as you, except they had the excuse of living thousands of years before the scientific method was developed. Everything was "God did it" or "some god did it" because they had no capability for deeper understanding and were fearful of unpredictability.

That is from Genesis yes. The real question for me isn't whether this is true, but simply how old this part is. It was old 4 thousand years ago. Where did it come from?

The dead sea scrolls are approximately 2500 years old. There is absolutely no physical evidence for how much older the Genesis stories are. No evidence whatsoever as to how much older the original manuscripts or oral traditions may be. No evidence that they even existed 4,000 years ago, let alone "were old" 4,000 years ago. And if you're not concerned with literal truth of creation, then how can you logically be obsessed with your chosen interprations of those parts of the Bible you insist on reading literally?

Hrm? He says no such thing. In fact he says precisely the opposite. "It is not good for man to be alone". He curses Eve by saying that she would suffer birthing pains - which raises the question as to what it was like before the fall. If God clearly intended for them not to have sex in the Garden, why would he curse eve in this way.

God wanted them to "just be friends" Instead, you have a talking snake (prime Alabama blacksnake? ) How laughably Freudian is that? And women of course being the latecomer, and the one to lead man from the holy path.

"Genesis 2:16-17: "16 And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

No women around to **** things up yet, so clearly no doing the wild thing, and inferentially, man is immortal because he has nothing to screw, not even beasts of the field, let alone women to reproduce with. No sex, no reproduction, just gardening. And, only one thing is identified which man can't eat - because that, and inferentially that alone, will cause man to die.

Then later on, we've got them standing around naked with no shame. (Apparently because they don't know that their parts can do the wild thing yet.)

Then Eve comes along, listens to that talking snake (hubba hubba), leads man astray (it's always them *****es fault, man is naturally born to holiness and righteousness, but those *****es always pull him off the straight and narrow).

So after eathing the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they're ashamed to be naked and use fig leaves to cover their parts. Oooh, they learned about the wild thing.

Genesis 4:1 makes clear they didn't actually do the wild thing (and first time, Eve gets knocked up) until their ass was kicked out the garden, to keep them away from the tree of life. It's at the end of Genesis 3 that God is telling Eve about childbirth in pain, only after he's decided to kick their ass out of the garden and make sure they can't get to the tree of life. Only then, after eating fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and after becoming hung up about their boy and girl parts, is mortality discussed. So no toil in the fields, no reference to coception or birth and no reference to mortality prior to the second half of Genesis 3 where God is throwing a temper tantrum and punishng man, the woman and the snake.

Your cutesy interpretation is not found anywhere in Genesis, sorry. There's nothing other than convenient interpretation that "man shouldn't be alone" really means "here's a **** toy for ya."

I know, it's fantastic isn't it? The idea that men could launch themselves into space and return home with the computing power of a graphics calculator.

And another classic non sequitur from the Beniverse.

[Elok]

If you carry the child to term and baptize the child, the child will be cleansed of original sin. I thought you schismatics believed this too.

While I want no part in this dumb recycled argument--and Sava's not really Orthodox in a conventional sense AFAICT--the Orthodox understanding of Original Sin is very different from the Catholic one. We don't believe we inherited Adam's guilt, only his post-Fall predilection to sin ourselves.

[Ben Kenobi]

So, one article in one journal regaring one range of subjects defines the entire state of the medical field because it agrees with your preconceptions?

You asked for scientific evidence demonstrating the truth of my statement, and I provided it.

You still don't accept it, so clearly, it's not science that is motivating you.

Now we're making progress boyo. First step is to admit it's a personal belief system. You act according to your belief system, and the rest of us can act accoring to medical and scientific concensus. Win-win.

Biologically, DNA does not change from conception onwards. This is very well attested. Ergo - if a person is a person at birth - their identity is formed at conception. Science is very clearly on my side and not yours. Well, at least modern science.

[Ben Kenobi]

Suck me, you obtuse prat. Show me the comtemporaneous vocuabulary in ancient Greek, Aramaic or even Latin for cellular or molecular biology, physics or biochemistry.

That wasn't your point. Your argument was that ancient people didn't even understand logistics. What the hell? Good to see you backtracking now.

You had a whole world full of people as clueless as you, except they had the excuse of living thousands of years before the scientific method was developed. Everything was "God did it" or "some god did it" because they had no capability for deeper understanding and were fearful of unpredictability.

Ok, here's a question for you - when was the scientific method developed? As for the ancients, sure it wasn't wholly systematic, but you have folks like Eratostenes, Aristoarchus, Pythagoras, Ptolemy, etc. The list goes on. They were able to construct and move quite heavy megaliths.

The dead sea scrolls are approximately 2500 years old. There is absolutely no physical evidence for how much older the Genesis stories are.

True, but there's plenty of textual evidence.

And if you're not concerned with literal truth of creation, then how can you logically be obsessed with your chosen interprations of those parts of the Bible you insist on reading literally?

I think you're confused about, 1, what the Church teaches regarding creation and 2, what I believe regarding creation and 3, what exact argument I was making here.

God wanted them to "just be friends"

Evidence?

Then later on, we've got them standing around naked with no shame. (Apparently because they don't know that their parts can do the wild thing yet.)

Just the opposite. They didn't understand what 'naked' means!

Your cutesy interpretation is not found anywhere in Genesis, sorry. There's nothing other than convenient interpretation that "man shouldn't be alone" really means "here's a **** toy for ya."

Christ. It's word for word. Genesis 2:18. Verse after the one you cited. Selective (and dishonest citation) on your part. Par for the course. Yes, we get it, you hate God and you hate the bible.

The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

[PLATO]

[MichaeltheGreat]

I'm impressed with the fact that Moses apparently had electron microscopes and petri-dishes so that he could take a pair of each microbial lifeform onto his ark, and save them.

But then he forgot to save the dinosaurs .....

He said, "Lord, I'm doin' everything I can, but the crew will mutiny if we have to shovel out dinosaur **** too." It's a cool story, and a nice allegory (lots of cultures have flood mythology, with makes sense as the derivation of paleolithic man's experiences at the end of the last ice age, but if you go to a large zoo, then realize their collections are not even close to 10% of the extant species still alive, and look at the size of them. Even if you didn't have to feed them (God magically made them not eat or **** for 150 days), you'd need a ship close to the size of a Nimitz class aircraft carier. There's never been enough wood structurally suitable for shipbuilding in the entire mideast. Not to mention you can't build a large ship's structural elements out of green wood, so you're talking years of lay up time for the wood to age after cutting. Even if you had the naval architectural knowledge and the shipbuilding techniques, you couldn't build a wood ship of that size regardless. If God magically changed the structural properties of the material, and magically gave Noah knowledge of naval architecture that didn't exist in late 18th century England (the ultimate standard in the world for large wood ships), then He'd also have to magically make the ship structure one that could magically be built in dry dock, because the structural loading on a hull in dry dock is different than in the water. That's why HMS Victory is coming apart, despite external bracing in dry dock, and the USS Constitution isn't. With all these "magical" things God would have to do, it'd be a lot easier to just God-phaser the specific people he was pissed at. But that wouldn't fit into pre-Christian paleolithic flood mythology.

[MichaeltheGreat]

That wasn't your point. Your argument was that ancient people didn't even understand logistics. What the hell? Good to see you backtracking now.

load your camels and pack your asses isn't logistics. Load out for the ark? Gathering of construction materials?

Ok, here's a question for you - when was the scientific method developed? As for the ancients, sure it wasn't wholly systematic, but you have folks like Eratostenes, Aristoarchus, Pythagoras, Ptolemy, etc. The list goes on. They were able to construct and move quite heavy megaliths.

That's engineering, math and applied science, not fundamental science such as biology, chemistry and physics. I'd dump Ptolemy from that list, since he took observation and made it conform with pre-conception. Quite different from the others, and those were all close to a millenia after the Dead Sea scrolls from a non-Judeo-Christian culture. Christianity liked the Ptolemaic world view, discounted what it didn't like, and instead of any scientific development, you had centuries of muddling with alchemy, then later on, the dogmatic clinging to Galen's (often whackjob) second century views, after they were obtained from the Islamic world. Applied engineering and applied math do not equate with the scientific method per se, although they do require a sort of intellectual rigor.

True, but there's plenty of textual evidence.

I'm really 335 years old and I fought alongside Nelson at Trafalgar. <-- There's textual evidence. Self-referential statements are not evidence.

I think you're confused about, 1, what the Church teaches regarding creation and 2, what I believe regarding creation and 3, what exact argument I was making here.

I have heard numerous deacons and priests involved with Catholic education who quite readily state it's all allegory. As far as what you believe or your argument, no problem - I don't care. You are free to act on your beliefs. The line ends at imposing your belief system on others.

Evidence?

If you want to interpret the text literally, it's linear, just like time, life, etc. There's a definite linear progression through time.

There's no mention of bringing forth kids at all, no mention of death other than "don't eat the fruit, it'll kill ya" UNTIL God has decided to kick their asses out (in which case kids are now essential so the human line doesn't die off) AFTER that evil woman thing led man astray and they're now going to die someday since there's that mystery Cherubim (totally undescribed what they are and sort of pulled out of the writer's ass) with the flaming sword.

Just the opposite. They didn't understand what 'naked' means!

They covered their genitals in shame. Didn't say they made full suits of clothes,

Christ. It's word for word. Genesis 2:18. Verse after the one you cited. Selective (and dishonest citation) on your part. Par for the course.

I didn't cite it because it's irrelevant. Since when does "not good for man to be alone" = "he needs to get laid" and "helper suitable for him" = "something to ****"

Yes, we get it, you hate God and you hate the bible.

I find idiots who read into the Bible things which are simply not stated while playing games with jumping into and out of literal interpretation as it suits them to be an irritant.

[MichaeltheGreat]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]173396[/ATTACH]

You gotta hit it a few more times just to make sure.

[MichaeltheGreat]

You asked for scientific evidence demonstrating the truth of my statement, and I provided it.

Did you READ THE ****ING LINK? The article DOESN'T EXIST - it has been retracted, as it was INCORRECT. You linked to nothing. There is no article.

Retraction: Spontaneous Human Adult Stem Cell Transformation

The authors retract the article titled “Spontaneous Human Adult Stem Cell Transformation,” which was published in the April 15, 2005, issue of Cancer Research (1). Upon review of the data published in this article, the authors have been unable to reproduce some of the reported spontaneous transformation events and suspect the phenomenon is due to a cross-contamination artifact. Five of the seven authors have agreed to the retraction of this paper.

AND, ta da, you made a general statement that embryonic stem cells are never required, for anything. Cancer treatment (the subject of the journal) is not the full scope of embryonic stem cells. You call me "dishonest" in this thread when you claim authority from a non-existent journal article, in the assumption nobody will follow the link?

You still don't accept it, so clearly, it's not science that is motivating you.

I don't accept a retracted article rejected and removed from a peer-reviewed journal, sorry.

Biologically, DNA does not change from conception onwards. This is very well attested. Ergo - if a person is a person at birth - their identity is formed at conception.

Identity != personhood. Your identity after death doesn't change either. Dead Ben is still Ben, dead me is still me, dead Plato is still Plato. Or do you go to cemetaries and see nothing but blank headstones because nobody has any idea who anybody is after they die? Identity doesn't change, but legal personhood does. DNA is irrelevant to the determination of legal personhood.


George! Hey, how are ya George? George? George??? Yep, that's a blob of cells at that point, not a person.

Science is very clearly on my side and not yours. Well, at least modern science.

LMFAO, Yes, in the Beniverse, where we grab one "fact" without regard for its scope or meaning and say "that proves me right!"

[MrFun]

He said, "Lord, I'm doin' everything I can, but the crew will mutiny if we have to shovel out dinosaur **** too." It's a cool story, and a nice allegory (lots of cultures have flood mythology, with makes sense as the derivation of paleolithic man's experiences at the end of the last ice age, but if you go to a large zoo, then realize their collections are not even close to 10% of the extant species still alive, and look at the size of them. Even if you didn't have to feed them (God magically made them not eat or **** for 150 days), you'd need a ship close to the size of a Nimitz class aircraft carier. There's never been enough wood structurally suitable for shipbuilding in the entire mideast. Not to mention you can't build a large ship's structural elements out of green wood, so you're talking years of lay up time for the wood to age after cutting. Even if you had the naval architectural knowledge and the shipbuilding techniques, you couldn't build a wood ship of that size regardless. If God magically changed the structural properties of the material, and magically gave Noah knowledge of naval architecture that didn't exist in late 18th century England (the ultimate standard in the world for large wood ships), then He'd also have to magically make the ship structure one that could magically be built in dry dock, because the structural loading on a hull in dry dock is different than in the water. That's why HMS Victory is coming apart, despite external bracing in dry dock, and the USS Constitution isn't. With all these "magical" things God would have to do, it'd be a lot easier to just God-phaser the specific people he was pissed at. But that wouldn't fit into pre-Christian paleolithic flood mythology.

And how was Moses able to save microbial life without electron microscopes and petri-dishes?

[MrFun]

And I want to know why God made Adam and Eve with sexual reproduction organs.