the_classicist

Joined

• started 62 topics
• posted 2,005 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by the_classicist

• 
  31

  im out of my mind????

  by tsunami_rid3r in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a girl i met at camp spammed my text messages from aim.

  i logged on and she was afk and i spammed her with repeated "lol" and then said "now what yea thats right".

  then later that night she sent me another text through aim saying im out of my mind.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  Women like men you are confiedent and go ahead and do things without fully thinking out the consequences. It's true.
• 
  112

  Stem Cell Research article

  by DevonMcBride in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in today's wall street journal there was an excellent article about stem cell research.

  the united states used to be number 1 in science research.

  we are now number 2 and continually on the decline even more.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  I suppose you'd like to think about me as being a fundamentalist who still thinks that YEC is a viable theory going to an unregulated college that promotes that view and gives out unrecognized "degrees." If that helps your worldview, more power to you.
• 
  112

  Stem Cell Research article

  by DevonMcBride in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in today's wall street journal there was an excellent article about stem cell research.

  the united states used to be number 1 in science research.

  we are now number 2 and continually on the decline even more.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  Question for you Class.....do you go to public university or to a private/Bible college?

  The University of British Columbia. http://www.ubc.ca/ There are some private colleges on campus, though (for some reason).

  Um...sorry to disappoint but nature itself is the greatest cloning agent. In about one of every 75 human conceptions, the fertilized ovum splits for some unknown reason and produces monozygotic (identical) twins. Each has an genetic makeup identical to the other. In cloning, this same operation is done intentionally in a laboratory. So again how is cloning "unnatural"?

  While I usually have an answer for everything, I'd have to do more study. Indeed we have natural cloning, but it's simply not natural to take an adults DNA to create another identical person. And if many people did this to get children, it would narrow the gene pool.
• 
  7

  classroom necessities?

  by tsunami_rid3r in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  im taking 5 courses, what should i get?

  i'm probably gonna get 5 spiral notebooks, the really nice ones.

  should i write the notes or type the notes during class?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  I have a pen, paper, and a clipboard (it's one of those one's that's kind of like a harcover book and a clipboard inside, hard to explain, but it's thin and easy to carry around). Then at home, I file the notes for the day into a binder.

  Whether you want to type notes or write them depends on 1) how large is the desk surface and 2) how long you have to write for. I only bring my laptop to 2-3 hour classes.

  If you're taking science courses, keep a scientific calculator for you as they don't allow graphing calculators in most first year courses (an it really pissed me off when I had to do first-year calculus with no calculator at all, but for some reason I could use a scientific one with my cell biology course).
• 
  112

  Stem Cell Research article

  by DevonMcBride in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in today's wall street journal there was an excellent article about stem cell research.

  the united states used to be number 1 in science research.

  we are now number 2 and continually on the decline even more.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  That's a perfectly fine argument since it is a moral argument and not a scientific definition. My whole point all along is that our decisions on what is right or wrong here are all arbitrary and are internally consistant based on our presuppositions (i.e they are logical in some sense). Science cannot definitevely say which potential human is more deserving of rights. We just have to make a judgement call and we cannot be overly dogmatic.

  Agreed.
  

  I'm not saying that you are being dogmatic - this is a discussion forum and we are discussing opinions - but some people are overly dogmatic and feel that they should dictate their morality on the rest of society. That's what's frustrating about this topic.

  Well, topics like these are frustrating for all sides, I think. Everyone is set in their ways. I myself used to be quite a pro-aboritonist, but while I was an atheist, ironically, I changed my view.
• 
  112

  Stem Cell Research article

  by DevonMcBride in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in today's wall street journal there was an excellent article about stem cell research.

  the united states used to be number 1 in science research.

  we are now number 2 and continually on the decline even more.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  i'll check back later to see if you have become an atheist/immoral/murderous/cantankerous / naturalist. ; i have my hopes.

  I know a few atheistic naturalists who are against abortion. I don't really think that plays into it as you can make arguments from the natural evolutionary desire to propagate and preserve your race and that cloning plays with natural selection, which may have unforseen consequences.
• 
  112

  Stem Cell Research article

  by DevonMcBride in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in today's wall street journal there was an excellent article about stem cell research.

  the united states used to be number 1 in science research.

  we are now number 2 and continually on the decline even more.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  it's more intellectually dishonest to say that it's more of a philosophical/religious decision, than a biological one.

  again, you say that life starts at conception, and yet the clump of cells do not display the 5 biological phenomena for the definition of life.

  I'm saying it's both and you cannot seem to fathom that.

  rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric. ; philosophy. ; is that all you have? ; you're like the energizer bunny for your technically bankrupt "philosophy" (religion). ; cells do not have rights the same way that a sentient/sapient clump of cells (human) does.

  anyways, my wife says to log off and come have a beer. ; so, i must obey the master of universe. ; have a nice day. ; i'll check back later to see if you have become an atheist/immoral/murderous/cantankerous / naturalist. ; i have my hopes.

  It's not rhetoric, it's a causal relationship.
• 
  112

  Stem Cell Research article

  by DevonMcBride in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in today's wall street journal there was an excellent article about stem cell research.

  the united states used to be number 1 in science research.

  we are now number 2 and continually on the decline even more.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  I'm talking about potential. The potential for a human being exists in the DNA. We can manipulate the DNA in any cell to create a new human being - ergo every cell has the potential to become a human. It's artificial, but the potential is still there.

  I'm talking about reality. In reality, an embryo has the potential to become a fully-formed human. In reality, a skin cell does not have that potential.

  If you say that only cells that have the potential for becoming human without artificial means count, then I will simply label your argument as arbitrary. Also, there are many artificial means of helping the process along during development. To exclude all artificial help would define away many potential humans as not deserving human rights until some other arbitrary point has been crossed.

  I'm saying that those cells which are produced by artificial means do have the right to life. I'm saying it's unethical to do so, especially when we fool with evolution according to our own whims on such silly subjects as hair colour.
• 
  112

  Stem Cell Research article

  by DevonMcBride in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in today's wall street journal there was an excellent article about stem cell research.

  the united states used to be number 1 in science research.

  we are now number 2 and continually on the decline even more.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  Had cloning never been demonstrated you would be correct. However cloning has been accomplished, therefore what I said is not merely speculation, but actually happens in practice and is scientifically proven. The mechanics of it are not important. The fact that the DNA (which you claim is the definition of a human being) is being expressed. At this point you will need to further tighten your definition of a human being.

  Cloning uses the same mechanism as human reproduction. The ovum is given the full DNA from another cell by implantation (electric shock) and will grow into a life form.

  This cannot happen with other cells except the female gamete.
• 
  112

  Stem Cell Research article

  by DevonMcBride in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in today's wall street journal there was an excellent article about stem cell research.

  the united states used to be number 1 in science research.

  we are now number 2 and continually on the decline even more.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  You just proved it was possible, thus it is not unfalsifiable. Just because it is artificial does not mean that the potential for another human being does not exist in the cell. It just needs to be expressed.
  
  
  It just so happens that there is already a pre-built scaffolding and framework that expresses the same DNA automatically when egg and sperm meet. We are down to mechanics here.
  
  
  The probabilities can be calculated for either case.

  The ova, when it takes on 46 chromosomes, starts to become a human being. A skin cell cannot, even though it has all 46 chromosomes and neither can a stem cell. Again, can you prove this wrong scientifically? Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you're argument and you can make it clearer.