State of the Union Address - Page 5

Fuzz Bomb · 02-01-2006, 09:46 PM

Y'all make me sad, as proof that our science education STINKS.

What does DNA have to do with soul? It's not possible to prove or disprove the existence of God (or any Intelligent Designer) with DNA or any other experiment. It's outside science, entirely. Clones, like identical twins, share the same total genome, in so far as that ever happens. In fact, because of somatic (look it up if you haven't heard it before) mutation, your left hand may not have the same exact DNA as your right hand. Every time a cell divides (constantly happens in our bodies) there's a chance for mutation as the DNA is copied and segregated into the two daughter cells. So does your left hand have the same soul as your right? Get over it.

hybrid · 02-02-2006, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzz Bomb

Y'all make me sad, as proof that our science education STINKS.

What does DNA have to do with soul? It's not possible to prove or disprove the existence of God (or any Intelligent Designer) with DNA or any other experiment. It's outside science, entirely. Clones, like identical twins, share the same total genome, in so far as that ever happens. In fact, because of somatic (look it up if you haven't heard it before) mutation, your left hand may not have the same exact DNA as your right hand. Every time a cell divides (constantly happens in our bodies) there's a chance for mutation as the DNA is copied and segregated into the two daughter cells. So does your left hand have the same soul as your right? Get over it.

Thats completely retarded.

Its fairly easy to see the implication of just cloning me. Even if it is not 100% exact down to the fingerprints like Id like it to be.

The fact of the matter is that you would be stripping my DNA and putting it into a blank cell to recreate my life. There for it should in theory have a soul if it lived,my soul to be exact as it is me re-incarnate, according to the religious zealots. If thats the case, it cannot be true as it was born of technology not of divine will.

I can even use the twin theory, as god willed the cellular fetus to split and become two.

How can it not prove or disprove the existance of god?

EEfz6 · 02-02-2006, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hybrid

Thats completely retarded.

Its fairly easy to see the implication of just cloning me. Even if it is not 100% exact down to the fingerprints like Id like it to be.

The fact of the matter is that you would be stripping my DNA and putting it into a blank cell to recreate my life. There for it should in theory have a soul if it lived,my soul to be exact as it is me re-incarnate, according to the religious zealots. If thats the case, it cannot be true as it was born of technology not of divine will.

I can even use the twin theory, as god willed the cellular fetus to split and become two.

How can it not prove or disprove the existance of god?

Because you would not be recreating your life. With that example you would mearly be creating what your identical twin could have been like. The fact is an egg was fertilized. Technology did not create the life. Technology just determined the DNA. The life would still have been created because an egg was fertilized. Just because it was not fertilized by sex does not mean that it was not fertilized. This would not disprove the existence of God any more than a test tube baby disproves the existence of God. After all, by the same argument, it was created by a needle injecting a sperm into an egg rather than a sperm swimming to find an egg. That is technology. In both cases, technology fertilized an egg. Just because technology would be used to determine the genitc makeup does not mean that the life was created any differently.

Again, you use the argument of the same DNA means the same soul. A soul is not linked to DNA. Show me some kind of proof to that. It is only a theory that you invented, and would then use to try and disprove the existence of God.

EEfz6 · 02-02-2006, 02:13 PM

Holy crap, I just realized that this thread has gone from the State of the Union address to debating what disproves the existence of God. Only on SBN, I guess.

jim schmidt · 02-02-2006, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EEfz6

Holy crap, I just realized that this thread has gone from the State of the Union address to debating what disproves the existence of God. Only on SBN, I guess.

That's about right.

hybrid · 02-02-2006, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EEfz6

Because you would not be recreating your life. With that example you would mearly be creating what your identical twin could have been like. The fact is an egg was fertilized. Technology did not create the life. Technology just determined the DNA. The life would still have been created because an egg was fertilized. Just because it was not fertilized by sex does not mean that it was not fertilized. This would not disprove the existence of God any more than a test tube baby disproves the existence of God. After all, by the same argument, it was created by a needle injecting a sperm into an egg rather than a sperm swimming to find an egg. That is technology. In both cases, technology fertilized an egg. Just because technology would be used to determine the genitc makeup does not mean that the life was created any differently.

Again, you use the argument of the same DNA means the same soul. A soul is not linked to DNA. Show me some kind of proof to that. It is only a theory that you invented, and would then use to try and disprove the existence of God.

Are you retarded? When was an egg fertilized? It was filled with information there was not conception what so ever.

Read on cloning, its not the same as test tube baby making.

Yes this has taken a new life hasnt it?

EEfz6 · 02-02-2006, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hybrid

Are you retarded? When was an egg fertilized? It was filled with information there was not conception what so ever.

Read on cloning, its not the same as test tube baby making.

Yes this has taken a new life hasnt it?

Question 1: Am I retarded?
Depends on who you ask. That one is still up for debate.

Question 2: When was an egg fertilized?
The genetic material was stripped from an egg, and it was then fertilized with only the genetic material from the person being "cloned", rather than having a mixing of genetic material, as when the genetic info is not stripped from the egg.

But, like I have freely admitted, I do have only a limited knowledge of cloning, as it has been a few years since I have done any research on it. Just don't really have time to now. Just posting based on what I remember.

Also, before you get to upset with me, see question 1.

bush · 02-02-2006, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EEfz6

Question 1: Am I retarded?

A: You all are!

Just kidding. I think this whole thread needs to be locked down, it's gone so far off topic that it's not even in the radar.

hybrid · 02-02-2006, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EEfz6

Question 1: Am I retarded?
Depends on who you ask. That one is still up for debate.

Question 2: When was an egg fertilized?
The genetic material was stripped from an egg, and it was then fertilized with only the genetic material from the person being "cloned", rather than having a mixing of genetic material, as when the genetic info is not stripped from the egg.

But, like I have freely admitted, I do have only a limited knowledge of cloning, as it has been a few years since I have done any research on it. Just don't really have time to now. Just posting based on what I remember.

Also, before you get to upset with me, see question 1.

Im not trying to be a dickhead about it but like I said, an egg was not "fertilized" to clone. I think you could use an egg from a sheep and use the genetic code from "me" and get the clone result, if its true that there is absolutely no genetic information in it.

This being said, if there was a god, it shouldnt be possible if we have souls. God is the creator, not technology

poulsen · 02-02-2006, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bush

A: You all are!

Just kidding. I think this whole thread needs to be locked down, it's gone so far off topic that it's not even in the radar.

No no no. No locking is necessary. I find it interested to be the lurking third party who gets to read this heated debate.

jim schmidt · 02-02-2006, 07:20 PM

You guys realize, of course, that he only talked about cloning to divert attention from more pressing issues, right?

bush · 02-02-2006, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim schmidt

You guys realize, of course, that he only talked about cloning to divert attention from more pressing issues, right?

Correct. He knew full well that it would launch SBN into a debate on the soul and the existence of God.

All joking aside, I can see how this is a possibility, if not a certainty. He doesn't have much to go on, the only thing he's really accomplished out of his public agenda is nominating two conservative justices.

jim schmidt · 02-02-2006, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bush

Correct. He knew full well that it would launch SBN into a debate on the soul and the existence of Gog.

All joking aside, I can see how this is a possibility, if not a certainty. He doesn't have much to go on, the only thing he's really accomplished out of his public agenda is nominating two conservative justices.

And giving a shit load of money to rich people and big corporations. Don't forget that.