Stem cell research

[Isaac Brock]

As a side note, it is the same reason also why past events are referred to as historical fact rather than scientific fact since they are not reproducable.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
I believe in a supernatural force, God if you will, and I cannot prove it scientifically, but it doesn't mean its any less valid as a source of inspiration. It just means I can't prove it scienfically, i just know it is there, by faith.

What I was thinking.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Lower level of thinking?
Don't flatter yourself. I see that you think that YOU are the son of God.


How is the Bible fact?

With comments like that, I don't see any reason to even answer you.

The Bible is proven fact by:

Prophecy interwoven through throughout the entire Bible showing things which could not have been known in advance.

Each book collaborates with others coordinating verifiable justification as to the validity of its divine claims.

Science backs facts interwoven through out the Bible which could not have been known about until proven hundreds, or thousands of years later.

Archaeological finds are proving the Bible more and more proven every day through scientific testing of artifacts, biosphere, and discoveries of ancient historical texts.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
First off, if we followed that line of thinking throughout history, medical advances wouldn't get very far.

WRONG. If we followed that line of thinking, we would know how to use what we have. AGAIN, we have many cures and advancements we don't even use.

I'm not too sure what this "electro-chemical stimulation" specifically is, although I do have a good idea what it does at the biological level. However, if it is indeed so good why are we not seeing to replacement or repaired organs being functional at all.

I answered that question: politics.

Why do you think immunizations are promoted? Political machinization at work.

Hence, if its not solving our problems now, why would we stop looking for alternatives? It simply isn't logical.

Correct. -Because you refuse to examine what I said, instead you discard it as "conspiracy" thinking.

Reminder: Any 2 people with a plan is a conspiracy. What do you think politics is?

Stem cells has shown great potential and frankly, your leap from stem cells to mandated socialism is a bit weak. Stem cells is a scientific, medical domain foremost. Politics and morality have worked their way in there as they always do and perhaps, should.

Then, you have just proven it NOT weak.

However, let's be clear it truly is not the other way around. The suggestion that is somewhat conspiratist in nature.

Who do you think you are kidding?

Do you think these people practice without funding?

Who do you think they are required to get licensed by?

Who do you think gives them employment?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Perhaps by faith if so inclined, but certainly not scientific fact.

As I have stated, incorrect.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Because it's not reproducable and based on first principles. It doesn't make it any less valid as moral source IMO, but I don't think it's responsible too confuse the two systems of knowledge.

I believe in a supernatural force, God if you will, and I cannot prove it scientifically, but it doesn't mean its any less valid as a source of inspiration. It just means I can't prove it scienfically, i just know it is there, by faith.

Knowing a "source" CAN be proven, but not by your model.

YOU may not be able to prove it because you use the wrong model of understanding your proof. -That doesn't make it any less provable.

6 blind men. -Each BLIND. They touch around an elephant trying to figure out what it is. They have never seen one, but have heard stories of one.

One gets the ear, another a trunk, another a leg, etc.....

Each may understand it a different thing. Two may even know it is an elephant. All may even know what it is. -Yet none may know.

Does that make the elephant non-existing?

Does it make the elephant a volkswagen as modern moral relativism rediculously implies?

NOTHING changes the fact the elephant exists. Enter a man who can see and he can also prove the elephant. If a blind man has been blind since birth, though, and cannot understand the model of proof nor model of evidence, that does NOT affect the facts.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
As a side note, it is the same reason also why past events are referred to as historical fact rather than scientific fact since they are not reproducable.

Wrong again.

Historical fact is defined as merely being left on its own as DEFINED fact by nature of it having already happened.

Scientific fact is fact by nature of it having been proven by scientific method.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by nycflasher
What I was thinking.

You haven't fooled anyone.

You haven't yet thought.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by NewGuy
WRONG. If we followed that line of thinking, we would know how to use what we have. AGAIN, we have many cures and advancements we don't even use.

Really? With all due respect, I suggest you inform the millions of doctors and scientists because I don't think they've come to the realize that you have. Hey if you can get those techniques to work out, I'm sure you can be a millionaire. Probably billionaire!

I answered that question: politics.

Why do you think immunizations are promoted? Political machinization at work.

Correct. -Because you refuse to examine what I said, instead you discard it as "conspiracy" thinking.

Reminder: Any 2 people with a plan is a conspiracy. What do you think politics is?

If you can prove that doctors and scientists are in cahoots with politicians to repress proven treatments and provide unsound ones go right ahead. You do realize however the burden of proof is on you.

Then, you have just proven it NOT weak.

No I haven't by any means. There's a signifigant difference in tone between regulation and conspiring.


Stem cell research just didn't suddenly appear as some politicians idea to tackle abortion laws. That would be folly. Abortion is already legal in US for better or worse. The politician would have little to gain. Stem cell research came as a directed technique to solve specific medical conditions. Politicians didn't invent it, like most scientific discoveries, the benefit was most likely stumbled upon. I hope you can see why it seems to be very improbable to simply be some political machination rather than medical advance.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by NewGuy
As I have stated, incorrect.

As you wish... but by definition it does not fall within the realm of the scientific method. That's the simple truth.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Knowing a "source" CAN be proven, but not by your model.

YOU may not be able to prove it because you use the wrong model of understanding your proof. -That doesn't make it any less provable.

6 blind men. -Each BLIND. They touch around an elephant trying to figure out what it is. They have never seen one, but have heard stories of one.

One gets the ear, another a trunk, another a leg, etc.....

Each may understand it a different thing. Two may even know it is an elephant. All may even know what it is. -Yet none may know.

Does that make the elephant non-existing?

Does it make the elephant a volkswagen as modern moral relativism rediculously implies?

NOTHING changes the fact the elephant exists. Enter a man who can see and he can also prove the elephant. If a blind man has been blind since birth, though, and cannot understand the model of proof nor model of evidence, that does NOT affect the facts.

However, that does mean that blind men CANNOT prove that it was an elephant by the scientific method. Each would draw its own conclusion which would be either inaccurate or incomplete. Therefore knowledge of the elephant would be beyond the realm of science and knowledge should it be required would have to be done my faith, instinct or other means.

That problem you give precisely explains why there are limits to the scientific method, which have never been denied. You must understand that just because you can't prove something with the scientific method does not logically exclude it from existing by any means. It does mean that it is beyond the given system of knowledge's ability to prove it.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Wrong again.

Historical fact is defined as merely being left on its own as DEFINED fact by nature of it having already happened.

Scientific fact is fact by nature of it having been proven by scientific method.

As I said... historical fact cannot be proven true with the scientific method.

You are correct in the reasoning however. Historical fact becomes a circular argument if one is to take it through the scientific method.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Really? With all due respect, I suggest you inform the millions of doctors and scientists because I don't think they've come to the realize that you have. Hey if you can get those techniques to work out, I'm sure you can be a millionaire. Probably billionaire!

If you can prove that doctors and scientists are in cahoots with politicians to repress proven treatments and provide unsound ones go right ahead. You do realize however the burden of proof is on you.

One word:

HERBS.

ANOTHER word:

LICENSING

You are in Canada. You do not have experience in the same level of understanding with the American system as Americans. It is visible to us because we deal with it every day.

No I haven't by any means. There's a signifigant difference in tone between regulation and conspiring.

Not by the definition of conspire.

Stem cell research just didn't suddenly appear as some politicians idea to tackle abortion laws. That would be folly. Abortion is already legal in US for better or worse.

Agreed on all counts.

The politician would have little to gain. Stem cell research came as a directed technique to solve specific medical conditions.

I already showed you you are incorrect. You are applying an outside view of American politics when you do not understand its very nature in regard to the medical industries here.

Politicians didn't invent it, like most scientific discoveries, the benefit was most likely stumbled upon.

No. When the ability exists already through different means, this is not some lofty "only hope for mankind". It becomes another method. Politics pushed this method to the forefront. The other has been known for over 20 years.

I hope you can see why it seems to be very improbable to simply be some political machination rather than medical advance.

Why would I?

I would be believing a blind man who doesn't know he is standing in front of an elephant when I am standing there with full sight.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
However, that does mean that blind men CANNOT prove that it was an elephant by the scientific method. Each would draw its own conclusion which would be either inaccurate or incomplete. Therefore knowledge of the elephant would be beyond the realm of science and knowledge should it be required would have to be done my faith, instinct or other means.

That problem you give precisely explains why there are limits to the scientific method, which have never been denied. You must understand that just because you can't prove something with the scientific method does not logically exclude it from existing by any means. It does mean that it is beyond the given system of knowledge's ability to prove it.

Thanks. You just agreed with me. It CAN be proven, as you admit. -And not by faith necessarily as you admit as well.

You have now admitted it is possible to prove the Bible and not simply by subjective faith.

 

[proud_savagette]

 

[menewa]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Thanks. You just agreed with me. It CAN be proven, as you admit. -And not by faith necessarily as you admit as well.

You have now admitted it is possible to prove the Bible and not simply by subjective faith.

Just because you cannot disprove something does not serve as proof in and of itself. That is a fallacy of logic. It does however mean it is on par with a scientific theory, which is still very strong though.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by menewa
Just because you can't disprove something does serve as proof itself. That is a fallacy of logic.

So is not reading the rest of my post where I gave models of proofs and examples of such ways to prove things.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Thanks. You just agreed with me. It CAN be proven, as you admit. -And not by faith necessarily as you admit as well.

You have now admitted it is possible to prove the Bible and not simply by subjective faith.

Did you even read what I said?

We're talking about the scientific method. You are using the scientific method to prove something that is beyond its capacity. I have proved irrevoquably that while the bible may have value as an instrument of faith it cannot by definition be verified by the scientific method. You are asserting that it can, you are incorrect as it violated the two principles requires to be shown as scientific fact.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by NewGuy
One word:

HERBS.

ANOTHER word:

LICENSING

You are in Canada. You do not have experience in the same level of understanding with the American system as Americans. It is visible to us because we deal with it every day.

Why don't Canadian have as much experience of the America system. Herbs? I'd suggest you start a business, because if these "herbs" work. You'll be making millions and curing a lot of sick people.

I already showed you you are incorrect. You are applying an outside view of American politics when you do not understand its very nature in regard to the medical industries here.

You have shown very little in that statement other than the statement itself. I have seen no proof. You are trying to appeal to authority, while attempting to discredit my own. You should know that's a logical fallacy. Sometimes being outside the system gives you a clearer view of what's happening within. If you believe I do not understand the nature of your industries. State why I'm wrong and give me concrete evidence of your links In addition, you're making a fairly presumptious assumption the we would not have the same problems in Canada
[/b]

No. When the ability exists already through different means, this is not some lofty "only hope for mankind". It becomes another method. Politics pushed this method to the forefront. The other has been known for over 20 years.

Prove the other system works better than stem cells and you'll have a point, if not than there is no reason to stop research. If stem cells do indeed work and we see medical advances come of them, why would we stop using them? If we can now begin to get stem cells from sources other than fetuses, why should we stop.

Why would I?

I would be believing a blind man who doesn't know he is standing in front of an elephant when I am standing there with full sight. [/B]

If I am indeed blind than it would be dare I say hard to prove an elephant is there, but sir, I am not blind. If I see evidence, I can be persuaded, as I believe i have an open mind. I haven't seen a glimpse of any yet, that it why i am skeptical. To be anything else at this junction, would be irresponsible.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Did you even read what I said?

We're talking about the scientific method. You are using the scientific method to prove something that is beyond its capacity. I have proved irrevoquably that while the bible may have value as an instrument of faith it cannot by definition be verified by the scientific method. You are asserting that it can, you are incorrect as it violated the two principles requires to be shown as scientific fact.

Apparently you didn't read what EITHER of us said.

There were several ways of proof mentioned and you admitted by statement that there can be proof of things by faith, scientific method, and OTHER.

You proved by other that the Bible can be proven.

You are losing track of discussion.