Are Scientists playing God?

[Skwim]

See above and:
What’s the biological difference between identical twins and clones?

From the link above.

"Identical twins have the same DNA as each other, but different from their parents. A clone, however, only has one parent and has exactly the same DNA as that parent."​

Interesting, but then we have.

"Clones can happen naturally—identical twins are just one of many examples. Or they can be made in the lab. Below, find out how natural identical twins are similar to and different from clones made through modern cloning technologies."
source
​

And

"Do clones ever occur naturally?
Yes. In nature, some plants and single-celled organisms, such as bacteria, produce genetically identical offspring through a process called asexual reproduction. In asexual reproduction, a new individual is generated from a copy of a single cell from the parent organism.

"Natural clones, also known as identical twins, occur in humans and other mammals. These twins are produced when a fertilized egg splits, creating two or more embryos that carry almost identical DNA. Identical twins have nearly the same genetic makeup as each other, but they are genetically different from either parent."
source
​

And

"Reproductive cloning is defined as the deliberate production of genetically identical individuals. Each newly produced individual is a clone of the original. Monozygotic (identical) twins are natural clones."
source


.
​

 

[Wandering Monk]

Does god want us mucking around with vaccines? Maybe god doesn't want half of our children to live past the age of five.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Interesting, but then we have.

None of that, of course, saying that twins and clones are the same. They arent.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Since you brought it up.....

Dan 12:4But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

International air travel.... sharing of information and technology... then eventually the ability to translate any language with the click of a mouse.... to learn to do just about anything on the internet -all have had an effect -both positive and negative. The positive does not need to be policed, but the negative cannot be policed -even if it could all be known.

As I wrote in my post.... it POSTPONED that which is happening now and is about to happen -such as our ability to destroy ourselves and many terrible things before that happens..

The extra time allowed for billions to be born -and have their personal human experiences -who will one day have nothing restrained from them which they imagine to do -BUT in an orderly and non-harmful fashion.

Good thing many of us do not heed your religious warnings. Wed be decades, if not centuries, behind ojr level of technology if we did. We'll keep advancing, live longer amd healthier, all the while having nothing to fear of from an amgry god who allegedly exists and has been powerless to stop scientific progress that has weakened his hold on society.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You really believe that the small benefits that come from using radiation in medicine outweighs the damage caused by Chernobyl or Fukushima? And justifies Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Seriously?

The benefits from radiation are not small, will benefit millions of lives, and will be available indefinitely. The disasters you mentioned were self-limited

Do you really believe that the small benefits that come from religion whatever those may be outweigh holy wars, David Koresh, Jim Jones, and Warren Jeffs?

What do you see happening in today's world that gives you any hope for the future when corruption is at the very foundation of every part of human society? Where have the "good guys" gone?

I'm surrounded by good guys and gals. Life is good, and has never been better for a greater fraction of the world's population, who in general are living longer, are more functional (hearing aids and eyeglasses available to more people), better educated, and wealthier. If you see no hope there, well, I blame your religion, which is my working hypothesis for why your world so much ore dismal than mine.

Please examine "modern medicine" and ask yourself if the "higher life expectancy" equals better quality of life?

Yes. If you disagree, you are free to check out now. Nobody is forcing anybody else to endure this life that you don't value.

My grandfather died in his late fifties of problems that I also have, but have well controlled, have already outlived him by nearly a decade, and expect to outlive him by two or three decades. I thank modern medicine.

As one who has close and intimate knowledge of Nursing Homes, let me tell you about how wonderful that life expectancy is for a great many of our seniors.....these facilities can be the most depressing places in existence

Do you see anything good in the world? Your religion teaches that the world is hopeless, and that's what you see. Nobody is teaching me that, and so I don't walk through life with that darkness and pessimism.

Then examine the pharmaceutical industry and ask yourself how many of the drugs that people take are curing anyone of any ailment?

What would you know about it? Curing isn't the only way that meds benefit patients. They may mitigate illnesses, protect function, or increase comfort as well.

I'm a retired physician. Medications made my patients' lives better. And as I just mentioned, they have made my life better. My untreated blood pressure is 170/110. That's how my untreated grandfather died. On antihypertensives, it's 115/75.

How are you so unaware of all of this? Do you listen only to your church on these matters? They're not impartial, nor motivated to tell you the truth. They're motivated to keep you dependent on them by telling you how lost you would be without them.

what people have put their trust in, will prove to be the most untrustworthy institutions in existence.

But not you, right? I include your church in that category. You believe them and they have robbed you of so much.

 

[Skwim]

None of that, of course, saying that twins and clones are the same. They arent.

Of course not, just as eating utensils and spoons aren't the same. (Some eating utensils are forks and knives.)

.View attachment 35887

.
​

 

[Etritonakin]

Good thing many of us do not heed your religious warnings. Wed be decades, if not centuries, behind ojr level of technology if we did. We'll keep advancing, live longer amd healthier, all the while having nothing to fear of from an amgry god who allegedly exists and has been powerless to stop scientific progress that has weakened his hold on society.

Ermmmm -I did not warn anyone against developing technology. Technology is awesome. Again -he just postponed us using it to destroy ourselves. You can stop some diseases and live longer, for example, but you can't stop those who would intentionally develop them and release them -nor can you stop those who would lob nukes in each others' direction -and everyone else's.

God let "society" go its way until it learns that. There is no struggle for hold on it. He could stop everything rather quickly, but his intent is that we master it -which includes technology, cooperation and management on a large scale.
Just before we completely destroy ourselves -so that it is shown that we would, he will take control in no uncertain terms -separate those willing to live peacefully and those not -until they are -and he will also give us technology and power we can not yet imagine.
He will also enforce peace initially as it is taught and accepted by the remnant of humanity -who will continue to become immortal in the future -while those already made immortal will govern with him on Earth initially -and then outward into the universe.

You are free to make your own choices, but some things are beyond your control. The choices of some can also supersede those of others. Fortunately, the one with greatest power to supersede -and who is able to manage all things -is necessarily perfect -and has our best interest at heart.

Anyway -future hindsight will be 20/20

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are free to make your own choices, but some things are beyond your control. The choices of some can also supersede those of others. Fortunately, the one with greatest power to supersede is necessarily perfect -and has our best interest at heart.

And those of us not considering the consequences spoke of by religion and god will continue to pave the way forward, sans divine wraith or control.

 

[Etritonakin]

And those of us not considering the consequences spoke of by religion and god will continue to pave the way forward, sans divine wraith or control.

I am not personally "religion" -and actually disagree with much of it -but I definitely get the attitudes against it.

I understand, acknowledge and accept your current position (and that you do not need me to) -and I sincerely hope you do many wonderful things for many!

 

[QuestioningMind]

I’m pretty sure God did not intend for an atom to be split. But we did it and look what happened. Do scientists try to mess with things that shouldn’t be messed with? I mean cloning a human, how do you they figure that can work? In my opinion God is the only One who can create life. I believe in the soul. How can a soul be cloned. I picture a twisted messed mass of cells tissue devoid of a conscience or soul that has no moral compass or sense of right or wrong. Scary...super soldiers? Thoughts?

Nope. IF there is a god then god CLEARLY intended for us to figure out how to split atoms, otherwise he wouldn't have used the splitting of atoms to fuel our sun nor given us the intellectual ability to figure out how the sun is fueled.

 

[gnostic]

Twins are clones.

No, they are not.

 

[gnostic]

Are politicians 'playing God' when they pass laws that make differences in peoples' lives, good or bad? How about educators, are they 'playing God' by instilling new knowledge into the minds of the next generation? A businesses 'playing God' by buying and selling property and ideas?

How about clergies/clerics and following thinking they are following their respective god’s or gods’ will?

 

[gnostic]

We are "co-creators" with God, and this is what the scriptures tell us to do, but only in a beneficial way.

A lot of good that did, when god supposedly gave dominion over the creation to man.

God tried to do a reset with the Flood, but again it did little good.

The questions then become, is god so incompetent that he cannot create anything right and “good”?

 

[Etritonakin]

Actually, we are to be given "glorious" bodies (similar to that which Moses saw the back parts of -but perhaps not confined to one form) with extreme power over even cosmic events -as it says "like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself."

We won't just be understanding such things, we will be interfacing directly with them and ordering the universe! (think powerful external tools as we might employ, but internalized into a body/interface)

The point is not always what should or should not not ever be done (sometimes it very much is!), but that it is done safely, in an orderly manner and with consideration for all other persons and things -unlike the present disorder, conflict and spiral toward destruction even as increasing good is done here and there.

 

[night912]

I’m pretty sure God did not intend for an atom to be split.

Ask yourself if you are playing god. If you are, then you should know the answer to your question.

Here's something to think about. If that was not god's intention, then why make it possible? Why not make it impossible to split atoms.

 

[blü 2]

I’m pretty sure God did not intend for an atom to be split.

Have you any idea how atoms form? Or how radioactive decay works? The universe is full of split and splitting atoms.

But we did it and look what happened.

What happened is that a limit was put on the attack capacities of the world's superpowers because there was no limit in the capacity of the other to retaliate; and in the seventy or so years since WW2, no atomic weapon has been used in anger. (If you're not familiar with JFK's Cuban Crisis, or Stanislav Petrov, they're interesting reading.)

Do scientists try to mess with things that shouldn’t be messed with? I mean cloning a human, how do you they figure that can work?

Potentially, the technology could be very useful. The usefulness of full-grown cloned humans in general is another question, but in considering treatments for human infertility, it may offer one kind of solution.

In my opinion God is the only One who can create life.

Abiogenesis is the name for research regarding how life on earth came into being some 3.5 bn years ago. At present there's no clear description of a path from chemistry to biochemistry to self-reproducing cells, but there's been steady progress in our understanding. You and I may live long enough to see the question answered.

I believe in the soul. How can a soul be cloned. I picture a twisted messed mass of cells tissue devoid of a conscience or soul that has no moral compass or sense of right or wrong. Scary...super soldiers? Thoughts?

Humans, like all other species, have evolved from what all the evidence says was a single start, across the 3.5 bn years or so that I mentioned. We know from studies of cultures around the world, and also from observation of young and very young children, that we've evolved to have a basic set of moral responses, appropriate to our being gregarious mammals. (They're child nurture and protection, dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth / virtue through self-denial.) Also involved in our morality are our mirror neurons, which let us see the world through another's eyes and are the basis of empathy; and our conscience, a sense that some of our moral instincts are not personal to us, but are of universal application (though people's consciences reflect differing values as between individuals, and at different ages and situations with the one person). And finally, our upbringing, culture, education and experience provide us with a whole range of moral values that fill in the gaps, like how to dress, dine, talk to people, encounter strangers, relations between the sexes, weddings, namings and funerals, how to excrete without giving offense ─ and so on.

So I don't presently see any grounds of concern that a successfully and complete clone of a moral person would fail to produce a copy capable of the moral responses of the original.

 

[Milton Platt]

I’m pretty sure God did not intend for an atom to be split. But we did it and look what happened. Do scientists try to mess with things that shouldn’t be messed with? I mean cloning a human, how do you they figure that can work? In my opinion God is the only One who can create life. I believe in the soul. How can a soul be cloned. I picture a twisted messed mass of cells tissue devoid of a conscience or soul that has no moral compass or sense of right or wrong. Scary...super soldiers? Thoughts?

Demonstrate that any god has done anything at all so far.....much less demonstrate that it is the particular version of a god you prefer.

But then there is the issue of you indicating that things happen that are beyond your god's control...he could not stop humans from understanding DNA, or splitting an atom, etc. That is a very limited god.

 

[Deeje]

You like to purposefully confuse the application of knowledge with the means used to acquire that knowledge to condemn a means you do not like based on your ideology.

I'm sorry...what????

You do this all the time. Throw in wild and unsupportable conspiracy theories that amount to manufactured paranoia too. Science is a noble and useful pursuit.

Some of it is....like some religion is.....a lot of it isn't. I support the noble and useful bits....and ignore the conjecture and assumptions substituted for facts.

Because people can use knowledge poorly does not impune the source of that knowledge. Just the people acting poorly. You use knowledge poorly.

I use knowledge to educate people about the fact that science doesn't always present proven facts, they just pretend that they do. In promoting half-baked ideas as scientific facts, scientists use knowledge poorly IMO.
The gullible swallow everything they are told, no matter how far fetched it is.....because it is "science". How is that not the same as putting faith in a 'religion'? You think you are safe with one foot in both camps? All the best with that.

Here is another example of your poor use. We do not know the origin of life. You claim this knowledge galls scientists. How ridiculous and small. It is an intriguing mystery that interests and even thrills scientists. It obviously galls you that anyone would ask questions outside of your doctrine and dogma.

If scientists could just figure out how life just "poofed" itself into existence by "natural" means one day, for no apparent reason, they would be sticking it to creationist like there was no tomorrow. And you think it doesn't gall them?.....but the question is..."what if there is no tomorrow" for those who make God redundant in his own creation? You think he's impressed with people who claim to believe in him, but who disregard everything he said about how we got here? Isn't that calling him a liar?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I'm sorry...what????

Some of it is....like some religion is.....a lot of it isn't. I support the noble and useful bits....and ignore the conjecture and assumptions substituted for facts.



I use knowledge to educate people about the fact that science doesn't always present proven facts, they just pretend that they do. In promoting half-baked ideas as scientific facts, scientists use knowledge poorly IMO.
The gullible swallow everything they are told, no matter how far fetched it is.....because it is "science". How is that not the same as putting faith in a 'religion'? You think you are safe with one foot in both camps? All the best with that.

If scientists could just figure out how life just "poofed" itself into existence by "natural" means one day, for no apparent reason, they would be sticking it to creationist like there was no tomorrow. And you think it doesn't gall them?.....but the question is..."what if there is no tomorrow" for those who make God redundant in his own creation? You think he's impressed with people who claim to believe in him, but who disregard everything he said about how we got here? Isn't that calling him a liar?

Apparently, you haven't noticed that scientists have been 'sticking it to creationist like there was no tomorrow' for decades now...

And really, what if tomorrow scientists 'figure out how life just "poofed" itself into existence by "natural" means'? Demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt...will you accept it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Apparently, you haven't noticed that scientists have been 'sticking it to creationist like there was no tomorrow' for decades now...

And really, what if tomorrow scientists 'figure out how life just "poofed" itself into existence by "natural" means'? Demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt...will you accept it?

They deny carbon dating, so I assume they would make something up for that as well.