Are Scientists playing God?

[Deeje]

Wow! Do you really understand so very little of what nuclear energy and nuclear medicine have given us?

So you think that the risk justifies the exposure?

"How much radiation is safe?
Difficult to answer
•Exposure to high levels of ionizing radiation can lead to unwanted health effects, including cancer.
•There is no direct evidence that the ionizing radiation routinely used in nuclear medicine and radiology leads to such effects.
•It is considered prudent for public safety to assume that every exposure to ionizing radiation, no matter how small, carries some small risk of unwanted health effects, including cancer.

Average annual exposure living in the UnitedStates :3 mSv/year
Annual dose limit for radiation workers in U.S: 50 mSv/year

Abdominal CT scan : 8 mSv
F-18 FDG PET/CT study14 mSv
Cancer treatment: 50,000 mSv"

Does 50,000 mSv sound like a safe does to you? If radiation causes cancer, why are they treating cancer with radiation? Does that make any sense?

"What about nuclear medicine therapy?
•Patients receive higher amounts of radiopharmaceuticals for nuclear medicine therapy.
•These patients might have to stay in the hospital overnight or otherwise take precautions in order to keep the radiation dose to family members at a reasonable level
.•These precautions might include minimizing time spent with small children and using a separate bedroom or bathroom."

http://snmmi.files.cms-plus.com/Fahey_PAAB_Risk_May2012_final.pdf

So if a patient is treated with radiation they can contaminate family members as well as a bedroom or bathroom?

What about the success rates?
Any research you do with regard to cancer survival rates are not about "cures" but about "surviving" a certain number of years after diagnosis. Once a person has been diagnosed, the threat is always hanging over their head that it might come back. Long term cancer survivors are usually those who have changed their diet and exercise regime. Since most cancers are preventable (environmental and lifestyle factors are large contributing factors) it makes more sense to try and prevent it than to "treat" it once it has been established. But what are governments doing to help people to life healthier lives? Very little. Everything that supports life on this planet is polluted.....and we did this to ourselves with a good deal of help from science.

And have you forgotten that the deaths at Nagasaki and Hiroshima are small potatoes compared to the overall numbers killed in our various wars by more "traditional" means? (about 220,000 compared to 75 million!)

Sorry, but what has that got to do with the discussion? If you want to talk about all the ways humans have destroyed life on this planet, then that is a whole other thread.

And do you suppose that none of our other technologies have not caused accidental death on large enough scales? Have none of our dams ever burst, buildings collapsed?Have we never poisoned our waterways with our waste?

Again....start a thread on this too....Humans are very inventive about the way they can kill one another.

Try a little perspective.

My perspective is just fine....I am just not wearing the rose colored glasses that the 'Blind Freddy's' seem to have on.

 

[Shad]

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

Splitting of atoms occurs naturally as per radiation, alpha emissions and atomic decay. This has existed for billions of years. You are conflating chain cascades created on purpose for mass energy release as per weapons with all splitting of atoms. We use the natural splitting of atoms in nuclear reactors while avoiding chain cascades weapons require. If God didn't intent this to happen it would be impossible.

I mean cloning a human, how do you they figure that can work?

Cloning is a form of reproduction just not for humans. Cloning a human is artificial but based on natural cloning. For humans we would just repeat the same methods used for the sheep Dolly.

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

Cloning is not the same type of "creating life" as the type attributed to God. We are using existing material; DNA. We are not creating it from nothing as per creation ex nihilo

I believe in the soul. How can a soul be cloned.

Prove a soul exists before asking this question.

 

[Deeje]

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

Not in that one important area that they are so quick to divorce themselves from....abiogenesis.The "sticking it to creationists" as far as evolution goes, is like pointing to an elaborate building and admiring the architecture, but not noticing that it has matchsticks for foundations. Would you risk your life in a building like that? Not me.

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?

Equally.....what if God showed up tomorrow and asked what kind of morons would assume that all that exists in the universe is just a monumental accident?

What does "natural" mean in that context...? Please explain.

 

[McBell]

Not in that one important area that they are so quick to divorce themselves from....abiogenesis.The "sticking it to creationists" as far as evolution goes, is like pointing to an elaborate building and admiring the architecture, but not noticing that it has matchsticks for foundations. Would you risk your life in a building like that? Not me.

But you do...

And scientists have not "divorced" themselves from abiogenesis.
Nor have they been "sticking it to creationists".
Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
However, that fact has not stopped, or even slowed down, the creationist ploy of conflating the two.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Stop pretending innocence. No one is fooled. Except you apparently.

Science is a means to acquire knowledge. Technology is the application of knowledge. You talk about the latter all the time and blame the use of it in scientists.

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.

You ignore most of it, since you probably do not understand it. But ignorantly and willfully deny valid science that contradicts your religious doctrine. You falsely label that science as conjecture. You are a primary anti-intellectual on here. Do you not remember your conclusion that it ok to expose children to diseases that could kill them or render them brain damaged. Yes. Your safe alternative to technology and science.

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.

You use church doctrine, conspiracy theories, religious persecution, and ignorance to preach against what you do not understsnd, conflicts with your beliefs or makes feel personally uncomfortable.

You use insults instead of evidence for your arguments. See above for another fine example of your "knowlege". LOL!

Your arguments are emotional with little fact and more than a pinch of hatred.

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?

It doesn't gall scientists. Scientific inquiry on the subject clearly galls you.

If the origin of life were determined by scientists, you would just rant in denial, galled at such a thing.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

t is considered prudent for public safety to assume that every exposure to ionizing radiation, no matter how small, carries some small risk of unwanted health effects, including cancer.

EVERY medical procedure and treatment inherently comes with risks. Now, would you rather take these risks and have a fighting against cancer or do nothing? Advanced medical screening to diagnose a tumor early, or just wait until you discover the cancer after it's metastasized?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So you think that the risk justifies the exposure?

"How much radiation is safe?
Difficult to answer
•Exposure to high levels of ionizing radiation can lead to unwanted health effects, including cancer.
•There is no direct evidence that the ionizing radiation routinely used in nuclear medicine and radiology leads to such effects.
•It is considered prudent for public safety to assume that every exposure to ionizing radiation, no matter how small, carries some small risk of unwanted health effects, including cancer.

Average annual exposure living in the UnitedStates :3 mSv/year
Annual dose limit for radiation workers in U.S: 50 mSv/year

Abdominal CT scan : 8 mSv
F-18 FDG PET/CT study14 mSv
Cancer treatment: 50,000 mSv"

Does 50,000 mSv sound like a safe does to you? If radiation causes cancer, why are they treating cancer with radiation? Does that make any sense?

"What about nuclear medicine therapy?
•Patients receive higher amounts of radiopharmaceuticals for nuclear medicine therapy.
•These patients might have to stay in the hospital overnight or otherwise take precautions in order to keep the radiation dose to family members at a reasonable level
.•These precautions might include minimizing time spent with small children and using a separate bedroom or bathroom."

http://snmmi.files.cms-plus.com/Fahey_PAAB_Risk_May2012_final.pdf

So if a patient is treated with radiation they can contaminate family members as well as a bedroom or bathroom?

What about the success rates?
Any research you do with regard to cancer survival rates are not about "cures" but about "surviving" a certain number of years after diagnosis. Once a person has been diagnosed, the threat is always hanging over their head that it might come back. Long term cancer survivors are usually those who have changed their diet and exercise regime. Since most cancers are preventable (environmental and lifestyle factors are large contributing factors) it makes more sense to try and prevent it than to "treat" it once it has been established. But what are governments doing to help people to life healthier lives? Very little. Everything that supports life on this planet is polluted.....and we did this to ourselves with a good deal of help from science.



Sorry, but what has that got to do with the discussion? If you want to talk about all the ways humans have destroyed life on this planet, then that is a whole other thread.



Again....start a thread on this too....Humans are very inventive about the way they can kill one another.



My perspective is just fine....I am just not wearing the rose colored glasses that the 'Blind Freddy's' seem to have on.

For you, it appears a blindfold beneath a fully blackedout face shield is a sufficient substitute for rose-colored glasses.

Thanks, for the vote of imaginative on my last post. Observation of the facts isn't imaginative, but spot on. Thanks anyway though.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So you think that the risk justifies the exposure?

"How much radiation is safe?
Difficult to answer
•Exposure to high levels of ionizing radiation can lead to unwanted health effects, including cancer.
•There is no direct evidence that the ionizing radiation routinely used in nuclear medicine and radiology leads to such effects.
•It is considered prudent for public safety to assume that every exposure to ionizing radiation, no matter how small, carries some small risk of unwanted health effects, including cancer.

Average annual exposure living in the UnitedStates :3 mSv/year
Annual dose limit for radiation workers in U.S: 50 mSv/year

Abdominal CT scan : 8 mSv
F-18 FDG PET/CT study14 mSv
Cancer treatment: 50,000 mSv"

Does 50,000 mSv sound like a safe does to you? If radiation causes cancer, why are they treating cancer with radiation? Does that make any sense?

"What about nuclear medicine therapy?
•Patients receive higher amounts of radiopharmaceuticals for nuclear medicine therapy.
•These patients might have to stay in the hospital overnight or otherwise take precautions in order to keep the radiation dose to family members at a reasonable level
.•These precautions might include minimizing time spent with small children and using a separate bedroom or bathroom."

http://snmmi.files.cms-plus.com/Fahey_PAAB_Risk_May2012_final.pdf

So if a patient is treated with radiation they can contaminate family members as well as a bedroom or bathroom?

What about the success rates?
Any research you do with regard to cancer survival rates are not about "cures" but about "surviving" a certain number of years after diagnosis. Once a person has been diagnosed, the threat is always hanging over their head that it might come back. Long term cancer survivors are usually those who have changed their diet and exercise regime. Since most cancers are preventable (environmental and lifestyle factors are large contributing factors) it makes more sense to try and prevent it than to "treat" it once it has been established. But what are governments doing to help people to life healthier lives? Very little. Everything that supports life on this planet is polluted.....and we did this to ourselves with a good deal of help from science.



Sorry, but what has that got to do with the discussion? If you want to talk about all the ways humans have destroyed life on this planet, then that is a whole other thread.



Again....start a thread on this too....Humans are very inventive about the way they can kill one another.



My perspective is just fine....I am just not wearing the rose colored glasses that the 'Blind Freddy's' seem to have on.

The take away message here it is better to risk pain, suffering, and death from cancer than to do anything about it. Those horrible scientists and their many conspiracies. Medicine is the devil!

 

[Deeje]

EVERY medical procedure and treatment inherently comes with risks. Now, would you rather take these risks and have a fighting against cancer or do nothing? Advanced medical screening to diagnose a tumor early, or just wait until you discover the cancer after it's metastasized?

I actually have other means of diagnosis that do not require invasive, painful or expensive tests.....and the natural approach addresses the problem of a sick immune system, which is why people succumb to illness in the first place. Fix up the immune system and the body heals itself, like it was designed to. Give people chemo or radiation, and you kill what little is left of their immune system and the vast majority of cancer patients die anyway...but not until after the medical system has fleeced them of their hard earned money, whilst forcing them to suffer the most disgustingly awful ‘therapy’.

Medicine today is about “pharmacology”....an expensive pill or a handful of them for everything, and people have been subjected to this form of “medicine” for decades and wondering why they are still sick, in spite of all the pills they take (side effects making them ever sicker in a lot of cases.) And why, in this advanced age of science and technology, there is still no cure for cancer. The “treatment” has basically remained unchanged for decades. Feed a sick body poison and expect them to recover....and then wonder why the vast majority don’t.

Could it be that there has been a cure for cancer all this time and it was kept from those who needed it? Would you know?

Don’t underestimate the greed that drives everything in this world. It’s the big boys at the top. I believe it will all come out sooner or later....God has promised to lift the lid....wait and see....it’s already happening.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I actually have other means of diagnosis that do not require invasive, painful or expensive tests.....and the natural approach addresses the problem of a sick immune system, which is why people succumb to illness in the first place. Fix up the immune system and the body heals itself, like it was designed to. Give people chemo or radiation, and you kill what little is left of their immune system and the vast majority of cancer patients die anyway...but not until after the medical system has fleeced them of their hard earned money, whilst forcing them to suffer the most disgustingly awful ‘therapy’.

Medicine today is about “pharmacology”....an expensive pill or a handful of them for everything, and people have been subjected to this form of “medicine” for decades and wondering why they are still sick, in spite of all the pills they take (side effects making them ever sicker in a lot of cases.) And why, in this advanced age of science and technology, there is still no cure for cancer. The “treatment” has basically remained unchanged for decades. Feed a sick body poison and expect them to recover....and then wonder why the vast majority don’t.

Could it be that there has been a cure for cancer all this time and it was kept from those who needed it? Would you know?

Don’t underestimate the greed that drives everything in this world. It’s the big boys at the top. I believe it will all come out sooner or later....God has promised to lift the lid....wait and see....it’s already happening.

What is the success rate for your diagnoses using forked sticks and goofer dust?

Do people you diagnose realize you are not trained in medicine and have no clue what you are doing?o

Medicine is the devil!

 

[Deeje]

And scientists have not "divorced" themselves from abiogenesis.
Nor have they been "sticking it to creationists".

You mean you’ve never seen Dickie Dawkins strutting around a stage like King Farouk, “sticking it to creationists”? Where have you been?

Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
However, that fact has not stopped, or even slowed down, the creationist ploy of conflating the two.

The fact is, that one explains the other, removing all doubts about the whole process. How are they not related?

What is the point of concentrating on how things changed, if you know how they got there in the first place?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I actually have other means of diagnosis that do not require invasive, painful or expensive tests.....and the natural approach addresses the problem of a sick immune system, which is why people succumb to illness in the first place. Fix up the immune system and the body heals itself, like it was designed to. Give people chemo or radiation, and you kill what little is left of their immune system and the vast majority of cancer patients die anyway...but not until after the medical system has fleeced them of their hard earned money, whilst forcing them to suffer the most disgustingly awful ‘therapy’.

Medicine today is about “pharmacology”....an expensive pill or a handful of them for everything, and people have been subjected to this form of “medicine” for decades and wondering why they are still sick, in spite of all the pills they take (side effects making them ever sicker in a lot of cases.) And why, in this advanced age of science and technology, there is still no cure for cancer. The “treatment” has basically remained unchanged for decades. Feed a sick body poison and expect them to recover....and then wonder why the vast majority don’t.

Could it be that there has been a cure for cancer all this time and it was kept from those who needed it? Would you know?

Don’t underestimate the greed that drives everything in this world. It’s the big boys at the top. I believe it will all come out sooner or later....God has promised to lift the lid....wait and see....it’s already happening.

Do you ever apply logic, facts, reason or evidence in your approach or just the stuff you make up and declare as universal truth?

People that have tried alternative methods have suffered and died. So much for your hocus pocus.

 

[Deeje]

What is the success rate for your diagnoses using forked sticks and goofer dust?

I don’t recall my natural therapist using any of that.

Do people you diagnose realize you are not trained in medicine and have no clue what you are doing?o

Medicine is the devil!

LOL. Settle down mate, you’ll give yourself a coronary.....

“Medicine” has lost its definition over many decades of medical school training. Drugs are the answer to everything....aren’t they?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What is the success rate for your diagnoses using forked sticks and goofer dust?

Do people you diagnose realize you are not trained in medicine and have no clue what you are doing?

Medicine is the devil!

Thanks again for the vote of imaginative @Deeje.

 

[Deeje]

Do you ever apply logic, facts, reason or evidence in your approach or just the stuff you make up and declare as universal truth?

People that have tried alternative methods have suffered and died. So much for your hocus pocus.

Would it unsettle you to know that alternative therapies have a better success rate, and have rescued people that the medical profession had given up on? They were told to go home and get their affairs in order. They visited clinics in Mexico or Europe and lived to tell their story.

My cousin would not listen to anyone but her oncologist who put her through so many rounds of chemo-therapy that he said himself that he had to stop it because it was killing her.

She died looking like a refugee from a Nazi concentration camp.
It’s a hard thing to watch. Her last months were spent with her head in a bucket. Would I ever invite that on myself....no thanks.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You mean you’ve never seen Dickie Dawkins strutting around a stage like King Farouk, “sticking it to creationists”? Where have you been?



The fact is, that one explains the other, removing all doubts about the whole process. How are they not related?

What is the point of concentrating on how things changed, if you know how they got there in the first place?

Evolution does not explain abiogenesis. All the evidence indicates that evolution would occur as it has if life formed naturally or by divine act.

Now eventually you might have facts on your, on your fact tour, right? Hello? Yes?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Would it unsettle you to know that alternative therapies have a better success rate, and have rescued people that the medical profession had given up on? They were told to go home and get their affairs in order. They visited clinics in Mexico or Europe and lived to tell their story.

My cousin would not listen to anyone but her oncologist who put her through so many rounds of chemo-therapy that he said himself that he had to stop it because it was killing her.

She died looking like a refugee from a Nazi concentration camp.
It’s a hard thing to watch. Her last months were spent with her head in a bucket. Would I ever invite that on myself....no thanks.

It would not unsettle me, since it is not a fact.

What unsettles me is someone like you that assigns themselves authority without benefit of having earned it. Then goes to work publically acting as if they have it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Would it unsettle you to know that alternative therapies have a better success rate, and have rescued people that the medical profession had given up on? They were told to go home and get their affairs in order. They visited clinics in Mexico or Europe and lived to tell their story.

My cousin would not listen to anyone but her oncologist who put her through so many rounds of chemo-therapy that he said himself that he had to stop it because it was killing her.

She died looking like a refugee from a Nazi concentration camp.
It’s a hard thing to watch. Her last months were spent with her head in a bucket. Would I ever invite that on myself....no thanks.

I have an aunt that was successfully treated for breast cancer years ago. She is alive and recently celebrated her 83rd birthday. My mother was diagnosed with uterine cancer in the early 1970's, was treated and lived to be 78, cancer free. i worked with a childhood cancer survivor that is alive today. All were recipients of that devil, modern medicine. Your emotional arguments appeal to the ignorant, but are unencumbered of the facts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don’t recall my natural therapist using any of that.



LOL. Settle down mate, you’ll give yourself a coronary.....

“Medicine” has lost its definition over many decades of medical school training. Drugs are the answer to everything....aren’t they?

When you have no argument, try to paint your opponent as falsely agitated or out of control. Your usual set of tricks as alternative medicine for the truth.

Facts gall you don't they.

 

[dfnj]

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?

The problem with people who worship science is their indifference to morality. Being rational means what is moral and what is immoral is the same and there is no compass. It is completely irrational to hold the belief people and people's lives are sacred. For someone who worships science above all else the word "sacred" has no meaning. For the people who worship science all we are and everything in the Universe is just patterns of energy swirling about according to the laws of physics where no one pattern of energy is more meaningful than any other.

People of science not only deny we have no soul, they deny we have consciousness at all. Most of the devout's believe we have no consciousness and our thoughts are just side effects of brain activity which can be cloned.

It's funny, for years I've heard atheists and people who worship science claim you don't need to have religion to be moral. This may be true, however, without the irrational thoughts of religion there's no moral compass or agreement on what is more valuable above everything else. The moment this World has nuclear war will be the day I will say, "see, all the scientists are immoral a holes for creating such terrible weapons in the first place by having no devotion to people being sacred above all else."

It's completely irrational to believe in the golden rule. It is completely irrational to think the people around you are sacred and should be treated like they way you would carry a priceless piece of art across the room. The purpose of religion is to tell us how to properly live our lives. Science has no purpose other than make sure your methods of inquiry cannot be criticized. Science doesn't care how it's used whether it is for "good" or for "evil". All science cares about is having good methods of scientific inquiry.

Scientists do not play God. in our society, given the power and threat of weapons of mass destruction, scientists ARE God!