129 replies to this topic

[Danail Bulgaria]

Do you know of stem cell technologies, that are actually tried on people? I am interested only if tried on people.

 

I find each stem cells company interesting. What I want to know is how we will get kidneys, lungs, hearts and livers.

[shadowhawk]

Check this site out.

STEM CELLS HURLBUT, WILLIAM - nuroscience Stanford U. Christian Pinker and Hurlbut - What is the Source of Forgiveness? - The Veritas Forum - YouTube Bill Hurlbut's Personal Story of Faith - YouTube Main William B. Hurlbut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia William Hurlbut - The Veritas Forum Lifeboat Foundation Bios: Dr. William B. Hurlbut Wired 13.06: How to Farm Stem Cells Without Losing Your Soul Discovery Institute - Bioethics - Articles/News - William Hurlbut: Building a Bridge Over Troubled Stem Cell Waters Proteomic and phosphoproteomic comparison of human ES and iPS cells : Nature Methods : Nature Publishing Group Scientists: Ethical IPS Cells Work Like Embryonic Ones | LifeNews.com NeoStem | Cell Therapy Development and Manufacturing

[Danail Bulgaria]

Alright, but I don't understand something - from all of your links, where are my lungs and kidneys?

 

From this link:

http://archive.wired.../stemcells.html

 

".... The x-ray shows a teratoma, a naturally occurring tumor that grows from an egg or sperm cell. Like an embryo, a teratoma produces stem cells. But the teratoma does not have the right balance of gene expression to create a fully integrated organism. So it grows into a dense ball of teeth, hair, and skin, a ghastly grab bag of organs like some randomly constructed Frankenstein. Hurlbut points to the x-ray. "They're about the ugliest thing in medicine," he says, "but they might offer us a solution to our stem cell dilemma.".... "

 

So, William Hurlbut (and maybe you) suggest we to induce teratoma tumors in our body, operate them, and try to grow the needed organ from them? Wow. Very clever idea, but with some minor problems. We will have to carry tumors in our bodies, and while the teratoma can have teeth and skin, we will need advanced organ with perfect anatomy, such as kidney lung, liver, heart, can the teratoma make them at all? Plus the teratoma grows random organs and tissues, so it may have, but may have not the needed organ, even if it is possible to build it, so it will be some sort of a lotary - no kidney in your first tumor, please try again. Plus the organ will be made from twisted teratoma cells. Who knows what such cells from such an organ may decide to do, once transplanted back. So far no one transplanted teratoma organs - we don't know if the new organ will decide to make tumors again too soon after the transplantation. Its cells have been some sort of genetically twisted, afterall.

[shadowhawk]

YOUR lungs and kidneys are in YOUR body.  I didn't say stem cells or anything else was finished science,

[Danail Bulgaria]

lol. Alright. But then the cloning of organs via embryonic methods again comes as a superior option.

[shadowhawk]

Only if you dehumanize someone by defining them as less than human.  The science and brute fact is humans change throughout their existence, therefore change can't be the reason to deny humans value and rights.  Killing someone is not a superior option, unless you accept the logic it would be alright to kill you and take your body parts.

[Danail Bulgaria]

Maybe I do - I don't take the cloned zygote as a human (not while it is a zygote yet)

[shadowhawk]

When does it stop being a zygote?  When does it start being human?  When is it alive?  Where does it say you can kill it and what is the difference from any stage of life?  How about killing old people?  Are black people human?  How  about Jews?  When do you get ALL of your genetics?  Are your answers scientific or are you imposing your views on others?

[Danail Bulgaria]

"When does it stop being a zygote?"

Zygote, the single cell stage which occurs after fertilization.

So, when the zygote divides at least once, it stops being a zygote.

 

"When does it start being human?"

Fetus is formed at around the 10th week of pregnancy.

So, before the 2,5 months it is not a human.

 

"When is it alive?"

The zygote is alive from its beginning.

 

"Where does it say you can kill it"

In the abortion rules accepted by the law in many countries.

 

"what is the difference from any stage of life?"

Enormous. Before a fetus, it is not a human yet, doesn't have the desire to live, if it is cloned would not exist anyway.

 

"How about killing old people?"

No They have passed the fetus state, plus their organs are low quality

 

"Are black people human?"

Yes, they are.

 

"How  about Jews?"

The same. Humans.

 

"When do you get ALL of your genetics?"

At the zygote stage. 2,5 months before to become a human

 

"Are your answers scientific or are you imposing your views on others?"

Scientific - token from embryology and gynecology.

Some lurking in internet may give you same results

http://en.wikipedia....pment_(biology)

[shadowhawk]

Well you have defined the human race without one bit of science.  What would you say if someone else with as much science as you defined it differently.  By the way, they do.  It is either human life or anything goes.

[addx]

In my country in-vitro fertilization is limited by law that was created due to constant pressure from the (official catholic) church.

-----

Christian god as all monotheistic gods is extremely jealous , insecure and narcissistic and this is the basis for God vs life extension dilemma.

While it seems that you can find a quote that allows christians to take medicines, the bible is laden with Gods jelaousy as well. From banning any other idols to the relatively famous story of the tower of babel

https://www.biblegat...arch=Genesis 11
 

The Tower of Babel
11 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward,[a] they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.

3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

I was taught this story in catholic school and I knew immediately what it meant. The story seems to tackle the origin of languages but it in fact displays a notion that present throughout the bible - humans should not seek godlike status/abilities - because God is narcissistic and jealous and insecure and will smite them down.

Furthermore, true immortality means you will never arrive at the heavens gate, be judged by st. peter and allowed or denied entrance, and you are thus avoiding gods judgement.

As in the above quote God seems allergic to the notion of human omnipotence and to the notion of humans creating a heaven on earth (which seems to be the goal of this community) - it is logical to assume that God also will not appreciate you avoiding or indefinitely postponing his final judgement.

Edited by addx, 13 March 2015 - 03:26 PM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

Hello, @addx !

 

Welcome in the conversation!

 

The idea, that we may have the paradise build in the material world, thanks to the science and the technology, sounds really nice.

 

However, the main goal of the majority people here, I suppose is to be immortal, or to be centenarians or super-centenarians.

 

 

[shadowhawk]

The subject is whether God is against life extension and from a Christian point of view, the answer is a resounding NO.  That does not mean ethics are not an issue when it comes to harvesting others body parts so someone else lives or dies.  It may come as a surprise to some but medical procedures carry with then ethical issues.  Most Christians for example, are pro life when it comes to abortion. But I don't want to get off topic.  A final point on the Catholic Church, of which I am not a member.  No one has done more to promote life than the Roman Church, no one.  The bigots do not own the life issue.

[shadowhawk]

Hello, @addx !

 

Welcome in the conversation!

 

The idea, that we may have the paradise build in the material world, thanks to the science and the technology, sounds really nice.

 

However, the main goal of the majority people here, I suppose is to be immortal, or to be centenarians or super-centenarians.

Being supercentarian is a long, long way from immortality.  Science and technology may kill us without ethics.

[Danail Bulgaria]

And let me guess... religion will make us prosper. As the humanity prospered in the dark ages, when it was robbed and starved from the church in such a scale, that no one managed to repeat after that.

[shadowhawk]

Well it is off topic but the middle ages was brought about by the fall of Rome and invasion by numerous pagan tribes.  Everything was in crises and the Church did not cause this.  In fact they preserved most of the Greek and Roman learning amd saved Europe from total destruction.  But this is off topic.  Again God is NOT against life extension.

[addx]

Hello, @addx !

 

Welcome in the conversation!

 

The idea, that we may have the paradise build in the material world, thanks to the science and the technology, sounds really nice.

 

However, the main goal of the majority people here, I suppose is to be immortal, or to be centenarians or super-centenarians.

 

I've been in some threads where various bubble communities are discussed and also consciousness uploading as a means of almost indefinite immortality.

 

Anyway, immortality simply is godlike and also delays Gods judgement so desiring it can hardly be compatible with christian values. Making children and taking care of them and making the world a better place for them. Not keeping the world for yourself forever.

 

I'm sorry if this sounds a bit nasty, but the western world has shifted and relaxed its understanding of the bible whenever it was so convenient. Christianity has mainly been reduced to something nice to say about yourself, get classified, belong to some popular label, nothing else. Secular states allow much more than the bible and so christian shephards were simpy forced to skew christianity to keep their flock, but it's all more of an illusion now than anything meaningful. Christians of today are so far from living by the book they can't even understand Islam anymore while in fact Islam is essentially a copy of it. As if humans couldn't survive if they followed sex/marriage rules from the bible? And as if this would make the civilisation worse and as if sex before marriage makes it great. It's just more convenient or hedonistic. And it seems the limits of christianity are simply being stretched even further, by somehow explaining that immortality is something that is ok for a christian to aspire towards.

 

I have no problem with people desiring immortality, I'm an atheist (catholic school never impressed me) and furthermore everyone is his own person, but why is it important to skew christianity even more to fit this in? Why not simply "unsubscribe" from christianity since aspiring to immortality literally means doing anything possible to postpone your visit to God indefinitely? I mean, desiring immortality and considering yourself a true christian is like when Miley Cyrus says she's feminist. I don't get this.

Edited by addx, 13 March 2015 - 10:48 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Well, since the above is off topic but makes the false claim Christians no longer care, this is nonsense.  They do care about life extension.  How many tines to we have to say it.  No other group has through hospitals, orphanages and Charity done more.  Are you going to live indefinitely?  Well that is another question.  Will we be writing on a blog like this one hundred years from now?  Christians are not against it.

[addx]

When does it stop being a zygote?  When does it start being human?  When is it alive?  Where does it say you can kill it and what is the difference from any stage of life?  How about killing old people?  Are black people human?  How  about Jews?  When do you get ALL of your genetics?  Are your answers scientific or are you imposing your views on others?

 

Here's some catholic science for you. 

 

When doing in-vitro pregnancy the female is first exposed to some hormones (I think) that make her eject a bunch off eggs from her ovaries. Women have a limited number of these after which they're basicly infertile. They lose them each months as their periods go. So, they're scarce. The hormones make the woman eject 10 or even 15 eggs. The eggs are stored and later fertilized with male semen and implanted.

 

And in comes the catholic church with their pressure forcing the government to pass a law that regulates in-vitro pregnancies, stem cell research and all related things. Embedded in this law is a ridiculous rule that only 3 eggs per female can be stored. Since the female ejects 10 to 15 eggs, 3 are stored and used for fertilization and the rest are discarded as biological waste by law!!! The female has a limited amount of them, the procedure is repeated if the pregnancy fails to start and if she's close to her menopause this is literally obliterating her egg supply! I have a friend at work that has been plagued by this exact situation. I can't begin to explain how horrible that is for him and his wife to lose their chances for children to the catholic church absurd conservatism. 

 

This law was passed relatively recently, maybe 6-7 years ago, it's not some remnant from the dark ages but a direct result of catholic church activism, the church pushed it to be even more rigorous.

Edited by addx, 13 March 2015 - 11:05 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Of course this has nothing to do with your friends not having Babies because of the Church,  The church is interested in not creating throw away babies because they value life.  Since I am not a Catholic I suggest this is a question for http://forums.catholic.com/

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 13 March 2015 - 11:21 PM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

@shafowhawk, your theory contradicts the practice, and it is full of religious propaganda.

 

The church is for immortality, as long as you define immortality as "die and your soul will be immortal in the paradise".

 

The church is for having children, and this is why they stumble upon the in-vitro fertilisation.

 

Stopping the development of the medical sciences during the dark ages is absolutely off-topic in terms of immortality. And ofcourse the church didn't stop anything during the dark ages - it only killed the most progressive scientists, banned the development of the human anatomy, and postulated, that the Earth is flat.

 

Each big new biological or medical development, that can make us immortal is extremely unethical. The latest example - the embryonic stem cells and the therapeutic cloning.

[smccomas01]

Sigh.... There is a book it is called "The Cure in the Code: How 20th Century Law is Undermining 21st Century Medicine." I have not read this yet however it looks interesting I put it on my list.

 

I am going to copy and paste from an encyclopedia I think of this every time some one writes the "Dark Ages" "Most modern historians dismiss the notion that the era was a "Dark Age" by pointing out that this idea was based on ignorance of the period"

 

Were there some screwed up things in that time period sure there were also some good things that came out of it, also what a person focuses on is going to come down to there bias not the totality of the time period. You show me a witch being burnt at the stake, I will show you a gay man being chucked off a building. Show me a priest proclaiming the earth is flat and those that disagree heretic, I will show you a bunch of black men being infected with syphilis and being made to suffer in the name of science.

 

On topic lets assume for arguments sake that there is a God and God is all powerful all knowing etc. If that is the case AND this God was against longevity (all powerful all knowing) then there would not be life extensions.

 

The real impediment to life extensions and quality of life is 1 regulations and 2 cost and 3 people the church has nothing to do with those things. What would be a HUGE life extension for some of the people in Africa, fucking food.       

[Danail Bulgaria]

Yup. If God exists, then He is not against the biological immortality. He only kicked out Adam and Eva from the paradise, where they have lived immortal, and have sent them to live on the bad material world, where to get old and to die.

 

To show you burned witches? May I show you over 1000 years of stopped progress of the humanity?

[smccomas01]

Stopped progress serious dude read a book? "  While institutions providing some form of medical treatment existed in ancient Greece and Rome, neither of these cultures organized community care for the sick, poor, and needy (3). A radical change occurred in the late Antiquity, with the rise of Christianity, which embraced charity as one of its basic doctrines"

 

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2359880/

 

Adam and Eve well, Felix Culpa.  

[addx]

Stopped progress serious dude read a book? "  While institutions providing some form of medical treatment existed in ancient Greece and Rome, neither of these cultures organized community care for the sick, poor, and needy ([/size]3). A radical change occurred in the late Antiquity, with the rise of Christianity, which embraced charity as one of its basic doctrines"[/size]
 
Source: [/size]http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2359880/
 
Adam and Eve well, Felix Culpa.  

Cite it some more
 

The first hospitals were founded when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire

Quite possibly arbitrary simultaneity
 

Hospital tradition in Byzantium continued into the Middle Ages, but the West experienced a centuries-long break.

Explaining away the arbitrary simultaneity above as purely accidental - romans built the hospitals, not the church. Rome fell apart, hospitals were lost.
 

People can organize hospitals without religion:
 

In Dubrovnik, the local aristocracy firmly held power in their hands (10). Local confraternities were supervised and subjected to restrictive regulations, and the relationship with the Church was frequently strained. In this context, the commune and rich aristocrats were the chief founders and administrators of hospitals....

In 1432, the city established an orphanage in the immediate proximity of the main street, Stradun. The window of the orphanage was equipped with a stone turntable (ruota), where unwed mothers could place the unwanted child, ring the bell, and disappear into anonymity of the night.

I've been in dubrovnik many times and have seen that orphanage mentioned above. As I was taught it was the first orphanage ever built.



In short. You can't judge church actions so easily. You always have to take into account the position it occupied. The tax it levied and the authority it had - it had to produce something from all that to justify itself. You always have to compare how would some other organization or idea play out from the same position. And then you know if the church stalled progress or helped it. IMO it stalled progress. For god sakes, common folk were actively held illiterate, priesthood lied about what the bible says to common folk and so on, how is that progress? And eventually the church may have opened up a school, but what about the centuries of keeping people ignorant and taxed? How is that not stalling?

Edited by addx, 14 March 2015 - 01:32 PM.

[smccomas01]

addx you make some good points. A lot of bad things (has and is still) being done in the name of religion that is a fact. Also a lot of good things (has and is still) being done in the name of religion dont discount that.

 

The taxes and the levies well there is a reason for the separation of church and state.     

[shadowhawk]

@shafowhawk, your theory contradicts the practice, and it is full of religious propaganda.

 

The church is for immortality, as long as you define immortality as "die and your soul will be immortal in the paradise".

 

The church is for having children, and this is why they stumble upon the in-vitro fertilisation.

 

Stopping the development of the medical sciences during the dark ages is absolutely off-topic in terms of immortality. And ofcourse the church didn't stop anything during the dark ages - it only killed the most progressive scientists, banned the development of the human anatomy, and postulated, that the Earth is flat.

 

Each big new biological or medical development, that can make us immortal is extremely unethical. The latest example - the embryonic stem cells and the therapeutic cloning.

There are many reasons for rejecting immortality which have nothing to do with religion.  The church is for life and have promoted it in ways which do not involve destroying life.  No other group has as many hospitals, schools, orphanages, charities, and other pro life efforts as the Christian Church.  It isn't even close.  Some medical procedures have ethical problems which you seem not to want to address.  Instead, you choose to call names and misrepresent Christianity.  And you don't have a  clue about the dark ages.  Christians have been foundation leaders in almost every field of science.

 

[shadowhawk]

Yup. If God exists, then He is not against the biological immortality. He only kicked out Adam and Eva from the paradise, where they have lived immortal, and have sent them to live on the bad material world, where to get old and to die.

 

To show you burned witches? May I show you over 1000 years of stopped progress of the humanity?

You don't have a clue of the witch trials.  The Church did not burn witches, many of whom were not witches.  States which were less Christian burned the most witches.  I have studied this a great deal.  As for ADAM and EVE that is a subject beside this one very complicated and deep.  I suggest William Lane Creig's Defenders study on Genesis.   

[shadowhawk]

This information is not new or little known.  Christians no only did not stop science and learning but were at the forefront of it.  This will get you started.

http://en.wikipedia....kers_in_science
http://en.wikipedia....ientist-clerics
http://en.wikipedia....nd_philosophers
http://en.wikipedia...._Modern_Science
http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/0520056922

[Danail Bulgaria]

There are many reasons for rejecting immortality which have nothing to do with religion.  The church is for life and have promoted it in ways which do not involve destroying life.  No other group has as many hospitals, schools, orphanages, charities, and other pro life efforts as the Christian Church.  It isn't even close.  Some medical procedures have ethical problems which you seem not to want to address.  Instead, you choose to call names and misrepresent Christianity.  And you don't have a  clue about the dark ages.  Christians have been foundation leaders in almost every field of science.

 

 

Yes, there are many reasons for rejecting immortality, which have nothing to do with religion, and there are such, which has something to do with the religion.
 

The church is for life, as long as it doesn't mean biological immortality.

 

Your ethical problems are not ethical problems at all.

 

I have no clue about the dark ages, but I suppose, you will enlighten me with some more propaganda about how nice the life in the dark ages was thanks to the church, and how fast the scientific progress went forward thanks to the church during the dark times.

 

 

You don't have a clue of the witch trials.  The Church did not burn witches, many of whom were not witches.  States which were less Christian burned the most witches.  I have studied this a great deal.  As for ADAM and EVE that is a subject beside this one very complicated and deep.  I suggest William Lane Creig's Defenders study on Genesis.   

 

 

This information is not new or little known.  Christians no only did not stop science and learning but were at the forefront of it.  This will get you started.

http://en.wikipedia....kers_in_science
http://en.wikipedia....ientist-clerics
http://en.wikipedia....nd_philosophers
http://en.wikipedia...._Modern_Science
http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/0520056922

 

Thank you, but religious propaganda has a little effect to me. Read this crap yourself.