On the other hand if this research is extended to humans, this website will lose some potency.
It won't lose potency. It will just have to change it's address to whywontgodhealamputeeswithoutmakingscientistsdoallthelegwork.com
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
i'm totally reserving that name.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:On the other hand if this research is extended to humans, this website will lose some potency.
God is going to start healing amputees once science figures out how to do it?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Aw, rats.
I've got an almost-finished science fiction short dealing with this particular issue, but it's set in the far future. Looks like this is going to become a possibility fairly soon.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:On the other hand if this research is extended to humans, this website will lose some potency.
God is going to start healing amputees once science figures out how to do it?
One could argue that God is working through the scientists, a line of argument not available when no amputees regrow limbs.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How else do you think God works? One of my favourite hymns has the line, "God has no hands but ours".
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How else do you think God works?
According to many Christians (and non-Christian theists), through miracles.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, sure miracles. What I said doesn't contradict that. Unless by "miracles" you mean something supernatural?
Edit: those other Christians can explain what they believe. I am not arguing for them.
[ March 18, 2010, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: On the other hand...
Pun intended?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't know why God would limit Himself to just miracles or science; or angel's hands or human hands.
There's plenty of room in the universe for them all.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I love the theory of the God who does nothing. That's a kind of theism I can get behind, one where God is completely invisible, unknowable, and only "interacts" with us in ways that would work exactly the same without a postulated God.
I call my not-doing-anything God Jerry, and imagine that he has a mohawk and wears a leather jacket with the sleeves torn off, but he rides a Vespa.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Well, sure miracles. What I said doesn't contradict that. Unless by "miracles" you mean something supernatural?
Whenever I use the word 'miracle', I only mean something supernatural. Used otherwise, in my opinion, the word loses all meaning.
quote: Edit: those other Christians can explain what they believe. I am not arguing for them.
Then you might want to phrase your statements as "The God I happen to personally believe in."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Then you might want to phrase your statements as "The God I happen to personally believe in."
I think that's implied.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think it's frustrating that when people accomplish something that we should all be celebrating, we instead have to deal with people saying in essence, "Where's your god now?" or "Science solves all our problems, God is just one of those problems!"
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Then you might want to phrase your statements as "The God I happen to personally believe in."
I think that's implied.
Not when the argument seems to be that the one and only true God does not operate the way we're implying, so we should end our argument. Except, of course, for the existence of tons of people who do think that God operates that way. Which are the people to which this argument is aimed at.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If you only want to argue with some people, you might want to make that clear at the beginning.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think it's frustrating that when people accomplish something that we should all be celebrating, we instead have to deal with people saying in essence, "Where's your god now?" or "Science solves all our problems, God is just one of those problems!"
Agreed. I hate that -- even though KoM has been behaving very well of late -- several of the local militant atheists have taken to making all threads about God and/or religion.
This is really cool! Why can't we talk about that?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If you only want to argue with some people, you might want to make that clear at the beginning.
If an argument isn't being made against your particular beliefs, why do you respond to it as if it is being addressed specifically and only to you?
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
:ignoring religion talk: I assume the genes of these mice were manipulated when the mice were embryos. Honest question: How can this be connected (no pun intended, but maybe it should be?) to regrowing limbs on current, genetically unaltered amputees?
I'm seeing shades of "Treason" here, FWIW.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Reader: :ignoring religion talk: I assume the genes of these mice were manipulated when the mice were embryos. Honest question: How can this be connected (no pun intended, but maybe it should be?) to regrowing limbs on current, genetically unaltered amputees?
The MRL mice are naturally healers, no manipulation necessary. The knockouts were manipulated to being p21 deficient, and they show nearly the exact same phenotype. Which is that when you punch a hole in the mouse ear, it closes up very quickly. Which makes sense, since p21 is a cell cycle checkpoint, so if it's broken, cells move more quickly through the statges of mitosis.
No limbs were regrown.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think it's frustrating that when people accomplish something that we should all be celebrating, we instead have to deal with people saying in essence, "Where's your god now?" or "Science solves all our problems, God is just one of those problems!"
I normally don't do this, but...it's just as frustrating when through the hard work of many scientists something like this is accomplished and someone attributes it to god, or uses it as proof that god cares about all of us. But I agree, this thread shouldn't be a religious conversation!
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
If God has no hands but ours what makes him/her/it a God? If we're doing all the work, then why does there have to be a supernatural force pulling the strings?
To quote Jim Gaffagan, "I don't follow your logic..."
It's sort of like someone saying "I believe we can't see any evidence of God in this world anywhere, ever, but I see him everywhere!"
To use another quote in answer, "What? Why? Who says? Where?"
It just... it doesn't make any sense. If you want to use God as an answer for the unknown and unknownable questions. Okay, I can buy that. If you feel you've had some great mystical experience that was a connection with God, suppose I can buy that too - though I personally believe that was more likely a result of our fallible human senses. But it just doesn't make sense to me when someone says, "God's hands off, but everything we do is his doing."
I know that's probably not what you believe kmboots. But that's what that Hymn suggestions to me, and I guess I'm just on a short fuse at the moment so it's really bugging me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Since folks prefer it not turning into a religious discussion (and I don't blame them) I will refer you to the many other religious thread already in progress.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think it's frustrating that when people accomplish something that we should all be celebrating, we instead have to deal with people saying in essence, "Where's your god now?" or "Science solves all our problems, God is just one of those problems!"
I normally don't do this, but...it's just as frustrating when through the hard work of many scientists something like this is accomplished and someone attributes it to god, or uses it as proof that god cares about all of us. But I agree, this thread shouldn't be a religious conversation!
I don't think anybody did that in this thread, nor (And I could be mistaken on this) has that been a noticeable trend on any of the many science threads that have been started on this board.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: several of the local militant atheists have taken to making all threads about God and/or religion.
To be fair, this tread started with a link to an atheist website. Are "militant" atheists here really derailing threads, or are the religious folks just frustrated that their givens are being challenged?
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:Originally posted by The Reader: :ignoring religion talk: I assume the genes of these mice were manipulated when the mice were embryos. Honest question: How can this be connected (no pun intended, but maybe it should be?) to regrowing limbs on current, genetically unaltered amputees?
The MRL mice are naturally healers, no manipulation necessary. The knockouts were manipulated to being p21 deficient, and they show nearly the exact same phenotype. Which is that when you punch a hole in the mouse ear, it closes up very quickly. Which makes sense, since p21 is a cell cycle checkpoint, so if it's broken, cells move more quickly through the statges of mitosis.
No limbs were regrown.
Oh, I get it now. I didn't read the article well enough to see about no limbs' being regrown.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote: It won't lose potency. It will just have to change it's address to whywontgodhealamputeeswithoutmakingscientistsdoalltheSTUMPwork.com
fixed.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Are "militant" atheists here really derailing threads, or are the religious folks just frustrated that their givens are being challenged?
I don't think anyone mentioned derailing. And I'm certainly not frustrated with these "challenges." (I do feel like we've covered a lot of this ground before, though. If I were not as lazy, I'd just post urls to the different arguments already made over the years.)
Are atheists frustrated at finding that their understanding of various religious beliefs seem to be inadequate?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think it's frustrating that when people accomplish something that we should all be celebrating, we instead have to deal with people saying in essence, "Where's your god now?" or "Science solves all our problems, God is just one of those problems!"
Agreed. I hate that -- even though KoM has been behaving very well of late -- several of the local militant atheists have taken to making all threads about God and/or religion.
This is really cool! Why can't we talk about that?
I'm a little surprised at the vehemence here. I posted as I did for a few reasons: 1) I thought the science article was cool. 2) For the reasons given in my earlier posts, I thought that a possible ramification to this line of research would be taking a bit of the zing out of the argument for atheism I linked to so, tongue firmly in cheek, I mentioned this observation. I was not concerned with derailing the thread because threads of this type generally don't engender much discussion- normally you get 6-10 posters saying "that's cool, thanks for posting" and then the thread dies. Anyway, I don't think my comment can be construed in any way to be equivalent to either of "Where's your god now?" or "Science solves all our problems, God is just one of those problems!" 3) I thought it possible that a discussion on miracles might ensue. I remember one a few years ago when Rabbit made the point that as a scientist, were she to see a miracle, the miraculousness might be lost in the search for the 'how' of it (I hope I am not misrepresenting her). Anyway, I thought it was an interesting discussion and would not have been sorry for an update.
Sean: sadly the pun was not intended.
I'm a little curious as to whether I am merely an atheist, or a militant atheist.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I am against the regrowing of limbs,we all saw what happened to Dr. Conners.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Are atheists frustrated at finding that their understanding of various religious beliefs seem to be inadequate?
No, we are frustrated by the inadequacy of your religious beliefs.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Reader:
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:Originally posted by The Reader: :ignoring religion talk: I assume the genes of these mice were manipulated when the mice were embryos. Honest question: How can this be connected (no pun intended, but maybe it should be?) to regrowing limbs on current, genetically unaltered amputees?
The MRL mice are naturally healers, no manipulation necessary. The knockouts were manipulated to being p21 deficient, and they show nearly the exact same phenotype. Which is that when you punch a hole in the mouse ear, it closes up very quickly. Which makes sense, since p21 is a cell cycle checkpoint, so if it's broken, cells move more quickly through the statges of mitosis.
No limbs were regrown.
Oh, I get it now. I didn't read the article well enough to see about no limbs' being regrown.
Perhaps your username is more...aspirational?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
hyuk hyuk hyuk
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't think anyone mentioned derailing.
I think "making all threads about religion" would fall under most definitions of derailing.
I'm pretty certain that you have decided that you're going to argue with me just for the sake of arguing. You're not really even trying.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: hyuk hyuk hyuk
I'll be here all week.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I love the theory of the God who does nothing. That's a kind of theism I can get behind, one where God is completely invisible, unknowable, and only "interacts" with us in ways that would work exactly the same without a postulated God.
I call my not-doing-anything God Jerry, and imagine that he has a mohawk and wears a leather jacket with the sleeves torn off, but he rides a Vespa.
That's called a "Clockwork God" type of belief, and was fairly common during the Enlightenment.
quote:I remember one a few years ago when Rabbit made the point that as a scientist, were she to see a miracle, the miraculousness might be lost in the search for the 'how' of it (I hope I am not misrepresenting her).
Unfortunately, you are misrepresenting me. I do remember saying that if someone were to miraculously regrow a limb, I would, as a scientist, be diligently trying to figure out how it happened. This would, however, have no relationship to the miraculousness of the original event or my perception of it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Are atheists frustrated at finding that their understanding of various religious beliefs seem to be inadequate?
No, we are frustrated by the inadequacy of your religious beliefs.
That's because you don't understand them.
(I can't remember-- was that joke made here?)
quote:I think "making all threads about religion" would fall under most definitions of derailing.
Hm... I read rivka's post differently. But I see your point.
quote:I'm pretty certain that you have decided that you're going to argue with me just for the sake of arguing. You're not really even trying.
Yes I am.
[ March 19, 2010, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by The Reader:
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:Originally posted by The Reader: :ignoring religion talk: I assume the genes of these mice were manipulated when the mice were embryos. Honest question: How can this be connected (no pun intended, but maybe it should be?) to regrowing limbs on current, genetically unaltered amputees?
The MRL mice are naturally healers, no manipulation necessary. The knockouts were manipulated to being p21 deficient, and they show nearly the exact same phenotype. Which is that when you punch a hole in the mouse ear, it closes up very quickly. Which makes sense, since p21 is a cell cycle checkpoint, so if it's broken, cells move more quickly through the statges of mitosis.
No limbs were regrown.
Oh, I get it now. I didn't read the article well enough to see about no limbs' being regrown.
Perhaps your username is more...aspirational?
It certainly seems to be that way lately.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I remember one a few years ago when Rabbit made the point that as a scientist, were she to see a miracle, the miraculousness might be lost in the search for the 'how' of it (I hope I am not misrepresenting her).
Unfortunately, you are misrepresenting me. I do remember saying that if someone were to miraculously regrow a limb, I would, as a scientist, be diligently trying to figure out how it happened. This would, however, have no relationship to the miraculousness of the original event or my perception of it.
Sorry about that. I should have tried to locate the thread.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)