Jump to content

Consistency

Senior Members
  • Posts

    160
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Consistency

  1. So tell me, how does one go about using a tool effectively with no understanding of how the tool functions?

    You don't use it. If you don't have the mind to create it in the first place, what gives you the right to use it?

    Also:

     

    False. In the US the top ten most admired professions are

    1. Firefighter

    2. Doctor

    3. Nurse

    4. Scientist

    5. Teacher

    6. Military officer

    7. Police officer

    8. Clergyman

    9. Farmer

    10. Engineer

     

    http://www.forbes.com/2006/07/28/leadership-careers-jobs-cx_tvr_0728admired.html

    LOL. Funny list since it looks like a woman wrote it.

     

    Most men admire professional athletes. Sports?

  2. I've been looking for a system which closely describes nature/the unknown and Human Design System is the closest I've come across.

     

    A friendly warning: Some links below charge fees for information which is free elsewhere. Don't waste your money.

     

    http://www.unifiedlifesciences.com/ftp/education_papers/Intro_to_Design.pdf

    http://www.jovianarchive.com/Get_Your_Chart

    http://www.jovianarchive.com/Software/Maia_Mechanics_Imaging#introduction

    Self-study: http://www.humandesign.com/cartography-course

     

    History of Human Design: http://humandesign-deepak.blogspot.com/2010/08/rave-history-1781.html

     

    Is it real or not?

  3. Yes, he is.

    They are the same. If you can prove otherwise you will not only advance your argument, but win a Nobel prize for chemistry.

    Bio-availability is another question.

     

    Derived very slowly is still derived.

    A quick search led me to this page

    http://www.thetoyzone.com/2009/33-most-deadly-substances-on-earth/

     

    All but 5 of their top 55 are natural.

     

     

    Of course there will be poisonous plants. Thats nature. The strong survive and the weak(stupid) wither away.

     

    What about this... http://www.physiciantrends.com/Blog/Lifestyle-Medicine/Natural-vs.-Artificial-Supplements.html & http://www.powersupplements.com/ala/01c55144.html ?

  4. No, they aren't. But why would it matter?

    You do know that petroleum derived materials and plant derived ones are the same , don't you?

    After all, petroleum is plant derived.

    Or are you one of the "natural is good, artificial is bad" believers who don't understand that most of the more potent toxins are natural?

     

    http://www.doctorsresearch.com/articles4.html - He is wrong?

     

    They are the same under a microscope bu they aren't the same. Edible plants contain co-factors which help with absorption and I'm sure other molecules that have not been discovered yet.

     

    Petroleum isn't directly plant derived. It takes years for biological dead matter to turn into petroleum.

     

    Which natural toxins are you talking about?

  5. The root cause of pathogenic disease is pathogens. A healthy human cannot clear all pathogens on its own. E.g. African trypanosomiasis is 100% fatal is not treated by drugs http://msf.openrepository.com/msf/handle/10144/114145 and the cause is trypanosome transmission by tsetse fly bites.

     

    I am not going to waste my time answering your other questions.

     

    Learn how the immune system works with nutrients...

     

    Antimicrobial peptides are regulated by Retinoids(Vitamin A), Vitamin D and other metabolites. Vitamin A being the most efficient. Vitamin A deficiency is a known problem in Africa.

     

    Scientific facts....

    -Killing of African trypanosomes by antimicrobial peptides.

    -Human cathelicidin antimicrobial peptide (CAMP) gene is a direct target of the vitamin D receptor and is strongly up-regulated in myeloid cells by 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3

    -Regulation of Cathelicidin Gene Expression: Induction by Lipopolysaccharide, Interleukin-6, Retinoic Acid(Vitamin A), and Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium Infection

    -Malaria and vitamin A deficiency in African children: a vicious circle?

    -Kallikrein expression and cathelicidin processing are independently controlled in keratinocytes by calcium, vitamin D(3), and retinoic acid(Vitamin A).

     

    People need drugs because they aren't eating edible leaves on a daily basis in the first place to fulfill their Vitamin A, folate and other nutrient requirements.

     

    You missed out a contradiction in terms, but I can't say I blame you.

    "Genes aren't the root cause.

    Folate deficiency(& other nutritional deficiencies) and/or toxic environment leads to Proto-oncogenes to Oncogenes to Cancer."

     

     

    So genes (specifically proto oncogenes) lead to cancer but genes don't lead to cancer.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_cause

  6. You cannot sensibly say "genetic therapy is unethical because oranges are full of uranium".

    You can not support a position by making a statement which is false so you can not justify your claim that "Its on topic because I am pointing out why genetic therapy is unethical.".

     

    As it happens I agree with you in that such therapy is, at best, ethically questionable and that each case should be judged on its own merit but you still said "Folic acid is the synthetic version of folate."

    and it's still strictly wrong, even if you copied it..

     

    Those web pages you cite are also wrong about folate, but they are right about this "Folic acid and folate work the same in the body,."

     

    The body doesn't actually use folate, It uses tetrahydrofolate and dihydrofolate.

     

    I mean't genetic therapy is unethical in the sense that its based on greed and keeping the mass uneducated about prevention of disease.

     

    Is folic acid in supplements petroleum-derived? And if the supplements are petroleum-derived, do they contain petroleum impurities?

  7. Science doesn't act like nature, it attempts to explain it. Your version is incorrect at first glance.

    Attempts to explain nature? You mean science(the man-made kind) manipulates nature and destroys nature's biodiversity with pesticides?

    They may, but it's not religion or faith that is doing that. Science is all about dissent against the standard (within evidence), faith is about following the standard (god of choice's word).

    "Evidence" can easily be misinterpreted.

     

    Which standard? Religious standard? Natures standard?

     

    God didn't write the bible; man did.

     

    Faith is not about following the man-made bible, its about letting go of the ego and giving control of your life over to God however in reality people let go of their ego and start feeling the energies inside themselves.

    Then you have never been around scientists talking science. As I said, the main purpose of science is to find out where it is wrong and part of that is destroying every argument that isn't correct. Most aren't correct so most are destroyed. That is why many of us trust science, it stands strong after being held in the fire.

    Its called confirmation bias.

    So if you saw an error in an author's conclusion of homologous recombination you could then determine another author's mistake deriving the gravitational force? They have, you seem to forget most of human history when biblical texts were thought to be truth. There isn't much reason to go back and show something is incorrect when it was shown incorrect over a hundred years ago.

    You keep talking to me like I am a religious person. Why do you hate religion so much?

     

    I follow natures law and no one elses.

    Then god is unnecessary because it's just nature. We have a word and definition for nature, it's nature. Adding to that is unnecessary and unhelpful.

    So.. nature is unnecessary?

     

    If you read the OP's question thoroughly... you'll see that he is not talking about religion at all!

    Science and religion are incompatible, you have got two choices, either take the creation myths as it says seriously and be a strong theist or reject religion and be a strong atheist,

    Just because people like to go far right(science-atheism?) or far left(religion-theism?) in extremes, it doesn't mean I have to join a group which doesn't agree with my personal values. I am staying in the middle, natures middle, the non man-made middle.

     

    note: far right/left has nothing to do with politics.

    any compromise pantheistic position mixing God and science isn't feasible.

    Yes it is. Symbiosis and bacteriological symbiosis.

  8. I did. The current predominate method of treating disease is through the use of chemotherapeutic agents, i.e. drugs. We do not, and probably cannot know what every single drug interaction in every single person will be, much as we do not and probably cannot know the outcome of every single gene interaction in every single individual and environment.

     

    Ergo, if not knowing every single gene interaction makes gene therapy unethical, by extension of logic, this also makes the treatment of disease with drugs/vaccines also unethical. If so, you'd have to consider virtually all modern medicine unethical.

    Science is just like religion; just a different cult that makes stuff up without knowing everything about nature; we are part of nature and so is our biochemistry.

     

    The treatment of disease with drugs/vaccines is unethical and unnecessary when eating a diet rich in plants.

    This sweeping generalization is blatantly false in most circumstances. A vast multitude of chemotherapeutic agents cure disease - for example, the use of antibiotics to cure a tuberculosis infection. Also, most drug therapies do not come with "horrendous side effects, like death." Here's a list of 5,000 drug side effects. The majority do not have fatal side effects. http://www.drugs.com/sfx/

    Yes antibiotics do cure a tuberculosis infection in immunosuppressed individuals. The root cause is always a major nutritional deficiency and a toxic environment. We produce our own antimicrobial peptides when we are healthy.

     

    Chemotherapy

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotherapy#Adverse_effects

    Damage to specific organs is possible:

    Nice soup of side effects eh? Its like injecting battery acid in the veins.

    Gene therapy is egotistical, but deciding based on your personal, subjective ideals who deserves medical treatment and who doesn't is not? And if we apply this, well, interesting logic in an objective way wouldn't you have more of an issue with say - bypass surgery to treat angina, or gastric banding to treat obesity than gene therapy to treat inherited illness which are entirely not a result of lifestyle choices?

    I am not deciding who gets it or not. I am saying that geneticists need to stop messing around with nature like they know everything.

     

    I have an equal issue with everything in the medical industry. I understand your logic though however you don't know what will happen in future generations with the modifications of genetic therapy. Its a gamble and our lives aren't worth that.

    Every single human being has a "mutated" germline. On average, you have 60 novel mutations, in comparison with your parents. http://www.sanger.ac.uk/about/press/2011/110612.html

    Do all DNA mutations lead to cancer?

    Given that your premise that genes do not play a role in cancer development is explicitly contradicted in the abstract of the article you are citing as proof of that statement - it might be an idea to take you own advice.

    Genes aren't the root cause.

     

    Folate deficiency(& other nutritional deficiencies) and/or toxic environment leads to Proto-oncogenes to Oncogenes to Cancer.

     

    Folate is necessary for the production and maintenance of new cells, for DNA synthesis and RNA synthesis, and for preventing changes to DNA, and, thus, for preventing cancer.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folic_acid#Biological_roles

    Spectacularly wrong and also off-topic.

     

    In particular re "Folic acid is the synthetic version of folate."

    No it's not.

    Learn some chemistry.

     

    Any way, back at the topic.

    Why is it that so many people who understand that biodiversity is a good thing, think that the same doesn't apply to humans.

    Its on topic because I am pointing out why genetic therapy is unethical.

     

    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/folate/NS_patient-folate Are they wrong?

    http://nutritionovereasy.com/2011/01/folate-vs-folic-acid-whats-the-difference/ Are they wrong?

     

    Which one is folic acid in the chart below?

    http://www.genome.jp/kegg-bin/show_pathway?org_name=hsa&mapno=00790&mapscale=1.0&show_description=show

  9. Doesn't it seem egotistical to assume one shouldn't be helped because they undertook activities you personally disagree with.

    It isn't and It has nothing to do with me.

     

    The law of nature: The strong survive and the weak wither away.

    First part in the abstract:

     

     

    Inappropriate diet may contribute to one third of cancer deaths. Folates, a group of water-soluble B vitamins present in high concentrations in green, leafy vegetables, maintain DNA stability through their ability to donate one-carbon units for cellular metabolism. Folate deficiency has been implicated in the development of several cancers, including cancer of the colorectum, breast, ovary, pancreas, brain, lung and cervix. Generally, data from the majority of human studies suggest that people who habitually consume the highest level of folate, or with the highest blood folate concentrations, have a significantly reduced risk of developing colon polyps or cancer. However, an entirely protective role for folate against carcinogenesis has been questioned, and recent data indicate that an excessive intake of synthetic folic acid (from high-dose supplements or fortified foods) may increase human cancers by accelerating growth of precancerous lesions.

    So diet may contribute, and it both reduces and causes. It has to do with DNA stability and is a risk reward probability, not a definite.

    LOL. You didn't understand anything.

     

    Folic acid is the synthetic version of folate.

     

    The research says...

     

    1) Synthetic(man-made) folic acid is one of the causes of cancer and aggrevates the cancer that is already in the body.

     

    2) A deficiency of natural folate from raw edible leaves causes cancer.

     

    3) Natural folate from raw edible leaves reverses cancer; along with all the other powerful anti-cancer nutrients in leafy greens.

     

    So your original statement that it is only environment and diet is not born out by the first section of the first paper you cite as evidence.

    The root cause of cancer is a toxic environment and a nutritionally deficient diet.

  10. Clearly you haven't spent much time in the Sciences section. The debates there are sometimes spectacular.

     

    Instead of saying "I usually see scientists agreeing on the same bias" you would have been better served to say 'I usually see scientists agreeing on the same evidence'. Because they do. It is not bias if it is based on evidence.

     

    If you are really interested in seeing scientists go at it, here is a whole course you can take, and to make it a manageable sized course it limits itself to debates regarding the Rise of Humans:

     

     

    http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=1612

     

    This is off topic but I haven't seen any actual debates... the link you offered is a parrot talking nonsense with no education in bacteriology and neurogenesis.

     

    I stand corrected and you shouldn't tell anyone what they would have been better served to say.. I am not a parrot that regurgitates nonsense like this guy...http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xoz5r3_lecture-5-the-dietary-hypothesis-the-rise-of-humans-great-scientific-debates-john-hawks-ph-d_tech#.UTqB8EqRf94 <- He is wrong... we have microbes in the colon which can convert cellulose(not whole vegetation) to short chain fatty acids. Go ask any qualified bacteriologist.

     

    The problem I see in the religion/science debate is how scientists have come in egotistically and have labelled and categorized everything they could get their hands on and called it "science" or "evidence" like its all "factual". And no I am not defending religion.

     

    The OP would have been better of to say if we can mix God with science...

  11. They've all been males and the behavior started around the age of 13. There was almost certainly sexual activity between the siblings. In one case that I know, the family caught them in the act.

     

    It has ranged across social class. All cases that I know of are local.

     

    lol sounds like you're making it up as you go....

     

    You're saying that the older sister manipulated the younger bro into sex.

     

    The shame could drive someone to kill themselves.

  12. You know, another interesting fact is that everyone who has commit suicide, in fact everyone who has died, has also drank water.

     

    lol

     

    Were these people who killed themselves all poor or close to poor? Were they all males or females?

  13. No. We don't understand every possible drug interaction. That doesn't make the treatment of disease with drugs 'egotistical'.

     

    Who said anything about drugs?

     

    Yes it is egotistical because the disease isn't treated, the disease is "managed" with drugs which have horrendous side effects, like death.

     

    In your previous example of treatments for X-scid, the patient's own white blood cells are extracted and a virus is to insert a healthy adenosine deaminase (ADA) gene into them. These cells were then injected back into their body, and express a normal enzyme, curing the disease. No germ line modification occurs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_combined_immunodeficiency

     

    Its somewhat ethical if it cures a disease that someone is born with as long as it doesn't alter the germline as you state however wouldn't a person that is born with an immunodeficiency already have their germline mutated?

     

    I don't condone rewarding bad behavior by treating a person who has abused their body with excessive alcohol, smoking, drugs, etc..

     

    Both statements are false:

     

    Defective cell replication (i.e. cancer) is caused by genes, at the most fundamental level. Cancer can manifest simply due to certain allelic combinations without environmental interaction (i.e. in the absence of external carcinogens).

    http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/geneticsandcancer/oncogenesandtumorsuppressorgenes/oncogenes-tumor-suppressor-genes-and-cancer-mutations-and-cancer

     

    Of course environmental factors play a role in cancer genesis and the activation of oncogenes, but to try and exclude the genetic elements of oncology is absolutely nonsensical at the most fundamental level. It's a ridiculous argument.

     

    Take your time reading the articles below.

     

    Folate and cancer: how DNA damage, repair and methylation impact on colon carcinogenesis

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10545-010-9128-0

     

    or if you don't have access to the journal...

     

    Page 0 - http://link.springer.com/static-content/0.6248/lookinside/124/art:10.1007/s10545-010-9128-0/000.png

    Page 1 - http://link.springer.com/static-content/0.6248/lookinside/124/art:10.1007/s10545-010-9128-0/001.png

    Page 2 - http://link.springer.com/static-content/0.6248/lookinside/124/art:10.1007/s10545-010-9128-0/002.png

    Page 3 - http://link.springer.com/static-content/0.6248/lookinside/124/art:10.1007/s10545-010-9128-0/003.png

    Page 4 - http://link.springer.com/static-content/0.6248/lookinside/124/art:10.1007/s10545-010-9128-0/004.png

    Page 5 - http://link.springer.com/static-content/0.6248/lookinside/124/art:10.1007/s10545-010-9128-0/005.png

    Page 6 - http://link.springer.com/static-content/0.6248/lookinside/124/art:10.1007/s10545-010-9128-0/006.png

    Page 7 - http://link.springer.com/static-content/0.6248/lookinside/124/art:10.1007/s10545-010-9128-0/007.png

    Page 8 - http://link.springer.com/static-content/0.6248/lookinside/124/art:10.1007/s10545-010-9128-0/008.png

     

    FOLIC ACID ROLE IN MUTAGENESIS, CARCINOGENESIS, PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF CANCER

    http://www.diagnosisp.com/dp/journals/view_pdf.php?journal_id=1&archive=0&issue_id=3&article_id=84 (PDF)

     

    Folate, DNA methylation, and gene expression: factors of nature and nurture

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/72/4/903.full.pdf

     

    The little known (but crucial) difference between folate and folic acid

    http://chriskresser.com/folate-vs-folic-acid

     

    Folate Supplementation: Too Much of a Good Thing?

    http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/15/2/189.full

  14. If religions didn't attempt to act like science they wouldn't get hated on (for the most part). It would be like me walking into a sushi place and telling the chefs that they don't know what they're doing and my way is correct as I make a fish sandwich. I deserve to be hated on by those chefs.

     

    My version: If science/religion didn't attempt to act like nature they wouldn't get hated on (for the most part).

     

    Some religious people do make valid suggestions regarding the errors in the science albeit their lack of understanding of the man-made names of organisms.

     

    Certainly, and it's called bad science. The difference is when scientists do it they tend to get blasted by other scientists.

     

    Its called hypocrisy. I've never seen scientists blasting other scientists. I usually see scientists agreeing on the same bias to a degree and ganging up on others who disagree.

     

    First, you are describing a problem with education, not necessarily science. That being said, science is always wrong, but it's wrong by degrees. We are less wrong now than we were 2 years ago and we will be less wrong 2 years from now. That's the difference, science knows it's wrong and actively works to show where it is wrong.

     

    Its the science. Once you see an error; you see them all.

     

    If science works to show where it is wrong as you state... why not include suggestions from religious people?

     

    What's a non-religious god?

    Because it is by it's nature not part of science. If it's a natural phenomena it's not god by any definition I've ever seen used.

     

    Nature is god and god is nature.

     

     

    I could certainly have been gentler above, but I remain firm in my stance that this position is misguided at best:

    Scientists should be respectful of religious people since there is religious people who have no interest in science but still have an interest in being part of a group.

     

    Place yourself in the shoes of religious people. My grandma is a person that goes to church because she doesn't know anyone else. So.. she goes to church to be a part of a group. Should she pick up a biochemistry book?

     

    What about those who lack the intelligence and money to study science in an institution and still want to be part of a peaceful group?

  15. I did not suggest it had double meanings, nor am I angry. I said it was ambiguous, and endeavored to get you to clarify. A task at which it seems I was unsuccessful.

     

    Do you mean that we don't understand what all of the genes code for? How they are expressed? How they are differentially regulated? How the same gene can result in a variety of phenotypes? How does this lack of understanding inhibit our ability to modify the human genome? Given we've been able to successfully modify a range of other organisms, including other vertebrates (e.g. http://www.glofish.com/) are you suggesting there is a fundamental lack of understanding of the human genome in comparison with other genomes that have been successfully modified?

     

    It doesn't inhibit the ability of geneticists from modifying the human genome however don't you see how egotistical it is to modify the human genome of a living individual in the first place when there is a lack of understanding of the interactions in the whole genome?

     

    Does modifying the human genome lead to changes of DNA in the sperm in accordance with the initial genome modification?

     

    You may know what all the genes are for but there is a fundamental lack of understanding of how the genes work together in a whole with the environment and in symbiosis with commensal microorganisms.

     

    As I stated, among a multitude of other things, genetic engineering can potentially cause cancer. Both your citations quote a single, anecdotal case. Blanketly stating "gene therapy causes cancer" is logically fallacious.

     

    From your own citation: "Scientists in the United States have warned that some forms of gene therapy may cause patients to develop cancer."

     

    You may cure one patient today but what about the offsprings of succeeding generations that carry the modified genes?

     

    http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/excerpt.asp?id=95

     

    Now this might have made sense if we had of been discussing heart transplants or gastric bypass surgery, but in discussing treating genetic predisposition to certain medical conditions, it is nonsensical. The root causes of genetic diseases such as the disorder discussed in the article you yourself cited (Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome (X-Scid)), are genes. Genes also play a fundamental role in predisposition to cancer. See oncogenes

     

    Is "Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome" caused by inbreeding?

     

    predisposition to cancer? The so called cancer genes need to be activated by a carcinogen in the first place. Diet and environment have everything to do with cancer.

     

    A healthy diet supplies the bodies cells with the nutrients they require to defend themselves.

    Example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21128180 (lutein is found in edible leaves)

     

    A healthy environment supplies the body with clean air instead a harmful environment like a city supplies the body with polluted air which activates cancer genes and also activates the cox-2 inflammatory enzymes.

    http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/11/1846.full

    http://tpx.sagepub.com/content/32/6/650

     

    You mean like my wife? Personal attacks aside - and putting you initial statement back in context, it seemed as if you were suggesting that DNA is not fundamental to life. I would be interested to know if that was the initial context of the statement and if so, are you able to qualify it.

     

    If you have a spiritual connection with your wife.

     

    No it wasn't my initial statement. This was... "I read your article.. There is more to life than DNA."

  16. when regular terms more than suffice?

     

    What are these regular terms?

     

    Religion is belief in the absence of, and quite often in direct opposition to evidence. When interacting with a group of individuals who prioritize evidence over evasiveness and vacuous wish thinking, one should not be surprised at the quick dismissals and scoffing that results.

    I agree however we can say the same thing about certain scientists.

     

    Its obvious you guy's waste so much time hating on religions for their "evasiveness and vacuous wish thinking" while there is scientists who do the exact same thing. Whats that called?

     

    I've come across a lot of science which has been passed down for many years as facts and it still is being passed of as fact while its partly wrong. Science isn't immune to errors.

     

    I don't see why including the idea of God(not the religious kind) into the mix causes problems.

     

    How about no? Does no work for you? That's powerful stupid right there.

     

    I am not religious. You don't have to be abusive.

  17. But most of us just call that wonder and awe at the unknown... deep and profound inspiration about the magnificence and mind boggling scale of the universe itself. Why introduce the term "god" to describe all of that... a term so inescapably sullied and bogged down with such baggage and bullshit and batshit craziness when regular terms more than suffice?

     

    We can agree that there is passion inspiring amazingness all around us. Can't we also agree that calling it "god" only detracts from that amazingness?

     

    How come scientists never study the unknown without math?

     

    Regular terms such as...

     

    It detracts from the amazinness because most people associate the name God with religion.

     

    I don't understand the hate towards religion in this thread. Scientists should be respectful of religious people since there is religious people who have no interest in science but still have an interest in being part of a group. Hence following a religion serves them even though they don't believe in everything about that religion. All in all.. Religion is excellent form of free therapy.

  18. This statement is ambiguous enough to be meaningless. Do you mean all the genes in a genome? Which genome? What type of interactions?

     

    My first sentece doesn't have double meanings. You're angry cause its true.

     

    The OP is talking about humans. So its obviously the human genome.

     

    Again, this is an ambiguous false dichotomy - the ethics of an action are independent of whether or not the action is egotistical. Did you mean to say "It is unethical and egotistical?"

     

    not ethical = unethical.

     

    You're just being a perfectionist.

     

    Staying with the theme of ambiguous statements, it might lead to a countless number of things, including cancer treatments. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2006/09/killer_tcells.html

     

    Gene therapy causes cancer... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3926-2005Mar3.html & http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2954986.stm

     

    Why should people be rewarded with gene therapy for their bad behaviour? Inactivity, living in a polluted environment and eating nutritionally deficient foods leads to diseases like cancer. Do you not see how egotistical and unethical it is to manipulate genes? Do you not see that you aren't getting to the root of the problem and just trying to fix the problem with a hacked patch?

     

    Like?

     

    You'll know when you have a spiritual intimate connection with another individual.

  19. The OP meant God as in the energy of the universe which flows through all of us. Not religion.

     

    OP; you can mix the possibility of the existence of a God(s) with science, as a variable. I do this all the time.

     

    I strongly believe that anyone without enough life experience, such as a spiritual intimate relationship, has no say in whether a god exists or not. If you can't feel the energies within you, those of others around you and radiate energy through your hands... you haven't had enough life experience to judge on the existence of a god.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.