Unity+

What do you mean? I respect what they believe, does not mean that I believe what they believe. The first commandment states that he is God and the second states that "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" I believe that God is the only one. Simply because I respect someone's opinions doesn't mean I believe what they believe. Now, since this is just going to go on forever with you trying to mess with me, this ends the discussion. EDIT: If you are going to try word play on me to try to trick me into stating something that I do not mean, don't do it. Also, one other thing: "Do not preach what you do not believe"

But I already have.

In any case, yes if you put it that way.

I have respect for those people yes.

I thought we were going to end this discussion(even if you missed some important pointers I made).

Then couldn't they use miscarriaged fetuses? Yes, let us end this thread which was pointless.

Well, here is my take on the issue(if I leave something out, then let me know). As I know of, most of the stem cell research that is the main focus is fetal stem cells, which require the use of fetuses of course. This is what the controversial stem cell research requires(though they speak of adult stem cells, but back to the point). Ultimately, there could be cases where researchers clone humans and grow them as carriers of human body parts that would be able to replace bad ones in another. I would definitely disagree with this not just because of ethical reasons, but because of the hazards involved. If this is the case, then what is the controversy? When an experiment is too dangerous to do because it ends with the death(or termination, if you want that terminology) of an organism or human being, then the solution is to make it safer for all parties. In fact, these alternatives will not just cause less damage. They will improve our understand of cells. I don't see the problem in doing such.

Didn't they just find a way to retrieve stem cells from other sources and clone these stem cells? Or am I incorrect about this?

I don't see any of my religious views getting in the way of science(again, we can agree to disagree on this). In fact, it encourages.

People may not agree with each others political views, but we can't let that get in the way of scientific discovery.

Once people are done reading, just bring up anything that needs to be discussed with the concept.

That was what I was stating before, that we can agree to disagree. That is what I was trying to say. I never intended any hate to build up.

My point was that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

I am not saying that they do believe. In fact, what the heck are you talking about?

Well if you are going to try to change my belief in God it ain't going to happen. I respect your beliefs and I hope you turn out to respect mine.

Let me reword my statement. I never intended my stance to be more respected than the other stance. Religion and science are to be separated into two categories.

Because proving the existence of God through science is pseudoscience because science cannot prove or disprove God. Well why don't you take this to the religion section then, if you so believe that you must?

Well, you don't have to go on about it. I ended my part of the debate, whether we agree on something or not. We agree to disagree. I am not asking for any stance to be respected more than the other. In fact, I intend that both stances are respected equally, whether there is an agreement or not.

Well, in order for that argument to withstand the word "killing" would have to be switched with "murder". Epigenetics follows the idea that the experiences of an ancestor of an offspring can affect that offspring genetically. For the sake of argument, since freewill exists within humanity as God created us to be, when we ate the tree of knowledge of good and evil that spread genetically. Though this is baseless as speculation, it is a point. EDIT: iNow, I know your going to attack this argument so if you do I am not going to be able to support any of these claims because of my lack of knowledge within epigenetics, so save the post.

Let me make the difference between basing a conclusion in science on scientific evidence and making a conclusion of belief philosophically. Based on all the scientific theories we have, the "fine-tuned" universe and design of the Universe, I make my own conclusion that there is an intelligent being behind it. This type of thinking makes sense to me, unless you consider it irrational.

Well, as I stated I am ending my part of the argument, so yes.

When have I ever suspended that approach? This is just getting ridiculous...

(Why did I even become a part of this debate). I am just going to end it here because I came to discuss science, not religion. Why am I even debating?

I apologize for this. I guess terminology for me is a bit confusing sometimes.

Can you at least have some respect to theists who have a scientific mind? I may be a Christian/Catholic, but I base scientific conclusions on scientific observations. Have some leniency here. Moderator note (swansont) I have split this off from the science's purpose is to explain God's creations thread as it ended up being a pretty sharp break from the other discussion, but was not clear exactly where the best split point was. Further, this is moved to Religion, since the basis of the discussion is not a claim consistent with Speculations