Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Omnaka

Cloning Can Not Succeed

633 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

danydandan
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, lauralou said:

There has never been the mention of the word "science" in the Bible.

I think you should look at the King James Bible New Testament because the word science is there twice.

Daniel 1:4 and Timothy 6:20.

But I understand you meant the concept of what we now define science is not mentioned in the Bible.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Piney
Just now, danydandan said:

I think you should look at the King James Bible New Testament because the word science is there twice.

The most inaccurate version of the Bible. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
Just now, Piney said:

The most inaccurate version of the Bible. 

It most certainly is inaccurate, but it's the trend setter Bible

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
Just now, danydandan said:

It most certainly is inaccurate, but it's the trend setter Bible

It gave birth to the Jehovah Witness Bible and the Scofield Reference Bible which are the 2 biggest trainwrecks American Revivalism has ever produced.  :lol:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
11 hours ago, danydandan said:

I think you should look at the King James Bible New Testament because the word science is there twice.

Daniel 1:4 and Timothy 6:20.

But I understand you meant the concept of what we now define science is not mentioned in the Bible.

Checking the translations, the better word translation would be "knowledge"
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/dan/1/4/s_851004

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
11 hours ago, danydandan said:

What would the child be if it had no self awareness? It's most definitely human or do you think it's a sub-species of human?

Where was this legal argument regarding this?

Personally my definition of human is not biological but based on capability And i use this to decide what rights and responsibilities any entity has and should have  To be human an entity must be self aware.

So Neandertal were human and a self aware robot would be human.  An animal with human level self awreness would be human   Anything human would require similar protections and responsibilities duties.

Some tings like embryos and  very young children, while not yet human enough to be given full right and responsibilities,   will develop the abilty over time and thus have at least partial protection  from this human status.

However a biogical being like a "human" who is not and can never become self awre is not( in my eyes)  really human  It cannot have the same level of rights Eg the right to marry or vote, and it cannot have any responsibilities or duties imposed upon it. . It may deserve protection and even love from those who are responsible.  That might sound harsh but in effect it is how medicine and the law  determines the right to life of embryos and some young children  it is also the way we are heading with the very elderly, though i am ambivalent on this Personally, once i am non self aware i would like to be euthanased but not everyone feels like that,  and we cared for two such people who were totally dependent on us for their lives and needs, for over 6 years 

There are many legal judgements which define the rights and status of embryos, the very young, the severely mentally disabled  and the elderly without self awareness They vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction around the world.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Personally my definition of human is not biological but based on capability And i use this to decide what rights and responsibilities any entity has and should have  To be human an entity must be self aware.

So Neandertal were human and a self aware robot would be human.  An animal with human level self awreness would be human   Anything human would require similar protections and responsibilities duties.

Some tings like embryos and  very young children, while not yet human enough to be given full right and responsibilities,   will develop the abilty over time and thus have at least partial protection  from this human status.

However a biogical being like a "human" who is not and can never become self awre is not( in my eyes)  really human  It cannot have the same level of rights Eg the right to marry or vote, and it cannot have any responsibilities or duties imposed upon it. . It may deserve protection and even love from those who are responsible.  That might sound harsh but in effect it is how medicine and the law  determines the right to life of embryos and some young children  it is also the way we are heading with the very elderly, though i am ambivalent on this Personally, once i am non self aware i would like to be euthanased but not everyone feels like that,  and we cared for two such people who were totally dependent on us for their lives and needs, for over 6 years 

There are many legal judgements which define the rights and status of embryos, the very young, the severely mentally disabled  and the elderly without self awareness They vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction around the world.. 

I completely disagree with your opinion on this. Where do you draw the line on this?

As I understand you are from the land of plenty, I lived in Perth for a year and a half. As an Irish person in Oz I found it's people highly racist towards anything not from Oz or with darker skin. I'm not suggesting all Australians are racist, I'm my experience in general they are. In Perth anyway. I never knew about the Aboriginal Australians until I landed in Perth went to a park and seen one picking trash and cooking the trash on a public BBQ. So I done a little study. Some scientists suggested that because the Aboriginals were isolated for so long they didn't evolve like the rest of the world. Some place them as a sub species of human. Would you consider Aboriginal Australians as human and thus be afforded the same rights.

Most people I met in Perth had a disdain for the Aboriginals in the area, which I found disturbing and disgusting in a developed country.

There has also been research done regarding when a child becomes self aware. Using lying as a marker for self awareness. It's shows ninty percent of four year olds lie, and it decreases with younger children. Would you suggest that children up to the age of four are not human?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/media-spotlight/201311/when-does-lying-begin

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Personally my definition of human is not biological but based on capability And i use this to decide what rights and responsibilities any entity has and should have  To be human an entity must be self aware.

So Neandertal were human and a self aware robot would be human.  An animal with human level self awreness would be human   Anything human would require similar protections and responsibilities duties.

Some tings like embryos and  very young children, while not yet human enough to be given full right and responsibilities,   will develop the abilty over time and thus have at least partial protection  from this human status.

However a biogical being like a "human" who is not and can never become self awre is not( in my eyes)  really human  It cannot have the same level of rights Eg the right to marry or vote, and it cannot have any responsibilities or duties imposed upon it. . It may deserve protection and even love from those who are responsible.  That might sound harsh but in effect it is how medicine and the law  determines the right to life of embryos and some young children  it is also the way we are heading with the very elderly, though i am ambivalent on this Personally, once i am non self aware i would like to be euthanased but not everyone feels like that,  and we cared for two such people who were totally dependent on us for their lives and needs, for over 6 years 

There are many legal judgements which define the rights and status of embryos, the very young, the severely mentally disabled  and the elderly without self awareness They vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction around the world.. 

Hi Walker

Clone or not that child comes preloaded with animal instinct and an intellective human mind so the first time it has an instinct it will react and learn why it reacted. where do you think you have the right to determine what is the definition of what is human or not, Bud do you not see the contradiction, that it is not human until you occupy the mind of another and destroy the memories that existed in that being whether you accept those people have memories or not. Even in a state of sensory deprivation there will still be interaction with humans, babies don,t feed themselves and they are alive with senses and instinct there is no way for you to stop that mind from being aware of itself or it's environment.

jmccr8 

Edited by jmccr8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.