"thats right you two...argue about who has a better concept of your imaginary beings.....this is too funny."

Lucy is an imaginary being. Wathcu talkin` bout , my man?

lucy? you mean the Australopithecus they found?...what are you talking about.

"no it hasnt prevailed...the only reason it has "prevailed" is because the people who believe in it are too ignorant to accept facts and change their minds...not one scientist would dismiss facts saying god exists...maybe a couple australian skeptics, but that means nothing."

There are innumerable scientists who know God exists. Now back to reliability .......................................


New Findings Support Pro-Lifer Calls for Non-Embryonic Stem-Cell Research

By Jim Brown and Jenni Parker
January 10, 2007

(AgapePress) - An opponent of embryonic stem-cell research says a new report from U.S. scientists revealing the presence of pluripotent stem cells in amniotic fluid offers confirmation of what pro-life groups have been saying for years -- that is, that advancing medical knowledge does not require the destruction of human embryos.

Researchers with Wake Forest University Medical School and Harvard Medical School have reported that they were able to extract stem cells from amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women and then turn the cells into several different tissue cell types including brain, liver, and bone tissue cells (see related story).

Pro-life, pro-family, and medical ethics groups are jointly hailing the new stem-cell study, the findings of which suggest these non-embryonic stem cells derived from amniotic fluid show great potential for usefulness in treating disease. Pro-life advocate Mark Crutcher, founder and president of Life Dynamics Incorporated, says he and other pro-lifers have been trying for years to get the message across that it is not necessary to kill a living human being in order to achieve benefits in medical science. "This just proves that we're right," he contends.

Crutcher says he finds it interesting that in the past the medical science community has not been able to demonstrate even "one single scientific breakthrough using embryonic stem cells." All the breakthroughs that have taken place in therapeutic use of stem cells to treat disease have come through use of adult stem cells, he points out -- not through embryonic stem-cell research, or ESCR.

"And yet," the Life Dynamics spokesman observes, "the medical community and the media have been pushing embryonic stem cells as the be-all and end-all." That is something he doubts will change, even in the wake of this latest research out of Harvard and Wake Forest University Medical School. (See earlier story)

Crutcher says the new research findings will not likely deter efforts by House Democrats to pass legislation expanding federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. These pro-ESCR lawmakers continue to tout embryonic stem-cell research, he says, even though these ethically problematic studies have yielded no cures for disease and have shown no likelihood of doing so in the near future.

But despite these facts, House Democrats "continue to push embryonic stem cells; and so there has to be some other agenda at play here," Crutcher asserts. "And when you look at -- in this case -- the Democratic Party, which is completely owned -- lock, stock, and barrel -- by the abortion lobby in this country," the pro-life advocate says, "you have to start looking at what the hidden agenda may be" -- particularly, he adds, when the liberal lawmakers "continue to push things that have shown absolutely no promise for success."

Dobson: Media Finally Getting the Message About Non-Embryonic Stem Cells
Meanwhile, Focus on the Family Action chairman Dr. James Dobson believes the new stem-cell study has become front page news precisely because the mainstream media has not previously told the truth about how promising non-embryonic stem-cell research is. "Instead, they've chosen to put their emphasis on promoting research that kills human beings in their tiniest form," he says.

"Hopefully," Dobson comments, "the facts that were brought to the fore [in the Harvard-Wake Forest researchers' report] will influence the members of the House of Representatives to reject the expansion of federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research when the legislation comes up for a vote this week." Because of the new research, the pro-family leader asserts, a tremendous opportunity now exists for "those of us who hold pro-life views to call for uncompromising support of research using sources that do not imperil preborn life."

After all, the Focus on the Family Action spokesman emphasizes, "there are no clinical trials anywhere in the world where embryonic stem cells are being used in patients." On the contrary, he notes, research using cells from non-embryonic sources such as bone marrow and umbilical cord blood have been used to treat at least 70 conditions. And now, Dobson adds, "similar therapies may be developed using cells from amniotic fluid."

The Christian Medical Association, America's largest faith-based association of doctors, is also hoping the stem-cell research findings reported this week will influence U.S. lawmakers, especially since Congress is currently considering legislation that parallels a bill previously vetoed by President Bush -- a bill that would provide federal sanction for destroying human embryos.

Congress Asked to Respect Sanctity of Life, Fund Ethical Research
Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the Christian Medical Association, says his group is encouraging all members of Congress "to uphold respect for life while maximizing the investment of American tax dollars by investing in proven and promising stem-cell research that does not violate the conscience of many Americans." The medical science community has learned that the ethical route to stem cells is also the most effective and most promising route, he notes.

"We have long known that unlike human embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells have been proven effective in treating ... dozens of diseases," Stevens explains. But on the other hand, he says, "We have long known that human embryonic stem cells are notoriously unstable and tend to form tumors."

And now the Harvard-Wake Forest research has discovered that stem cells derived from a baby's placenta and amniotic fluid appear to hold the same tissue-building potential once thought exclusive to human embryonic stem cells, the CMDA physician notes. He believes lawmakers owe it to U.S. taxpayers to take this new information into consideration.

"Americans' resources should be used for ethical, effective and promising stem-cell research that does not violate ethical standards by killing human embryos," Stevens emphasizes. He says the Christian Medical Association has publicly urged U.S. members of Congress to devote healthcare dollars to funding ethical, non-embryonic stem-cell research Life Fight.

skitzo fotwobitslessfive ; calm down , relax and take a deep breath. Medical Research and many other branches of science are full of christians.

i know i wont change your mind, but you cant just sit there and dismiss scientific facts that are testable even by you, just because you dont like the idea of not having a god...you remind me of my dad he is 57 years old and believed everything you did 7 years ago, until we started having these discussions, and being a somewhat intelligent human being he accepts facts .

Or he agrees to agree.Did he toss his Bible too? How do you know how I believe? I thought I told you whippersnappers way back in this thread that my Lord is so good , I do not want to share him ; that I have not done that should be obvious . Not only are you beside yourself defending your faith in evolution , but you claim to know how I can believe what you claim does not exist. Get me my Sword!!!
1 Samuel 21:9
And the priest said, The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom thou slewest in the valley of Elah, behold, it is here wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod: if thou wilt take that, take it: for there is no other save that here. And David said, There is none like that; give it me.

Christians call the Bible their Sword.+++ When science goes broke , evolution will pass. Men shall still have their Bible.

first of all quoting a religious website means nothing, try to find some university or science funded studies....and second if thats true then great, we have an answer and now we know no to use stem cells....great.

oh and that research doesnt include stem cells from the ES wall, which has been found to NOT cause any tumors...and we know that an embryo doesnt feel pain, and doesnt have the knowledge to know it exists or will die....if we cant harm, those then why can we eat meat? or even domesticate our food for that matter...seems like were playing god....also there are many people on my side of the argument who ruin it for my side because they dont understand what stem cells are or can do, so they start thinking really faniciful things....

here is a little wikipedia comparison of the pros and cons....i dont see any fact based in the cons.

Quote:

---

Arguments for embryonic stem cell research

(1) The utilitarianism argument

The benefits of stem cell research outweigh the cost in terms of embryonic "life"

* Embryonic stem cells have the capacity to grow indefinitely in a laboratory environment and can differentiate into almost all types of bodily tissue. This makes embryonic stem cells an attractive prospect for cellular therapies to treat wide range of diseases.[4]

* The social, economic, and personal costs of the diseases that embryonic stem cells have the potential to treat, are far greater than the costs associated with the destruction of embryos.

(2) The human potential vs humanity argument

The value of an embryo should not be placed on par with the value of a child or adult

This argument often goes hand-in-hand with the utilitarian argument, and can be presented in several forms:

* Embryos, while of value, are not equivalent to human life while they are still incapable of existing outside the womb (i.e. they only have the potential for life).

* Approximately 18% of zygotes do not implant after conception.[2] Thus far more embryos are lost due to chance than are proposed to be used for embryonic stem cell research or treatments.

* Blastocysts are a cluster of human cells that have not differentiated into distinct organ tissue, making cells of the inner cell mass no more "human" than a skin cell .[4]
* Some parties contend that embryos are not humans, believing that Homo sapien life only begins when the heartbeat develops, which is during the 8th week of pregnancy[5], or when the brain begins developing activity, which has been detected at 54 days after conception.[6]

(3) The consequentialism argument

The ends (i.e. new treatments and cures) justify the means (i.e. the destruction of an embryos)

This can be seen as a more extreme view of the utilitarianism argument.

(4) The efficiency argument

If an embryo is going to be destroyed anyway, isn't it more efficient to make practical use of it?

* In vitro fertilization (IVF) generates large numbers of unused embryos (e.g. 70,000 in Australia alone).[4] Many of these thousands of IVF embryos are slated for destruction. Using them for scientific research utilizes a resource that would otherwise be wasted.[4]

* While the destruction of human embryos is required to establish a stem cell line, no new embryos have to be destroyed to work with existing stem cell lines. It would be wasteful not to continue to make use of these cell lines as a resource.[4]

* Because of the laws, especially those of the United States, women are given the right to abort their pregnancies. What will happen to these unborn children? They will only be discarded. Why not take these embryos, and use them for stem cell research? At least then the embryo can possibly be used to save someone else's life, instead of being lost and forgotten.

(5) Arguments for the superiority of embryonic stem cells

Embryonic stem cells can be considered far more useful therapeutically than adult stem cells

This is usually presented as a counter-argument to using adult stem cells as an alternative that doesn't involve embryonic destruction.

* Embryonic stem cells make up a significant proportion of a developing embryo, while adult stem cells exist as minor populations within a mature individual (e.g. in every 10,000 cells of the bone marrow, only 10 will be usable stem cells). Thus, embryonic stem cells are likely to be easier to isolate and grow ex vivo than adult stem cells.[4]

* Embryonic stem cells divide more rapidly than adult stem cells, potentially making it easier to generate large numbers of cells for therapeutic means. In contrast, adult stem cell might not divide fast enough to offer immediate treatment.[4]

* Embryonic stem cells have greater plasticity, allowing them to treat a wider range of diseases.[4]

* Adult stem cells from the patient's own body might not be effective in treatment of genetic disorders. Allogeneic embryonic stem cell transplantation (i.e. from a healthy donor) may be more practical in these cases than gene therapy of a patient's own cell.[4]

* DNA abnormalities found in adult stem cells that are caused by toxins and sunlight may make them poorly suited for treatment.[4]

* Embryonic stem cells have been shown to be effective in treating heart damage in mice.[4]

[edit] Arguments against embryonic stem cell research

(1) Embryos are lives

An embryo contains the potential to form a human or is actually a human, therefore it should be valued as highly as a human life.

The reasoning can be summed up by the fact that, once an egg is fertilized, unless inhibited, it will develop into a fully-developed adult. This opinion is often related to religious doctrine that purports that human life and/or soul start at conception. Based upon this reasoning, the subsequent argument against embryonic stem cell research is that human life is inherently valuable and cannot be involuntarily destroyed to save another life.

As an extension of this, it is argued that the tendency by some supporters of embryonic stem cell researchers to dismiss the ethical significance of embryo destruction may act to devalue human life. Moreover, it has been argued that "the line at which an embryo becomes a human life remains as arbitrary as ever".[7]

(2) Exploring alternative therapeutic options

Embryonic stem cells should be abandoned in favour of alternatives, such as those involving adult stem cells.

* Adult stem cell and cord blood stem cell research would be able to make greater advances if less money and resources were channeled into embryonic stem cell research.[8]

* It is claimed by pro-life supporters that the use of adult stem cells from sources such as umbilical cord blood has consistently produced more promising results than the use of embryonic stem cells. Such claims are disputed by supporters of embryonic stem cell research.[9]

* Adult stem cells have already produced therapies, while embryonic stem cells have not.[10] However, it should be acknowledged that scientists have studied adult stem cells for decades, but first isolated human embryonic stem cells only in 1998.[11]

(3) Scientific flaws in embryonic stem cell research

* Another concern with embryonic stem cell research is the tendency of stem cells from embryos to create tumors. However, proposed treatments will use cells derived from ES cells, not undifferentiated ES cells.[10][12]

(4) Overstatement of research potential

Scientists have long promised spectacular results from embryonic stem cell research, and this has not yet occurred[7][13][14]

This argument is hotly debated on both sides. Those critical of embryonic stem cell research point to a current lack of practical treatments, while supporters argue that advances will come with more time and that breakthroughs cannot be predicted.

Conspicuously, some criticism has even come from researchers themselves. For example, in November 2004, Princeton University president and geneticist Shirley Tilghman said, "Some of the public pronouncements in the field of stem-cell research come close to overpromising at best and delusional fantasizing at worst."[15] Similarly, fertility expert and current president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Lord Winston has warned of a public backlash against stem cell research if it fails to deliver on some of the "hype" surrounding potential treatments.[16]

---

Quote:

---

Not only are you beside yourself defending your faith in evolution

---

its not that i specifically care that you know what evolution is, my problem is there are people in this world (you) who wont accept facts...things that are studied and tested and shown to be true...there is nothing you can say that shows evolution is false, and almost everything you see shows that the christian god is not real...

buddhism is a philosophy more so then a religion, except buddhism still makes supernatural claims that are just unfounded and useless....not to mention the almost genocide that they took part in back in the day, the dalai lama was not a very nice man to people in his country that didnt believe what he did.

"and no the bible is MEANT to be taken literal, ..."
My goodness gracious skitzo420 ; wherever did you establish that doctrine? I just posted some scripture that has meaning in the literal and spiritual sense.
As if it were not enough to err in your heart by presuming to know me simply by comparing me to your Da , now you presume to know how the Bible is interpreted?

I present you with a slice of evidence that science is rife with believers , and you deny the truth. I`m afraid you are outnumbered. I must submit a protest at your insistance of defining my religion.Skitzo , you really should start reading your Bible before you make assumptions.

when you say the bible is not meant to be taken literal, yet it says many times whta god said, and what jesus said, but you know what he meant....

sure there are religious scientists but they are a minority.

but if you dont take the bible literal you make up your own religion and decide whats right and wrong...hows that different from humanism? pther then it doesnt require evidence or proof?