Genetically Enhanced Humans

That's what I meant elk,
In general their genes are different to other ethnicity's genes in intelligence and strength at the time, that's all...
Now it's unlikely that all breed with somebody from another race to my own, now for some reason I can only find white people attractive, this doesn't mean i'm racist but my body just doesn't... This means that it's very likely that I my end up with another person who's ancestors are anglo-saxon, which eventually in my family line my ancestor's great great (and so on...) children are going to breed, which means that genetic problems may occur in the future to many families, not just mine, in the future it would be vital for genetic changes (unless we breed with other species), so genetic enhancing won't be much different from that.

 

Wow, Science and Religon are Always fighting, Science says That the world was Created by the "Big Bang theory" and Religon says that God Created It.

Alot Of things that Religion says, Science has somthing to Debate about it. and this top just happends to be one of them.

LOL !!!! Joker

 

A debate is when two opposing argument are presented along with factual evidence, circumstantial theory, and logical reasoning.
When we ask the question "How was the universe created?" scientists present centuries of research in biology, astronomy, and physics.
When the religious are asked the same question, they present a single book with no citation of sources, no supporting evidence whatever, and usually a few logical fallacies which were publicly debunked decades ago.

Religion has no place in anything really, regardless of how many people cling to it.
Only science can truly give us any probable answers. Only science takes the steps necessary to support an argument.

Example:

A scientist says "The moon is made of cheese." He then has to go through peer review and other scientist will look at the data. They will then promptly call him on his bullshit.

Now, a religious persons says "Homosexuality is wrong because God hates homosexuals." He then points to the bible verses X, Y, and Z, interpreters them in a biased manner, and then has support from people who simply dislike homosexuals. The initial premise that God exists is unsupported by any evidence, then the leap is taken even farther by saying that god FEELS a certain way about something (again, the only evidence being an unsourced book edited and translated {{badly}} over several centuries).


There is NEVER a valid debate between religion and anything. Ever.
The religious make claims and then support them with circular logic.
Only a fool would consider accepting an argument based on unsourced material.

 

To sum up what was already said, but in picture form!

 

Exactly, that's strong debating alright, let's see a religious person beat that! Wait.... No? You can't? Hahaha

 

I think arrogance is justified when the person is 100% correct.

 

Ye but this is about Science Views and Religion Views. all your doing now is hating on religion since you dont have "Faith" since you like your "Proof" of sh1t.

Go head and Prove to me and the others how Humans were Created?

Science is just based on "Proof" and "Proof".

 

This is starting to go off topic, but alas:

Your question is presented incorrectly. By saying 'prove how we were created' you're implying there was some creator, and/or that humans just came into existence at some arbitrary point in time.

Yes, I am 'hating on' religion. I 'hate on' anything that supports the spreading of ignorance, close mindedness, and misinformation. Must I apologize for regarding evidence as a great thing to have? As, in fact, the ONLY way to really support an argument? I don't believe so.

The vast amount of evidence our societies have discovered are completely in support of evolution. We came to be what you would call 'human' gradually over billions of years. These resources we've collected always provide evidence against the existence of god, and never for it.

No amount of faith in anything will ever make that thing more respectable or more plausible. That's not just me 'hating'; that is logic, and that is truth. If you don't hold logical reasoning and factual information on an infinitely higher tier than blind faith, then I personally see no reason for you to be on a debate board. Unless you're simply trolling, then good job.

 

You're one to talk about "closed mindedness".

If you truly are open minded, then let other people's ideas in, remember the circumcision thread, that got locked because you don't want to have an open mind?

I won't give in to your trolling anymore, as I very much respect the Admins & moderators here, so if you continue with your self righteous arguments, then do so.

 

he is right to debate you need to be able to bring forth evidential backing.
I'm not going to deny god but a will deny all the religious views of god. if you want to call the energy that original made something happen god then OK but if you want to tell me that that idea you have of a god that gives one toot about you and did all the things in the bible (and all the "facts" in there are wrong and you only need to read the damn thing to know that(have you even read it with a logical intelligent mind with out twisting words))

this may seem like it has gone off topic but its not, this is the point that was made earlier. every time we try to debate something religious views stop every thing and it transfers to an argument about whether god is real or not.
that is also why it was said that it has no place in debates word issues of anything to do with scientific advancement because if we ever did listen to it we would of not got where we are today.

I'm sorry this made me laugh my as off. do you even understand what you just said.
"your science is just based on undeniable evidence over years of research until a truth that cannot be argued with"

 

I'm not talking about censorship. You can spam your unsupported and illogical ideas all day. I'm an advocate of free speech, and freedom of speech is completely necessary for the scientific method to occur. It's not that I'm closed to religious ideas, but that I understand how valid arguments work. Arguments from emotion and (similarly) religion are never valid because they aren't based on any evidence. That's not my opinion; that is how logic actually works.

As to the thread getting locked, that was up to the moderator/admin who locked it. I have no say in that.
LoonyLion commented (I believe after it had been locked) that I was being close minded to the ideas of other cultures.
Although I suspect he misunderstood why I was laughing so hard at your post (which I seriously was ) I'll explain anyway.

There is something that everyone must understand about culture and different ideas before they throw the phrase 'close minded' (which he didn't do, but it is what I assume you both mean).

When someone has an idea, whether that be an individual, a group, or an entire culture, I am more than happy to learn about it. I enjoy learning about different ways of life and different practices of philosophy and religion.
I never have and never will say "Don't tell me about your culture. It's dumb and I'm not interested." I respect the fact that cultures and individuals have different points of view, and different ways of life.

However, no idea that anyone will ever come up with is exempt from criticism.
This includes religion.
This includes cultural practice.
This includes you and this includes me.

I don't agree with the cultural practice (either in the US or in the Philippines) of circumcision. I don't respect the fact that it's usually done before a child can make the choice in the US. I don't respect the fact that boys and women are taught (whether by oral or practical teaching) that the male foreskin is somehow disgusting and that the removing of it makes a boy into a man. I do not respect these ideas because I believe them to be fallacious and harmful to the human mind. Why should someone be stricken socially with shame because they wish to remain whole? Because they wish to remain natural? Foreskin is completely natural and the removal of it has equally negative implications as not removing it.

I am not close minded. I considered the ideas you presented. I'm glad you did, because I did not know about people's attitudes toward circumcision in the Philippines. But that does not mean I have to respect an idea that I think is harmful or stupid. I give perfectly valid reasons for my position on the subject, and you call that close minded?

If I wished to be close minded, I wouldn't have a well articulated argument against your ideas. I'd simply say "they're dumb" and not know why I really disagreed.
For you, or anyone for that matter, to post their ideas on a debate forum and then start calling people close minded when they disagree is retarded.

Why post at all? Do you post ideas expecting people to to agree 100% of the time?
I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just being honest.
I find it a gross misuse of intelligence to call a valid argument 'close minded' without offering any support for such a claim.

(Sorry for the length.)

 

It was locked because you posted website links to penises, so much for not having an open mind that locked it

BTT- If you religious guys disagree then just don't do it to yourselves and your children, let other people have genitic enhancements but you should stop complaining and protesting to the government, your minds are so closed that you won't let others do what they believe is okay! Open up your mind and think on that!

 

Even that needs some qualification.

People should be allowed to belief and practice what they want to so long as it doesn't hurt others or impose on the freedoms of others.
This subject is a little gray, but I think in general it's mostly a 'moral' issue and isn't really about freedom to practice what you want.

 

off topic

Actually, if you truly had an open mind, you could admit that both theories could be correct and God could have caused the great bang in order to create life, but you won't because some prophet thousands of years ago, who didn't know about space or other planets, decided to write down how he(or she!) thought the world had begun. The fact that they only thought the Earth the Moon and the Sun were created is almost enough to discard their writings as 'fact'.

on topic

I believe that genetic mutation/manipulation is an important and valid path of research and should be persued regardless of what any religious body says. If a deity has issue with it, that deity is more than capable of stopping the research itself. Such research, as has been said before, must be done with care. I disagree with this animal testing, where we've gone in half-cocked and interbred animals. The fact remains that many lives could be saved through genetic engineering and that alone is enough reason for me.

 

Genetic Enhancements have no moral issue on humans who can communicate their feelings with other humans but it shouldn't be tested on animals, I am against it and a life being poked and prodded because you have less rights is wrong! Let humans mess around with themselves but it is unfair on animals...

 

I know... On another forum I was arguing about testing on animals because it is unecessary suffering and they still get bad results... The other member's response "NO U"... :

 

I don't want to think this state that we're in is as far as humans go. I'm in favor of "going cyborg". Why don't all those companies making humanoid robots just make cybernetic prosthesis for the disabled. The technology exists so why not use it?