WEAREBORG4102

Ships Crew
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    11,148

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by WEAREBORG4102

  4. Posted · Edited by WEAREBORG4102

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4133693.stm

     

    Click For Spoiler
    Romanian doctors say a 67-year-old woman is seven months pregnant with twin girls after fertility treatment.

    If the pregnancy comes to full term, it is believed that Adriana Iliescu, an author and academic, will become the oldest recorded mother.

     

    Mrs Iliescu told local television she had always wanted to be a mother but had been unable to conceive naturally.

     

    She says she is optimistic about her future as a mother, claiming her family has a history of longevity.

     

    Last year, a 65-year-old Indian woman gave birth to a boy.

     

    Schoolteacher Satyabhama Mahapatra from Nayagarh in Orissa had been impregnated with an egg from her 26-year-old niece that had been fertilised by her husband.

     

    It was the first child for Ms Mahapatra and her husband who had been married for 50 years.

     

  16. Posted

    Light has mass because it can be quantified. This quantum is the proton. As things speed up, their mass increases as they approach the velocity of light. More energy must be put in in order to accelerate the object. However, theoretically, it takes an almost infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object to the speed of light. Theoretically of course.

  17. Posted

    Well, I was half-right... I was right when I said no. I was wrong about why I thought so.

     

    BTW, WAB, these days "Photoshopped" is a generic term. You don't need Photoshop to alter pics. I don't have it, either. I use Corel Photo-paint 10.

    292775[/snapback]

    I know. Anyways, they got rid of the original photoshop format, so now you have the computer do everything for you and you can't really use it like you used to... :assimilated:

  21. Posted

    Actually WAB, I still don't see what meiosis has to do with twins or cloning because in twins we're talking about the two offspring being identical to each other - not to the parent.  And while the egg and sperm which created them were created throught the process of meiosis - there was still only once of each and the twins have identical dna.

     

    Actually the process of meiosis is complete for a female when she is born - all of her eggs have been produced - they don't mature or ripen for several years and fraternal twins are a result of two eggs being released at the same time and fertilized by two separate sperm. (it gets really tricky when the sperm come from two separate donors)  This is getting way off topic but I read about a woman who was in a custody battle for one of her twins because they had different fathers and the sad effects the battle was having on the twins because of how close they were.

     

    And in cloning they use a complete cell from an adult (not an egg or sperm cell) so it is genetically identical to the donor - except in the case of Dolly the telomeres were "older" - did you notice Phlox refered to telomeres when he examined T'Pau's dna and determined it was her infant sample.

    292725[/snapback]

     

    According to my bio notes, you can't clone an animal with just a regular epidermal cell. You have to take out the nucleus and inject it with special DNA from a cumulus cell from the donor ovary.

     

    Ny definition, Meiosis is not absolutely complete when a female child is born. There are two stage of Meiosis. The first stage is complete, but the second stage is not instigated until puberty and each menstrual cycle. Meiosis is not just production of the egg, it includes the separation from the polar bodies. That does not occur until the second stage of Meiosis.

  22. Posted

    I have noticed, while shopping for a playstation 2 today that nearly every copy and dance mat in every store was sold out. Now, I thought that it was a fairly unpopular game with the gaming community; I guess I was wrong, big time. What I would like to know is, do any of you play it?  If you play it, who got you started, when, what mode are you on and whats your favorite song?

    I do, I'm on light mode right now and just getting the PS2 game and the mat (still working on the PS2 part of the equation....) so I can practice more. Its a fun game, good workout and great songs. Just watching people playing it got me courious, but since I didn't want to do horriable by myself I got a friend to play it with me and I was hooked ever since. As I said before, I'm on light mode and just because I feel like it; my average grade is a C (><B). My favorite song is, well the title of it is all in Japanese and it begins with a D and its on the arcade version of Extreme....eh, I'll jot it down when I play it next.

    292717[/snapback]

     

     

    Not meaning to be stereotypical here, but DDR is very much an Asian video game. considering that Asians are over 1/3 of the world's population, almost 1/2, it's bound to steal off the shelves. It's a craze among the Asian community. You go to a Chinese Church. The youth minister is bound to have a copy of DDR and two mats. :(

  24. Posted

    So you're saying that God's existence depends on physical aspects? God creates anything, but you assume his nature. Actions do not speak of words. He created nature, which destroys.

     

    I don't think he created nature, because I don't believe he exists.

     

    What I'm saying, is that those who believe in god must consider one of two things.

     

    1) God created nature and placed it beyond his control and therefore also placed our lives in the random hands of nature, therefore why worship him? For what reason? He's not protecting you, he won't intervene.

     

    2) God did not create nature, but nature exists, so god doesn't exist.

     

    You took me out of context. I'm not talking about creation. I'm talking about his personality, the nature of God.

     

    Look at this for a second. Can we humans destroy things? We were created by man. Can we destroy things? Can we wage war?

     

    Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes.

     

    doesn't that mean there is a force that started that? If you believe that the big bang existed, howcome all the same material colled at different rates in a vacuum? How can that be explained? How did the Hydrogen come together specifically to form stars? Why invest your belief in somthing so illogical?

     

    Are there not convection currents? Do we really understand the whole world? The universe? You cannot base the evidence of an omnipotent being by just looking at one aspect of creation.

     

    But there's no evidence for the existence of a god. There are certain things we cannot accomplish because of physical constraints, but we have evidence for those, whether it be theoretical or material.

     

    There is. Why can't we explain away that every single cultural and historical detail in the Bible is confirmed by Historical evidence found by secular and mostly atheistic archaeologists?

     

    So you're saying that laws just exist. Can you give a good explanation of how these laws came into being?

     

    Yes. Natural laws in this case exist because the planet's surface crust is divided into tectonic plates which move, when the stress builds us, they move suddenly, causing an earthquake which shifts the seabed, which alters the water, which results in a tsunami.

     

    No. The law of thermodynamics was in place during the Big Bang according to the Big Bang theory. Why can't you explain the existance of these laws? BTW convection is theory. You're not referring to laws. What you're suggesting is that plate tectonics is a law. It's not. It's theory based on Alfred Wegener's theory of Continental drift coupled with deep-ocean radar scans. How did Boyle's law come to be about? why is it that direct relationship? Why not something else? There is a pattern to everything. These patterns suggest a maker or a designer.

     

    They theoretically can control hurricanes. However, we can create tsumanis and earthquakes, and convection currents that are cause by natural law.

     

    We could cause an earthquake, and a tsunami. But we wouldn't create either that would kill thousands of people.

     

    Yes. we can. A Nuclear War head detonated in the Challenger's Deep could cause an Earthquake so powerful you couldn't imagine. BTW Challenger's Deep is lined with enriched uranium that would augment the explosion along one of the largest faults on the planet. This would be far worse than today's quake.

     

    If we can, why can't God?

     

    We "could", doesn't mean we will. Why not God? Because if he existed and he wanted to kill thousands of people, then he's a threat to the people of this planet. But he didn't, because IMO he does not exist.

     

    Do we deserve our lives? How many of those people wanted to live another day. Is it your choice that other people live? But most importantly, did God do it or nature?

     

    Who gave you that goal?

     

    I did. By observing suffering that is taking place in the world, and deciding that we should resolve problems like that.

     

    So are you the boss of everyone? Can you "resolve" "problems"? Are they problems? Is it really suffering?

     

    If you look at the Bible, it's not a cop-out. Loook at our DNA. You're saying that the world is so random, we appeared, here, why do we all exist?

     

    It's random in the sense that it occured naturally, but now we've evolved to this state, we can give ourselves purpose.

     

    That's not the point. How did DNA occur naturally? Why do we exist? One mistake in our genome could allow for trisomy 21 (down's syndrom). IT is not just a coincidence that we have biological spellcheckers built into our DNA.

     

    One deletion, or addition of a nucleotide basis can cause a frame shift. This one base can turn you into a pile of goo. The proteins would sequence wrong. One base. Would randomness create a spellchecker?

     

    In a sense yes, because through randomness, it came up with us, and we develop our own "spellcheckers" over time, whether that being medicine, technology etc.

     

    So does randomness adapt? I don't think so. That would mean is wouldn't be randomness. You're saying the universe is getting more orderly. That is very much against the second law of thermodynamics.

     

    The Bible itself in Revalations shows that GOD can cause earthquakes, control locusts, etc. IF YOU READ THE BIBLE I THINK YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND.

     

    I think you need to step out of the Bible from time to time. If God existed and he could create those things, then he's a enemy. I don't think humanity needs god to create earthquakes or control locusts. If he existed, we would need him to spare us from those things.

     

    And you don't have to use full caps. I can read normal text.

     

    The reason he caused them was because man said that He wasn't existant.

     

    God lets you have the volition to decide what you want to do. He has given you a purpose, but many choose not to accept it.

     

    No he doesn't. If a child is born with a terrible disease or illness, they didn't choose to be that way, unless your god wants their purpose to be a life of suffering?

     

    But is it suffering?

     

    What does that have to do with God? That is inflicted by people.

     

    Exactly, I'm saying that's why so many people died.

     

    The whole point of this thread came from my statement saying that telling people god is looking for the victims of this disaster is ridiculous, because god must have created the tsunami which killed people in the first place.

     

    How many times do I have to repeat that?

     

    did God create it or was it laws of nature that killed them that God created? Remember, he can create things that destroy like us.

     

    Look at this perspective: Why do we build in places where there is geographic risk? The risk has been there for thousands of years. If you live there, you accept it.

     

    If you use that logic, then we should not give money to people suffering from famine? Because they settle in areas of poor farming?

     

    But religious people are supposed to be charitable. So which one is it? Charitable or ruthless?

     

    Is it that ruthless? cna't you move to places with better conditions?If you're hot in the kitchen, wouldn't you go somewhere cooler? It's not ruthlessness, it's logic. I never said anything about withholding chairty. The reason people give to charity is to help needy people move to places in the physical world or in the social ladder (in the Marxist point of view). We don't give to charities because we think addicts should smoke on a street corner and stay in filthy condition and waste the charitable donations.

     

    Do you dictate divine standards?

     

    "Man" generally does, since I believe human beings created myths such as god.

     

    You just said you are god.

     

    Its just contradictory.

     

    Many religions are dualistic. Christianity states that evil was first incarnated in Lucifer, the most beautiful of angels, a seraphim. He decided that he was too proud for God. He decided he was better than God. He then became Satan. God lets him have a chance to tempt man. He wants man to choose between himself and Satan. God gave us the chance through Jesus, the son in the trinity. He gave us the chance to escape from sin through his cleansing power. He gives us the chance of eternal life. That is what Christianity is about.

     

    Yes, Christianity is full of great stories. But that's all they are.

     

    If it was a real occurance God wanted to, he could have just destroyed Satan, since he was only an angel. But he let him live to cause misery for humans, so god needs to sort out his priorities.

     

    So nobody gets volition? If you were god, you wouldn't give choices? What are your priorities? Adam and Eve chose the way of sin, we live in that consequence. they had the chance to live in Eden forever, but they chose to disobey God and follow the ways of sin. They chose. We suffer the consequences. He didn't cause the misery. We did.

     

    Most of what you point out for evidence for no God is due to the point that we can't explain why those things that we can cause occur. My explanation is as good as yours. Can you explain how those things can occur randomly? That is the only option if you were to believe there is no God.

     

    I do believe there is no God. Certain diseases occur for very real reasons, just as genetic flaws and such, which medical research will overcome hopefully, given enough funding and research. If we cure them, that will be OUR accomplishment, not that of a god being.

     

    I never said that they were of a God being. They are our accomplishments through our volition. God provided that volition. Is randomness your substitute for God? You believe that randomness created the universe, the superclusters of glaxies, made the three laws of thermodynamics and gravity contant, and yet still made a spellchecker following the DNA and RNA polymerase? I don't think that's random. Yet A=T, C=G/ Chargaff came up with that. but how could the fixed amounts of cytosine, guanine, adenine, and thymine come out of randomness? Your train of thought is totally illogical.

     

    Who says that God has to do stuff for you?

     

    Why not? If he alledgedly created people, then let them suffer?

     

    are we deserving of life? Why doesn't God let us suffer?. Stereotypes of God and Christian love aren't effective arguments. Could the earthquakes bring about something better? Did you ever consider that?

     

    He gave you the chance for eternal life.

     

    No he didn't. When did this choice present itself?

     

    John 3:16

     

    look it up in the Bible.

     

    I was given no choice for eternal life.

     

    Why do we deserve to exist?

     

    Because we want to. We take our future into our own hands as much as possible.

     

    So the wants of the limited human outweigh anything an omnipotent God says? Who says it's our future? Such a selfish point of view :(

     

    Are we that selfish?

     

    Yes. We want to live, but we are also capable of great generousity.

     

    Couldn't that generosity be brought about by great catastrophes like this one?

     

    Do we even deserve life?

     

    Yes, unless some people present a danger to others, then they may need to be taken out.

     

    We all pose a danger to one another. I have the ability to kill people if I sleep walk. I have the ability to kill people if I drive a car. Anything can pose a threat. Did you know that too much water can kill you? Why don't we get rid of water? Oh wait, we'd die.

     

    Did God kill them?

     

    No.

     

    Then why are you blaming God?

     

    Or did natural laws that God created kill them?

     

    No. He did not create them. I don't believe he exists, therefore I don't think he created anything.

     

    Then why are you blaming him?

     

    The natural laws did.

     

    That's right, but they weren't created by a god.

     

    So why blame God?

     

    If we can kill and murder each other, is God murdering the people?

     

    No, because he didn't create us. When people kill and murder others, we deal with those people under our own laws.

     

    but you said everything was created by randomness. So randomness kills and creates things. I don't see that happening. I see patterns, not randomness in reality.

     

    NO! You would never say that. Isn't it the same for those laws that he created?

     

    No, because there was no "he" to create anything.

     

    So your evidence that my evidence is wrong is your word? You can best give me your word? I gave you science to back up what I said. can you come up with a logical argument that could hold up in a debate tournament? I want common sense, not something off the top of your head. Something logical.

    292708[/snapback]