Forum
Human Cloning Foundation Hails British Scientists
Paralyzed
Walk Again
Childless Couples
Essays
The Benefits of
Human Cloning
All the Reasons to
Clone Human Beings
The Top Ten Myths
about Human Cloning
Human Cloning is the Cure for Infertility
Infertility is
a Disease
Books
People
Reports
Archives
Feedback
Donate
Links
Website Links
About Us
Contact Us
Site history
Site Map
Past Books of the Month
John Kunich's Books
Copyright
Illegal Beings: Human Clones
Re: Those RELIGION vs EVOLUTION comments... Really...
I_KNOW_WHOM_TO_CLONE ( 12/23/2004, 11:19:34 )...Religious fanatic??Then it's worse then I thought - you even don't know difference between religion and science.There can be practicaly countless religions, but science can be only ONE (if we're talking about real science, and that's what we are talking about). That's because science deals with the truth of everything (which can be checked using common sense, and expirienced), and: truth is one and definite. If something represents itself as science, and somebody prooves that there is something else that represents truth instead of what was previously representing it, then all that happens is that the old things become useless, and newly discovered facts take their place and become facts of science - so it's science - again.I only use exaggerated claims as a figure of speech - e.g. when I claim that evolution IS(!) the truth. I do that in response; - because I'm confused (outraged in inability to understand the way you (miss)interpretate/look at things), shocked (if you will) by you people who act like you can't understand nor see what is logical and what is (so obviously) impossible! It's like you're provoking other people just to talk (no matter what); even if the theme is trivial (without any "hook" for discusion) - things that everyone (decent) understand first-hand. On the other hand - the ONLY THING i want to do is to say that facts of evolution are the right way (right direction - just that), the way that will (surely) lead us toward the truth (out of many ways there possible can be).The way (direction, cours) you (what you would like to seem (anyway)) represent, is trivially wrong; and I explained why in many examples (although I shouldn't have - because I'm just losing time that way...). That's why (if you were by any chance wondering) there are so much of these countless little black graphical characters taking up relatively vast space in numerous lines standing above each other on your screen...So - never mind everything else: the main thing I'm doing is saying that science gives the right direction in exploration towards truth. That easy.I'm not trying to convince you in "The great opossite of what you think.", this doesn't have to do apsolutely nothing with you. I'm just explaining general things. So there is no need for taking any of this personal. (i WAS saying that "I don't understand you PEOPLE", not some exact person)On the other-hand (when you're already trying to be personal), I might say that problem with you (as it seems) is that you're viewing the concept of "oppinion", as a concept of an antogonisation: of dividing into groups of 'believers' ('fanatics' as you expressed (the irreducible acceptants of concepts)), which contains in itself that: when you accept some oppinion there is no going back, so you must represent it even if your reason says the opposite (or (in order to 'believe') you srugle to suppress what your reason might begin to understand in the first place) - which is wrong (all of it). OPPINION (the concept of it) is (at least: should be) based upon current understanding of things, so if you understand something else that is closer to the truth (and reason decides about it) - then: there SHOULDn't be any problem in considering that (if not accepting).Needless to say - I'm not 'fanatic'. If you give me a reason to consider something as a truth (or: at least a direction toward what more seems to be the truth) then I'll do so. ...But you didn't give me any argument yet. (The first version of previous sentence included "(decent, considerable)" in front of word 'argument', but there is no need for it so I excluded it - because first there must be an argument (it alone) - which you didn't present at all.) There is a "discrete" difference between 'claim' and 'argument', mind you......I CAN leave Darvin out of my story, because I'm not talking about 'Darvin's theory of evolution', instead - I'm (actually) talking about the concept of 'evolution' itself - which is so obviously 'the right direction toward the truth' (or as I shortly say: "THE TRUTH"). ...And I'm reminding that the term "evolution" (regardless of what people might think!) represents concept of beings changing their apearance thorough-out generations, which (very slowly) adds upon each other to create more noticable differences between creatures - and latter: the cucial differences between species (compare a mouse with an elephant - they are both mammals, but look at those HUGE differences between their characteristics!)... So don't think of me in terms of "Darvinism VS. Religionism (or something)" or "Darvinist VS. Religionist" (now: that's some silly and laughable way of thinking there!)...You said: "By the way, don't be offended cause I am not offended by you at all I like your posts." ...None intended... ...and who says that I can feel offended by your previous talk?!?... (sort of - like: "left-eyebrow-raised confused") Never mind.
This Message is being posted for educational purposes, as well as for comment and criticism, by the visitors to the HumanCloning.org Foundation website (www.HumanCloning.org ).
Disclaimer: Information provided on this web site is for educatonal purposes only. It is not a substitute for, nor can it replace advice from your own physician.
HumanCloning.org™ Established December 11, 2002.
Who's Afraid of Human Cloning?
Disease Prevention and Treatment