Search results

You make a good point in making the distinction between deductive and inductive reason. True, conventional science can never create objective truth, but my point was that in theory it can. The process of analyzing evidence and drawing conclusions, if extended long enough, will allow us to arrive...

For me, I'd have to go with Zelda Ocarina of Time. I looove that game...so much. Can't wait for the next zelda on GC!

Quite simply GP, it's not an assumption, it's a definition. Science, if performed correctly, is like a mathamatical proof: it is infallible. Same with logic. I suppose there could be other methods of obtaining infallible truth, but I have not yet heard of any.

I will try to improve my word choice, I did not anticipate that the revised ToS would be this strict.

Trying my hardest CCGR.

Seeing as this is a gaming forum, I thought I'd pose the question: What's your favorite game of all time? Give it some thought! There are maaany awesome games out there.

As always Rithkil, thank you for your helpful insight.

But science and logic are the only infallible way to obtain truth--they are so by their nature.  Science that has been proven incorrect is, quite simply, science that was performed incorrectly, for if the system is implimented correctly, it is impossible for it to be false.  It's a fuzzy line...

I'm not saying that it can though. You're right in saying that we should not bank so firmly on the potential health benefits of embryonic stem cell research when there are so many problematic issues with their usage, but the perhaps more reliable adult stem cells cannot do the job oin their own...

Adult stem cells cannot handle all regenerative therapy needs due to its aforementioned limitations, and embryonic stem cells can be used to fill those gaps.

No, <edited for content> is when you fail to use your brain properly.

So clearly there are advantages and disadvantages to both embyronic and adult stem cells. I think the best and most effective regenerative therapy can only be accomplished in using both.

Well apparently we cannot yet adequately cultivate adult stem cells, so they are not entirely feasible for regenerative therapy, which requires large numbers of cells.  Embryonic stem cells are much more readily obtainable. Plus adult stem cells taken from the liver may only be usable in that...

GP- I did some research, and it appears that adult stem cells do not have as much potential as you claim. Taken from here. Adult stem cells do have potential in that stem cells taken from the patient and then re-entered into the body have high chance for bodily acceptance, but this will not...

Embryonic stem cell research may not hold the same potential as adult and cord blood research, but considering what is at stake here, this does not matter that much. Upon what exactly are you basing your opinion that it is a 'farce'?

Some atheists are against organized religion, but it is not fair to generalize. I do not share the same beliefs as people of religion, but I am not against what they beleive. Can you see the difference?

Hrmm... Athiests are not 'against religion,' they merely do not believe in the existence of a supreme being. You are stereotyping quite a bit by saying that...

I think you should decide that for yourself Silent. It's a tricky issue.

The embryos in question won't get the oppotunity regardless of whether they are researched on or not. You are stearing towards abortion, and I'd rather not go there.

In my mind, the defining characteristic of humanity is our intelligence. There is also, of course, our ability to form ethical systems, but that requires our high level of cognitive ability. A human embryo possess no cognitive ability whatsoever, thus I classify it as a human embryo and not a...