Is it wrong to have sex for fun, knowing it might possibly lead to an abortion?

[SetiAlpha6]

Right. The event they are demonstrating is not proof of "this happened naturally" it is "this can happen with ordinary chemical reactions." Miller-Urey, for example, specifically used nothing more than a spark gap to provide the energy for the reactions; in nature, lightning provides that energy. Since getting struck by lightning is logistically difficult, they used an artificial spark gap - but the effect is the same.

============
Biologists create the most lifelike artificial cells yet
By Mitch LeslieNov. 19, 2018 , 1:00 PM

No biologist would mistake the microscopic "cells" that chemical biologist Neal Devaraj and colleagues are whipping up at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), for the real thing. Instead of the lipid membrane that swaddles our cells, these cell mimics wear a coat of plastic—polymerized acrylate. And although they harbor a nucleuslike compartment containing DNA, it lacks a membrane like a real cell's nucleus, and its main ingredients are minerals found in clay.

Yet these mock cells are cutting-edge, "the closest anyone has come to building an actual functioning synthetic eukaryotic cell," says synthetic biologist Kate Adamala of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, who was not part of the work. Like real cells, the spheres can send protein signals to their neighbors, triggering communal behavior. And as Devaraj and his team revealed in a preprint recently posted on the bioRxiv site, the "nucleus" talks to the rest of the cell, releasing RNA that sparks the synthesis of proteins. The artificial nuclei can even respond to signals from other cell mimics. "This may be the most important paper in synthetic biology this year," Adamala says.
=============


?? If you bought hexagonal tiles from a hardware store, does that demonstrate that the Giant's Causeway was man-made? If you make some cool ice crystals in a freezer, does that mean that some intelligence is creating every snowflake? Pretty crooked reasoning.

Demonstrating that something can be made by man does not demonstrate that it CANNOT be made by nature. You should know better than that.

Here is some more of my stupidity...

I think of it like this, the fact that intelligence can make something extremely complex, designed and highly organized like a Stealth Fighter does not mean our even imply that a Stealth Fightet can be created by chance mechanisms, no matter how large the universe is, or how much time has gone by, or how many dimensions of other Universes their are.

The probability of this happening could certainly be calculated. And it would be extremely remote, similar to the probability of life creating itself.

But that is not something I would ever bank my life on.

Or teach to others, even children, in school as fact.

Fairytales do not belong in school, accept perhaps in English classes, taught as fiction or as science fiction.

 

[Write4U]

Musika said: ↑
Atheists discussing spirituality writes itself as comedy.

Really? While working for an Indian Tribe, I received a compliment from the local "bruha", that she found my (an atheist) connection with nature as quite spiritual in spite of my atheism. This was a "serious" person.
To later be presented with an eagle feather, was one of the most satisfying moments of my life.

Sure.
It is just about relegating the "spiritual" to the psychological .... which just happens to be the path well trodden by atheists.

Why do you and Jan keep making unsupported statements. Is there any reason why atheists should not understand or even experience "spiritual" emotions? That eerie feeling of intuitive "recognition". To you this just has to be a spiritual communication with god, but atheists stubbornly reject the "wonderful opportunity to convert", back to the stone age.

The point is that even lower class animals have evolved "intuitive" (hardwired) networks. Unless you want to acknowledge that animals can communicate with god, you cannot claim humans have a more special supernatural relationship to the universe than animals.

Only man is the "divinely chosen" animal? Dangerous thinking.

Mathematics is a "spiritual exercise". Lots of animals employ intuitive mathematics. A truly metaphysical mode of communication. All languages are abstract mathematics.

The difference between theism and atheism is that a theist indulges in fantasies of spiritual "supernatural" communication, whereas the atheist tries to understand why a person should and does have these experiential abilities which are clearly generated in the brain and natural in origin.

Jan authotitatively declares that this is due because atheists can "communicate " with god, but just don't recognize it.

This is a contentment with a potentially narcissistic indulgence of "dwelling among the gods". Does this sound good? Important?
Of course, we made the whole thing up, self interest, and potentially very dangerous. History is witness.

 

[Write4U]

Here is some more of my stupidity...

I think of it like this, the fact that intelligence can make something extremely complex, designed and highly organized like a Stealth Fighter does not mean our even imply that a Stealth Fightet can be created by chance mechanisms, no matter how large the universe is, or how much time has gone by, or how many dimensions of other Universes their are.

And for what purpose would the universe need a stealth fighter?

The probability of this happening could certainly be calculated. And it would be extremely remote, similar to the probability of life creating itself.

The universe has no need for a "flying machine", humans do, that's why the universe created flying machines through one of its naturally evolved creatures who cannot fly by themselves because they have no wings.

The insect could fly hundreds of millions of years before "modern" man even appeared on the scene. Apparently nature taught them how to do that, before anything on earth could even think.

But that is not something I would ever bank my life on.

I should hope not.
What you are proposing is a false equivalency".

Or teach to others, even children, in school as fact.

Apparently you have no clue about the universal imperative of "neccessity and sufficiency". This is what should be taught in school.

Fairytales do not belong in school, except perhaps in English classes, taught as fiction or as science fiction.

Right, they are, as should the bible be in both "creative writing" and some "psychology" classes.

Do you think the Universe needs to invent fairy tales? Yet you claim God invented the bible.
What is the probability of that?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

If you know, how did he do that? In one day? Playing with mud?

I do not know, I was not there.

Perhaps science will figure out how God did it someday. Certainly possible!

 

[Write4U]

I do not know, I was not there.

Ok, I'll consider everything you have to say on the subject with that in mind. Thank you.

Perhaps science will figure out how God did it someday.

No, science will figure out how it happened without the "necessity" for a motivated supernatural being.

You see, what you call God's wrath or pleasure is the spiritual code for the natural universal "evolutionary mutative" and "probabilistically selective" processes.

The universal imperative in that respect is found in "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction".
Eerie.....isn't it?...........................................................

 

[SetiAlpha6]

I am more curious about your inherent hypocrisy.

For example:


I take it your god embraces bigotry as well?

Or are you adding that for extra flavour and spice?

No!

This forum is not exactly a fair playing field now is it?

You are free to use scripture, which you don’t even believe in, and you twist it, and cut it out of the Bible and take it out of context.

If I were to quote scripture, I would be criticized.

You are certainly no theologian, and you misinterpret scripture deliberately to scoff at it and you expect me to take you seriously? You are a scoffer. And at least on this forum, you display a very critical, condemning heart. I hope you are not really like that at home.

Jesus taught His people to love each other and others.

That is the true gospel.

Go and find some of those references that show the Love of Jesus to share with everyone if you actually care about love and fairness.

So obviously, if Christians are not acting in love they are not following Jesus, but instead their own heart.

It is not that hard to figure that out. You should already know that yourself.

God is ultimately opposed to evil in any and every nation, and color, and people. He is also ultimately pleased with good and love in any and every nation, and color, and people. He is impartial.

 

[Tiassa]

the very same people who are against abortion are also against anything to help that child once its born.

We should also bear in mind they are, generally speaking, the same people who are against anything that allows a woman any say over reproduction or pregnancy.

To the other, the discussion seems well past that part.

Or, rather, let's be clear: It never really was about abortion or buggery.

If I suggest taking a deep breath, it's because you're in a moment when you can see the joke.

Spoiler

The Universe is the Practical Joke of the General at the Expense of the Particular, quoth FRATER PERDURABO, and laughed.

But those disciples nearest to him wept, seeing the Universal Sorrow.

Those next to them laughed, seeing the Universal Joke.

Below these certain disciples wept.

Then certain laughed.

Others next wept.

Others next laughed.

Next others wept.

Next others laughed.

Last came those that wept because they could not see the Joke, and those that laughed lest they should be thought not to see the Joke, and thought it safe to act like FRATER PERDURABO.

But though FRATER PERDURABO laughed openly, He also at the same time wept secretly; and in Himself He neither laughed nor wept.

Nor did He mean what He said.

(Perdurabo, "ΚΕΦΑΛΗ ΙΔ — Onion Peelings"↱)

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Ok, I'll consider everything you have to say on the subject with that in mind. Thank you.

You are welcome... that will be great!

Now explain to me how life began, and prove it empirically.

And do not give me one of those, “well it may have, or it could have” theories, that other scientists with their own personal opposing pet theories debunk.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

We should also bear in mind they are, generally speaking, the same people who are against anything that allows a woman any say over reproduction or pregnancy.

To the other, the discussion seems well past that part.

Or, rather, let's be clear: It never really was about abortion or buggery.

Most of this profiling is ignorance.

And this thread was about the ethics of sex in today’s world.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

And for what purpose would the universe need a stealth fighter?
The universe has no need for a "flying machine", humans do,

And for what purpose would the universe need a human? Or anything else?

 

[Write4U]

And for what purpose would the universe need a human? Or anything else?

The universe doesn't need humans, we are the result of a natural dynamic exponential bio-chemical organic growth function "in the direction of greatest satisfaction" as per bacterial "quorum sensing" .

You do know that a human organism is genetically 1% pure human code and 99% bacterial code, don't you?

See if you can recognize ; "neccessity and sufficiency"........

 

[Write4U]

duplicate

 

[Bells]

No!

This forum is not exactly a fair playing field now is it?

You are free to use scripture, which you don’t even believe in, and you twist it, and cut it out of the Bible and take it out of context.

I quoted you.

I do not view your words as scripture.

My point, which you are trying to dodge, is the inherent hypocrisy behind your arguments in this thread.

For example, you prattle on about how God loves all his children, and you then repeatedly accuse women of murdering their "children" when they have abortions. But you dismiss and ignore the murders of actual children, by God, in the very Bible you keep waving about when preaching repeatedly.

Or when you carry on about how Christianity and/or Jesus is about love, while making derogatory comments about non-Christians.. Particularly women who have abortions.

If you are going to quote scripture, if you are going to use religion as the basis of your argument, then it seems fit that you should answer for all the bad and horrific things in your religious text. God murdering the first born's across Egypt is not taking things out of context. It simply points to you hypocrisy when it comes to women and our bodies.

You embrace a God that orders his angels to murder the first born of anything and everything, but you accuse women who have abortions as apparently being immoral and murdering "children".

If I were to quote scripture, I would be criticized.

You are certainly no theologian, and you misinterpret scripture deliberately to scoff at it and you expect me to take you seriously? You are a scoffer. And at least on this forum, you display a very critical, condemning heart. I hope you are not really like that at home.

I'm sorry, but anyone who keeps plugging 'shroud.com' as proof of the existence of Jesus has absolutely no place to lecture anyone about their understanding of theology and misinterpreting anything whatsoever.

Secondly, yes, I scoff at your sources.

Just as I scoff with disgust at your brazen attempt to preach to people about your religious ideology under the guise of literally attacking women as being murderers when they exercise any rights over their bodies and their reproductive organs.

Jesus taught His people to love each other and others.

Pray tell, can you explain why you are so hateful?

That is the true gospel.

Then perhaps you should follow it and cease and desist in inserting your opinion into the wombs of women.

Go and find some of those references that show the Love of Jesus to share with everyone if you actually care about love and fairness.

So obviously, if Christians are not acting in love they are not following Jesus, but instead their own heart.

It is not that hard to figure that out. You should already know that yourself.

God is ultimately opposed to evil in any and every nation, and color, and people. He is also ultimately pleased with good and love in any and every nation, and color, and people. He is impartial.

What a shame you do not follow his example.

An entire thread of you essentially slut shaming women for having sex outside of marriage, to gems like this:

I believe that Roe v Wade actually allows a woman to kill the child living in her womb, her son or daughter, for any reason at any time. A woman can kill her own child because she broke a nail if she wants to.

Points to the inherent hypocrisy of your entire participation in this thread.

No one is buying it.

 

[Capracus]

No, same brain, theism adds the Soul. Which is not part of this Naturalistic Existence.

The Soul is the real you, a Spirit, living in a body, not constrained by Naturalistic Determinism.

That is the only way Free Will exists!

Where is it in the human body that the soul resides? Is it a specific location, such as the cerebrum of the brain? Or does it inhabit the entire body?

I asked this question earlier but got no reply, and since you appear to be the only one in the thread that has a belief in a human soul, I would appreciate your take on the question.

 

[Musika]

Where is it in the human body that the soul resides? Is it a specific location, such as the cerebrum of the brain? Or does it inhabit the entire body?

I asked this question earlier but got no reply, and since you appear to be the only one in the thread that has a belief in a human soul, I would appreciate your take on the question.

If it's not part of "naturalistic existence", your q is moot.

 

[Write4U]

You are welcome... that will be great!

Now explain to me how life began, and prove it empirically.

And do not give me one of those, “well it may have, or it could have” theories, that other scientists with their own personal opposing pet theories debunk.

Why are you asking this? I have offered plenty available information on how life MUST have evolved via a natural fundamental dynamic electro/chemical interactive function, which you choose to ignore.

Don't tell me now that I and others have not provided abundant evidence of how natural universal constants in chemical reactions allow for the mathematically evolving formations of bio-organisms, from simple bacteria to humans and every other living organism on earth or elswhere in the universe.

Watch the Robert Hazen presentation on how life began on earth, where the probabilistic speculation is not if it is possible that sentient life can evolve, but if different forms of life may have evolved in several individual places at individual times. With a very high probability that life exists elsewhere in universe.

 

[Write4U]

If it's not part of "naturalistic existence", your q is moot.

Is it moot to you, or is it pertinent to your POV?

 

[Musika]

Is it moot to you, or is it pertinent to your POV?

If something is claimed to be outside the jurisdiction of natural science, asking q's about how to categorize the claim with natural science become moot.

 

[iceaura]

If something is claimed to be outside the jurisdiction of natural science, asking q's about how to categorize the claim with natural science become moot.

Or indicative - a way to find out where the crazy is rooted, by the clues in the gibberish.
"How to categorize the claim with natural science", for example, is informative gibberish. It tells us something of how the poster stands in relationship to scientific inquiry, and even what kinds of questions they deem appropriate to ask on a science forum.

Except at the end of the day, all that is done in the name of advancement is fabricating the by-products of life,

Not the byproducts - the structural elements. And they weren't fabricated - they self assembled.

 

[Capracus]

If it's not part of "naturalistic existence", your q is moot.

Well SetiAlpha6 made a comment that seemed to associate the soul with the brain, that’s why I was interested in his take on the question. Since the brain is the instrument of human experience, wouldn’t it be logical to assume that it would be essential to the existence of a soul?