... who would a female chimp anyway?
A leading Scottish churchman and bioethics thinktank operator has warned again of the dangers attendant on genetic research, and recommended that there should be a law against men having children with female chimpanzees. The Scotsman reports today that Calum MacKellar, an Elder of the Church of Scotland who trained as a …
Yeah, I failed my biochemistry degree too. But I didn't then retreat into a shell of irrationality and forget what I knew of cell biology and histocompatibility.
I thought about looking at a bio of the guy somewhere, but I really don't want to know that he got an honours degree in biochemistry and is still spouting such arrant bullshit.
"Christians accept that every person is amazingly loved and valued by an amazing God"
Oh, is that the completely unproven and unprovable god of the Bible? Or the one the Muslims accept? Or the one the Jews accept? Or the ones the Hindus accept? Or one of the other many thousands of gods humanity has created?
Take religion out of politics and we might get on with life.
Seriously, to think that you have to be religious to be a good person really grates at me. I'm an atheist, and I don't go around shagging monkeys.
"all research on human embryos is morally wrong."
Are those morals taken directly from your holy book? Is that the same book that says to kill unruly children and stone adulterers? How about when you find out your new wife isn't a virgin on her wedding night, do you still take her to the doorstep of her father? No. You choose not to have slaves. You choose not to stone adulterers. You choose not to kill unruly children. YOU choose which parts of the Bible to ignore and which to adhere to. If you made these choices, then how can your holy book be used as the basis for your morality when YOU have made the moral decisions yourself? Your reasoning is circular.
"The Church of Scotland said in 2006 that it was opposed to any creation of human embryos 'by IVF methods or nuclear transfer cloning methods'."
So this church is against in vitro fertilization? I believe the book they prescribe their religion to has a passage about 'being fruitful and multiplying'. I'm failing to see here how helping to increase fertility might be construed as wrong.
"In 2000, MacKellar suggested that cloning techniques could be used to produce a child with two fathers and no mother, a technique that was thought likely to appeal to gay men. ... There can't be much doubt that MacKellar would have been hoping to see the male-only kids possibility forbidden. He has written a paper arguing that homosexuality is an affliction which a moral, Christian person does not yield to - just like paedophilia or murderous rage."
Again, I've seen the so called banning of homosexuality by biblical quotation. I did fail to see the addendum that prohibited mixing up two people's genes to make a new person if those two people happen to be the same sex. My understanding of the Catholic's viewpoint, is that a homosexual is in the moral clear so long as he does not commit a sex act. Looks like MacKellar follows that line of thought. How then, is creating a child without commiting a homosexual sex act banned in any way? Mr. MacKellar, there's nothing in any book from a thousand years ago that mentions that sort of thing in any way! In fact, it sounds much like people being fertile and multiplying to me..
Intolerant people such as this would do well to be forced to live without the benefit of the labor of those they would condemn..
Well Mr MacKellar certainly isn't shy about trying to tar everyone else with the same brush now is he!
"Christians believe"... "Christians accept"... "This is a crucial Christian belief"
Really! I don't ever remember anyone asking my opinion, and I imagine there are plenty of other Christians out there who feel the same as me.
Mr MacKellar, unless you can provide documentary proof showing the majority of Christians agree with you, please don't try dragging the rest of us down into this!
"Christians believe that all persons [...] cannot be reduced to ‘piles of cells’"
_Some_ Christians, maybe. MacKellar is taking far too much upon himself to presume he speaks for all Christians. People _are_ piles of cells - cells that have acquired self-awareness, conscience and (in many cases) a need for religion.
If every cell is sacred, MacKellar had better keep track of every skin cell he's sloughed, and each white blood cell he's spilt. If that seems preposterous, don't forget each one carries his nuclear and mitrochondrial DNA, and is capable of providing the means of life.
So is an embryonic bolus. Neither is independently human ... yet.
Paris, for her enthusiastic (but so far unsuccessful) breeding programme.
Surely the fact that this is a worry for "A leading Scottish churchman" tells us something about the Scotch.
No Englishman ever found a "lady chimp" attractive.
P.S. I choose the Bill Gates icon, but the Reg really needs an icon of Steve Ballmer these days. First off, he is the CEO now. And, secondly, who could be more appropriate as an icon for this story than "Monkey Boy"?
Is this linked to Brown stance on skunk?
It seems to be the perfect proof that you shouldn't watch "Planet of the apes" completely high.... or Karl Marx was even more right than he was thinking and religion is really people's opium (and apparently can get you VERY high).
Now seriously, for someone that supposed to had scientific training (???) there are enough proofs that animals can be self-conscious and/or self-aware (in particular Bonobos, orang-outan and..... chimpanzees). But of course I suspect that our friend believes that God only created man on his image (except of course gays, atheists and women).
Isn't it about time that we took people who still believe in fairy storys out of positions of power?
People slate those involved in Waco as wakos, but still believe in the Pope?
No offense to anyone stupid enough to believe in a God, or even worse, to believe in a God yet NOT believe in other peoples relegions, but how is believing in God any different from belevieng in the Ginger Bread man?
Actually, apart from the Ginger Bread man never having been used as a basis of oppresion of women, power of other men and the cause of untold millions of murders.
...but i ain't ever heard or seen of any man/chimp loving on the agenda anywhere. Thankfully!
Oh and i can never let this one go: ""Christians accept that every person is amazingly loved and valued by an amazing God""
Oh yeah? Try spending some time on a childrens cancer ward and explain that to them and their families.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
>Oh, is that the completely unproven and unprovable god of the Bible?
Likewise, you can't prove he doesn't exist. ;) At the end of the day, if you aren't even open to the idea of God, then you'd deny his existence even if he slapped you in the face.
>Take religion out of politics and we might get on with life.
Don't loose any sleep, it is already out... This was a Christian country, and we've completely turned out back on God - as a result our country has gone to the dogs.
>Seriously, to think that you have to be religious to be a good person really grates at me.
Of course you don't have to be a religious person to be a good person, but without the values and morals of the religion of the country, then that country is nothing. Why is rape, murder etc. so common now compared to decades ago, because people were "more" Christian back then? No, because people respected the Christian values of this country. You take God and Christianity out of the UK and the morals won't be far behind. You're welcome to take the negative, but if we ignore history, then the ultimate test is to see how low the UK has stooped in its morality and standards... ;)
>YOU choose which parts of the Bible to ignore and which to adhere to.
Not really, one is the Old Testament, we live in the New Testament.
Damnit - and I'd paid the deposit for my holiday to Borneo and everything !!! That's that out the window then. :(
However, being in Inverness, I feel I have to speak up for (some of) the natives. We're not all that hairy up here ! Especially the ginger ones who for understandable reasons keep it cropped short. Sure, we have our fair share of knuckle draggers or "chimpanchavs" as I will now call them, but I'd wager it's no more than any other city of this latitude.
Perhaps this loving christian fellow is maybe trying to retire on the insanity plea or something ? He gives the rest of the Wee Free virgin-policeman-torching, wicker-man-worshipping churchgoers round these parts a bad name.
Further, it's a sad day indeed when your loving God turns out to have such a cruel sense of humour - surely, he'd be only too delighted to have all his creatures in a big love-in ?
Yours, homo-erectus-ly etc etc
"Isn't it about time that we took people who still believe in fairy storys [sic] out of positions of power?"
Which "fairy stories" were you thinking of? Marxism? Socialism? Liberalism? Utilitarianism? Freudianism? Jungianism, Feminism? Multiculturalism? ... and so on and so forth.
Or was it just the Church of Scotland you had in mind? If so, why?
Not that this man isn't an ass by why are you singling out his ideology rather than anyone else's?
Who gets to say what is a "fairy story" and what isn't? It wouldn't be you who gets to say, by any chance, Anonymous Coward, would it?
Had anybody seriously thought about sexing up a chimp before the Christians decided to warn us about it?
I mean come on, I went to the zoo and it never occurred to me that I could climb into the cage and indulge in some human on hairy beast action. Yet for Christians the zoo is a place of allure and temptation. The very fact that it is /possible/ to screw a chimpanzee means that Christians must be legally restrained from doing so. And not only Christians - normal sane people like you and me too!
What makes them think this stuff up? How does a minister swing a sermon from
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son" to "Oh, and don't make sexytime with chimps, just in case you were thinking about that".
Do we really need a law to govern *every* possible human behaviour? And should we be entrusting our freedom to a group of people who don't believe in dinosaurs.
Surely Dr Scum here could mobilize all the flog 'em and hang 'em Readers of the Reg if he only hinted that female humanzees would be used as child-surrogate sex-slaves and male humanzees would go around raping little girls. Or maybe we could just eat 'em. I mean, would Veggies complain about non-natural protein sources like these? Is it really meat, or something else?
Oh, Brave New World, that has such unpeople in it!
Look, he may have tarted up his statement with sci-fi gibberish, but he did raise a valid point.
""The Human Fertilisation and Embryo Bill prohibits the placement of animal sperm into a woman The reverse is not prohibited. It's not even mentioned. This should not be the case.""
He is quite right to point out that the legislation is not internally consistent. Any legislation dealing with either "chimera" soma-cell transfer or true hydridisation should be rigorously complete.
I must admit the man does have a point, that if animal sperm-> woman is totally illegal, but man sperm-> animal is not, then as sure as eggs is eggs some mad sod will try it.
There are many examples of scientists attempting to, or managing to cross two closely-related but separate species (e.g. horse & zebra, Tiger & Lion etc.,) for little more reason than idle curiosity.
True, such hybrids are generally infertile, but we have seen quite a few examples of dotty scientists messing around with what they don't fully understand...
He is probably been reading Bernard Malamuds 'God's Grace' rather than Crichton. The hero is the sole survivor of nuclear war, a scientist with a talking female chimpanzee who he soon seduces to repopulate the earth. His only other conversations are with Yahweh, who doesn't seem to mind the monkey business.
It makes more sense for women to be impregnated by the chimps, as their womb would be more suitable than a chimps to carry it to term.
The Soviets supposedly experimented with this 90 years ago, in the hope of creating an army of stupid yet strong workers, whereas we rely on our schools to achieve that.
The muppet said:
"If it was never able to be self-aware or self-conscious it would probably be considered an animal,"
He really does not know much about primates. Primates are aware of what they are doing, have complex social behaviours, are able to interpret (and act on) the behaviour and emotions expressed by their peers.
Animals are not different from us - other than we have, as far as we know, a better developed language / communication system than other animal species and we have a higher brain / body size ratio than other animals so are possibly "cleverer".
Anyway, surely as a religious bod he should believe that God magically makes us human in some process outside of biology and thus a "humanzee" (currently implausable given the difference in chromosone number but that's by the by) would still, to a religious person, not have human qualities.
If he was more familiar with the research on hybrid organ breeding , he'd know the test subject would more likely be porcine, and isolated in a lab environment.
He should be more worried about it ending up in the food chain
hence the current requirement for medically modified ( for medicine as opposed to improving strain ) animals to be soaked in creosote or similar directly after on-site slaughter to prevent some entrepreneur hawking out the carcass to the local butchers (again) .
The heepanzees could probably have a good career at PC World.
Why are we allowing these professional religionists space to spout their weird fears? If we listened to the lot of them, we'd have no blood transfusions, innoculations and all the other things the Church and churches have railed against over time.
Given the current situation with the head religionist of Wales (I suspect we'll be asked to 'judge not lest ye be judged') scr*wing around, best that the Church looks to sort out the beam in its own eye before it froths at the mouth over an imaginary mote in science's.
"Christians accept that every person is amazingly loved and valued by an amazing God"
... except gay people obviously.
I hate the way (mostly) christians spout that god loves everyone then castigate homosexuals. At least Islam is up front and says God hates everyone except good non-gay muslims.
As anyone with an understanding of Scots history will know, all the female chimps were Cleared from the Highlands by that b@stard General Wade in the early 18th Century. Like all those forcibly expatriated, some ended up in Oz (hence Murdoch and John Howard). Others ended up the US, hence Dubya and Robin Williams (anyone that hairy must be related to chimps!).
The aforementioned Elder is purely trying to ensure that additional mistakes don’t happen again.
"You take God and Christianity out of the UK and the morals won't be far behind."
So that would be the same sort of Christian morals that help run the slave trade? By the way, Christianity was brought to this country by force and that included murdering the native pagans.
See I'm quite happy to let you have your religious beliefs if you accept I can have mine, but as soon as you start ramming yours down my throat I'll ram my fist down yours. Do you really believe the earth was created in six days?
If this were possible, there would be loads of them running about africa.
Such relations are frowned upon, but common in the bush. HIV is believe to come from SIV (Simian) from such a liason.
Stop hating the guy because he is a churchman.
Think: Do you want to have percent humans around? Do they get a percentage of human rights? What percent? How do you tell? When does it kick in?
If you deny God, where do your rights come from? Why are yours better than someone else's?
Would a 4th generation 1/16 chimp, still be a chimp and subject to harvest/slavery? Why NOT?
If you found out that you had some chimp blood in you, what would you do?
Now we go from Crighton to Philip K. Dick.
>>Oh, is that the completely unproven and unprovable god of the Bible?
>Likewise, you can't prove he doesn't exist. ;) At the end of the day, if you aren't even open to the idea of God, then you'd deny his existence even if he slapped you in the face.
Cretin. It is up to people making ridiculous claims to back them up with EVIDENCE. If not then I demand that you immediately go and start worshipping the Flying Spaghetti Monster as you can't prove he doesn't exist. Better safe than sorry eh? You wouldn't want to end up in spaghetti hell now would you? Off you pop.
And likewise if you are an ignorant fool (as you demonstrably are) then you will continue to cling to your delusions without a single scrap of evidence even when confronted with undeniable evidence to the contrary. Even the Catholic Church accepts evolution as scientific fact these days, along with the fact that the Earth is not actually flat, it revolves around the Sun and is older than a few thousands years.
What is a buffoon like you even doing on this site? Get back to AOL where you belong and stop getting big ideas.
The C of S Elder is worried about hairy, knuckle-dragging, half-breed, potential organ donors with no soul and the slightest inkling of a conscience?
Funny, I’d swear that describes a fair percentage of the attendance at an Old Firm game!
Mine’s is the one with a bottle of Buckfast and a copy of the Daily Retard in the pocket.
(title - homage to the one and only Partick Patter Merchant, Billy Connelly)
You're thinking of the chimp-chokers of Hartlepool mate.
There's a Scottish folk song about some villagers up near Aberdeenshire hanging a monkey which survived a shipwreck, but only so they could only claim salvage if there were no survivors. Unlike most folk songs I don't think there's any sex involved.
But then again if you've ever been up near Aberdeen you'll agree it's a distinct possibility.
"The ones there are would be well advised to stay out of sight for fear of being mistaken for a Frenchman and consequently finding themselves hung."
That, I believe, was an English howler. Scotland spent most of its history allied with the French against the English, and indeed this is still the case as far as football or rugger are concerned.
want morals? forget religion... forget TV.. it's parents. Get parents to actually be that. it's a novel concept huh?
As for the actual topic... If the embryos are harvested for use in labs from eggs and sperm donated for such purposes, what's the problem? Now harvesting an embryo from a woman's womb, I think that would be going too far. This is but my own opinion. FYI: I'm a Christian. And for anyone who says I might be contradicting my own beliefs; read the book would ya? It says that God knew you from the womb, not the test tube.
-This type of inbreeding isn't possible. Primate DNA & human DNA aren't compatible.
-If the DNA were compatible, we'd already be awash in "Humanzees" or "Himps" or whatever. C'mon, if someone was desperate enough to try and screw a picnic table, don't you think this has been tried, as sick as we are as a species? (although I certainly have met people that seem to be a result of this)
-If there is an "amazing and loving God", couldn't God make his own assessment as to whether to give the inbred creature a soul or not, regardless of how it came into being? (not that it's currently possible)
-Isn't it the ultimate in hubris to speak of what "God's wishes" are, when clearly he (it?) permits all sorts of mayhem, pain, suffering, killing machines, and atrocities to the innocent everywhere you look? Perhaps this is just how he likes it. And so much of this horror is done in the name of religion and ignorant people quibbling over what "God wants" or "my religion is the only true one" anyway.
-If it weren't for science, we'd all be still living in caves, hunting with sticks and rocks, illiterate savages that still think weather phenomena are the gods being angry. (If you are an illiterate, ignorant savage, disregard this, as YMMV)
As any REAL christian knows perfectly well, the world was created "as-is" by God in His Magnificient Glory. Nothing evolves, nothing can change, so there cannot be such a thing as a Chimpman -unless it is already part of the "intelligent design", and in this case, who does this nutter think he is, to oppose the will of Dog?
He does have a point though. If the legislation in the UK is so stupid as to describe that you can't inseminate a woman with animal sperm, why not include the reciprocal, not more nor less stupid, rule? BTW, just a question, as we obviously need to know. Ladies are not allowed to be inseminated with animal sperm, right, but can they have sex with animals? (no, I'm not thinking of Scots here)
Humanity is curious, some sections of humanity want total control over nature/Gaia. Humanity will create human/animal hybrids at sometime, somewhere secretly in a lab. Good/bad, right or wrong is a matter of perspective. It makes no difference how the thoughts and morality of the sheeple are covertly or overtly shaped by the media or religion. It will happen.
In the meantime could a law be passed in order to stop the religious mating and multiplying. Think of the children, act now to stop what I see as another generation of kids being mind raped and mentally abused by their parents. Where's the greater evil here? Human and animal interbreeding or programming and indoctrinating children with religious dogma? Are not both morally and ethically abhorrent?
And finally in my opinion, as far as morality, ethics, honesty and truth go, they can only exist in their purest sense without religion corrupting them into a method of control.
The 8th deadly sin.
Given that a chimp can rip your arms off, I'm forced to conclude that the clergy like it rough. Sadly we could never observe the mating habits of these enigmatic creatures, as it would be illegal under the up coming "all porn with a funny name" act.
Dead vulture because I know there's someone out there that'd hit that.
"In the meantime could a law be passed in order to stop the religious mating and multiplying. Think of the children, act now to stop what I see as another generation of kids being mind raped and mentally abused by their parents. Where's the greater evil here? Human and animal interbreeding or programming and indoctrinating children with religious dogma? Are not both morally and ethically abhorrent?"
Having been brought up by religious parents, I present my three non-religious siblings and three church-going siblings as proof that we can all still think for ourselves and make our own minds up as adults.
Yes, big bro (if you're reading this), 'tis me.
This post has been deleted by its author
All you have done is state that YOU and your siblings can think for yourselves and make your own minds up. The "we can all" part of your statement is rather sweeping and utterly wrong, if by "we can all" you mean every child of all religious parents. For if this was so, religion would have faded into obscurity a long time ago. I am afraid you have proved nothing.
I do commend you for your fairness and tolerance however in not disowning, beating or otherwise ostracising your non-religious siblings. Not that you need nor likely even desire my commendation.
...we already have a subspecies of human that closely resembles these "humanzees." We call them "rednecks," but I'm sure yonder Brits call them "chavs" over there.
Other than that, it does make sense to add the "vice versa" addenum. I'd just drop the Bible in the gov's office bin to make a strong point to the thumpers.
Too bad there's no Curious George Bush icon.
HA HA HA HA
"Why is rape, murder etc. so common now compared to decades ago, because people were "more" Christian back then?"
Funny several miilion died from murder in the decade 1910-1920 and 1940 - 1950.
Sorry to dispel some myths, but remove the f**king rose tinted glasses. In the good old days it was perfectly fine to beat and rape you wife, if they went to the Police, it was just some silly woman in a domestic. If umarried women got pregnant they were banished from society (especially if they were catholic) and often ended up in prositution or dead. If Kids were systematiclly raped and beaten, it was their own fault and if they did speak out they were liars and thrown out on the streets, no point going to the Police, it would bring shame on the good upstanding Christain family and we couldn't have that, could we?
Darn I wish for the good old days....
Nuts, just realised, my wife has a M.A. in this sort of work and it must of rubbed off, I seem to be taliking sense for a change!
FACT: Just becuase people now report such incidents and they are (mostly) dealt with, doesn't mean there is an actually increase.
Genesis 6.4: ... the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
Jesus was supposed to be a god/human hybrid. While we are at it, his mother was unmarried, and under the modern age of consent.
If you look for moral guidance in the bible, you can justify whatever you like.
>You're thinking of the chimp-chokers of Hartlepool mate.
I am indeed but as far as I'm concerned anything above North Yorkshire is as good as Scotland. Further, anything below South Yorkshire is full of poofs and sometimes I think South Yorkshire might be that way as well. To the east of East Yorkshire is a natural barrier against unwanted foreigners and what's to the west of West Yorkshire is best not thought about but I'm inclined to believe that proof of chimp/human cross breeding might be found there.
"Likewise, you can't prove he doesn't exist."
There it is! A 1/4 human, 3/4 chimp critter. Case close. Everyone who's fully human and has had basic education immediately knows that it is indeed such a beast when said critter utters that brainless "maxim"... Santa sent his sympathies, because he' s sick of people saying he does not exist either...
>>So that would be the same sort of Christian morals that help run the slave trade?
No, it was the realisation of the true Christian morals that helped end the slave trade. Two Christians who jump to mind and were a part of abolishment are Wilberforce and Newton. That's not to say that some people who ran the slave trade didn't call themselves Christians, but their lives certainly did not represent the morals they supposedly upheld.
>>By the way, Christianity was brought to this country by force and that included murdering the native pagans.
Please explain with sources...
>>but as soon as you start ramming yours down my throat I'll ram my fist down yours.
Nothing is being rammed down your throat at all. Although you're attempting to blur the line between religious beliefs and the morals of the religion. Jesus is the Son Of God and saviour of the world, that's a belief; not committing adultery, murder etc. are morals from those type of beliefs.
>>Do you really believe the earth was created in six days?
A bit off topic, but nevertheless, yes I do. You didn't specifically say, but I'm guessing you don't believe in creation; so since you've ruled out God as a possibility, what model do you support when it comes to abiogenesis? You must have some idea of what you believe happened to so easily rule out God.
@The Moderator: Too late now, but why did you allow a post with personal insults to be posted, what purpose do you serve; I'm sure you've got my e-mail address if you wish to reply?
Uncalled for... Are you trying to start some playground fight?
You don't stay on topic very well, but I'll reply to your comments. :)
>>It is up to people making ridiculous claims to back them up with EVIDENCE.
Your statement is flawed, by your logic I can say that saying God doesn't exist is a ridiculous claim, which then puts the onus on you to provide evidence. The evidence for a creator is all around you, but for something like this, evidence is only evidence with belief. God is not an experiment that can be concluded from the results of a test tube, nor does he get any clearer under a microscope. I look up at the millions of stars and the vastness of space and wonder how anybody could doubt that there is a God - you look at it and wonder something completely different. One Christian magazine called 'Creation Magazine' goes in many scientific proofs for creation, but again all evidence they give you would dismiss as rubbish, claim that they've got everything wrong and top it all off by addressing them as "cretins".
>>If not then I demand that you immediately go and start worshipping the Flying Spaghetti Monster as you can't prove he doesn't exist. Better safe than sorry eh? You wouldn't want to end up in spaghetti hell now would you? Off you pop.
You ask me to provide evidence for the existence of God, I can't give it to you directly as you don't treat it as such, neither can I explain how an omnipotent being lives in my heart, walks and talks with me. Although even if I could prove God to you from a laboratory, it would be useless and miss the whole point of Christianity. Christianity is about your relationship with God, not debating if he exists or not. As I said I can't directly give you the evidence on a silver platter, but I can tell you how the evidence can make itself known to you. All you need is to be willing for one minute to believe that God is real and ask him to show himself to you. That's as easy as it gets, the hardest part is believing. If you're sincere in your belief he'll make himself known to you, that I can guarantee; thing is, if you never take that step of faith you'll never know.
>>And likewise if you are an ignorant fool (as you demonstrably are) then you will continue to cling to your delusions without a single scrap of evidence even when confronted with undeniable evidence to the contrary.
If you call believing in a living God ignorant and foolish, then I shall boast that I am both! :) Re: evidence, see my previous two paragraphs...
>>Even the Catholic Church accepts evolution as scientific fact these days, along with the fact that the Earth is not actually flat, it revolves around the Sun and is older than a few thousands years.
This is the same Catholic Church who pray to Saints and not The Saviour, preach that you can buy your way into Heaven and that Mary was something more than the mother of Jesus. What the Catholic Church believes is not of my concern, but if what you say is true then they need a 10 minute recap of Genesis. More damage is done to Christianity by so-called Christians mis-representing Christ, than any anti-God preacher could ever hope to achieve, the Catholic Church & crusades are prime examples.
>>What is a buffoon like you even doing on this site? Get back to AOL where you belong and stop getting big ideas.
You're just rolling out the insults tonight aren't you! Why am I a buffoon and what on earth makes you think I belong on AOL, you assume that believing in God impedes my technical ability?...
Lets put the whole gay / homosexuality religious or social concepts aside for a minute.
And just focus on the genetics.
We know what XX and XY are.
We know some for the problems with XXY, XXXY, XXYY variants that pop up.
But to the best of my knowledge there has never been just a YY.
What would a YY be like? (behavior, endochrin system)
We know the basic traits of male and female.
Some of the XXY variants are actually more aggressive than a normal male.
This alone could end up being a very different human type.
Chimps also have human rights, or so I choose to believe. So, as long as it's consensual, I have no problem with human-chimp casual hybridation. If God would not like it, It (He? She?) would have made such hybridation impossible. After all God is supposed to be "amazingly" powerful, right?
What I am concerned about is that chimps may not like the idea and they would rather prefer to be relocated to their traditional jungle patches to eat mangos, hunt colobos and have sex with the ones that they probably find more likeable: other chimpanzees.
Some chimps can communicate with us, albeit somewhat limitedly, so I suggest to make a referendum among "literate" chimps, bonobos and gorillas in captivity and ask them wether they prefer a life of test-tube pseudo-lust in captivity or a real life of real fleshy lust in the wild. I think I know the answer but they should be the ones to make the decission. We just need to make sure that they are properly informed and can effectively choose.
No to chimp slavery! Go PETA, go!
Anybody notice how ol' what's-his-face thinks he speaks for Christians in general? The thing that's really odd about doing so is that the Church of Scotland, being a good, sound Calvinist institution that believes, inter alia, in predestination, as a Protestant church allows every communicant to think for themselves.
Is the Church of Scotland infested with wannabe popes?
As for a law forbidding cross-insemination, the man displays a touching, and totally unrealistic, faith in the power of the law. Besides, he forgets that Herr Hitler's minions tried gorilla sperm in women with nil results, a strong indication that (as another reply indicated) we primates are not sufficiently compatible to hybridize.
Another point: it's well known in gay circles that the more hysterical someone's condemnation of the love that dare not speak its name, the stronger the homosexual drive they're repressing. Arguing by analogy, I conclude that what's-his-face has a burning, nearly uncontrollable urge to screw a chimp. Someone really ought to kidnap him, dose him well with suitable disinhibitors, and shove him into a cage full of the objects of his lust, then put the video on YouTube.
Is there an IT connection to all this? I wish there was, but there isn't, but thank God (assuming she/it/he exists) that El Reg feels free to wander off its own turf and give its readers other news from time to time.
Boys and girls, there is no point in arguing with adults who still believe in their imaginary friends, they are irrational to start off with, arguably borderline insane.
Anyone who believes in a god is by their own admission somewhat mentally disturbed, and its not nice to pick on inferior intellects! Religous types have suspended disbelief so no amount of reason, evidence or logic can get thru their brainwashed skulls. It is disappointing to see these types on an IT site, (Where one might expect posters to have a reasonable intellect) regardless of how small a minority they are.
If you ignore them, and the key to look for is usually they will post anonymously as they really dont want to be laughed at by people with powers of reasoning, the buffoons will end up back at AOL where they belong as one poster so accurately said!
>>It is up to people making ridiculous claims to back them up with EVIDENCE.
>Your statement is flawed, by your logic I can say that saying God doesn't exist is a ridiculous claim, which then puts the onus on you to provide evidence.
Wrong. If we accept YOUR logic then we would be continuously running around attempting to debunk the ravings of lunatics which according to you, would be treated as hard fact by default. What you suggest is patently ridiculous. The burden of evidence rides with the person making the claim.
> One Christian magazine called 'Creation Magazine' goes in many scientific proofs for creation, but again all evidence they give you would dismiss as rubbish, claim that they've got everything wrong and top it all off by addressing them as "cretins".
No actually I'd demand that the evidence be peer reviewed (by *actual* scientists). 'Having a feeling' or statements such as 'ooo that looks complicated' are not scientific evidence. If you would like to be intellectually honest for a moment you would accept that if there were even the tiniest scrap of actual evidence that 'god' (whatever that is) existed, then it would be taken a lot more seriously. As it stands there is an undeniable wealth of evidence that supports concepts such as planetary formation and evolution of life.
I will wager that you couldn't even define 'god', yet you accept it as fact without evidence. The hypocritical part is when you demand hard scientific evidence that 'god' *doesn't* exist while totally 100% accepting it does with no evidence whatsoever apart from 'someone said so'.
I see you completely side step that issue instead going on about 'belief'. Why don't you believe in the Spaghetti Monster? According to your logic it exists because someone said it does, therefore you should worship it. Q.E.D.
I see there is some elitism in religious circles. Why is their belief any more 'right' or 'wrong' than yours? There are more of them than you, doesn't that make them therefore more right?
And yes - I do assume that a belief in the supernatural impedes your technical ability. When consulted with a problem such as a crashing server, I would expect someone to work through the problem logically without 'god did it to punish me' being a possible option for failure.
For God's sake, don't discredit Christianity by linking it with that insane Creationism. The world is 4.6 billion years old, and biodiversity arose by evolution by natural selection. Link your faith with creationist nonsense and you are looking to make a shipwreck of it, because sooner or later you'll realise that the Creationists are taking you for a ride.
Turning to the other side - amazing. In the name of speaking out against religious bigotry, it's been stated that:
(a) religious believers are by definition stupid
(b) religious believers are by definition insane, and:
(c) they shouldn't be allowed to hold office
which is, frankly, an amazing show of bigotry.
I don't know who's worse. The fundamentalist religious mob or the fundamentalist atheist mob. Two sides of the same coin if you ask me: "Agree with me or you're a worthless shit".
So you believe that Christianity came to the Britain in a peaceful manner? At least Islam is honest about it being spread by the sword. The history of Britain isn't exactly a peaceful one with the vikings, saxons, Romans and French taking over the country so it doesn't take a genius to work it out. You know full well that there aren't any sources since it was the monks who kept recorded history.
Just because two of the people who started the abolition of slavery were Christians it doesn't mean that it absolves responsibility from those Christians who profitted from slavery.
So where is your proof the earth was created in 6 days? The bible coveniently forgets to mention the dinosaurs which by anybody's standard is a big omission. We know that human beings have occupied this planet for a miniscule amount of time as the first lifeforms were single cell beings as earth was a pretty inhospitable place.
Im sorry, but since when have animals been considered lacking in self awareness and conscience ? I pretty certain that most animals would prefer not to die and in terms of conscience I am sure there is a wealth of evidence that supports the existance of conscience in animals even if it is not the same as a human conscience ( which it could easily be argued is severely lacking in some humans anyway).
I would be against the idea of Human/animal hybrids at this time, but only on the grounds that creating life that is bound to suffer immensely due to our own lack of understanding in the field of bio engineering (I would put our level of ability at "inspired 5 year old" at the moment).
Decisions like this and to be honest all other decisions should be made on logical and scientific grounds only. The truth is that morals are only a mix of propaganda and factual evidence.
The core of all human morals is based on factual evidence .. ie : A)Being dead is a real downer, I mean it can really ruin your day. Hence it should be avoided. B) It is likely that a general agreement not to kill one another will not hold with out enforcement. C) There is safety in numbers. D) Agreement among a number of persons not to kill each other and to enforce the rule is likely to succeed if the majority of those persons agree with "A". => therefore the moral implied in "A" (dont kill people) holds and will be enforced. And so on ....
Anyway.. sorry about the rant .. but, even though I dont mind religious folk .. some of them tend to say really silly, really elitist, well beyond borderline stupid, things and I would expect better from some one who trained as a scientist.
"It's well known in gay circles that the more hysterical someone's condemnation of the love that dare not speak its name, the stronger the homosexual drive they're repressing."
Ah yes, that hoary old nonsense.
That is a *belief*. One does not "know" a belief, one "believes" it. And until someone presents a rigorous scientific study on this it will remain a belief.
It has been observed that many homophobes have "inherited" their views from their parents. Such individuals' homophobia demonstrably does not spring from supressed homosexual urges. So this particular belief is on pretty shaky ground. Call it a superstition, if you like.
Well done for presenting a reasoned statement...
Rather depressing to see comments on an article degenerating from cheerful smut (which I'm all for) into unreasoning attacks on individual posters who have dared to stick their necks out and defend their Christian beliefs.
I am not a Christian, but recognise the value that spiritual belief adds to the individual human life. From a personal perspective and as a transgendered person, I am happy to reject the concept that I am some bizarre genetic mistake and know (yes - 'know') that I am what I was meant to be. As a pagan, I believe in the personal relevance of the Goddess, and that IS indeed a belief. And I respect the belief structures of others who perceive the world in a different fashion. I also respect the right of an individual to believe in nothing at all.
What I do feel obliged to do however is to reject the sort of knee-jerk Dawkinism being hurled at those who admit to a spiritual life. How interesting (and how worrying it is) to see how quickly 'rationalist' rejection of religion turns into the thud of jackboots from Dawkins' reductionist stormtroopers. Not enough to reject others beliefs - we must question their very right to live in our rational society. Example?
And yes - I do assume that a belief in the supernatural impedes your technical ability. When consulted with a problem such as a crashing server, I would expect someone to work through the problem logically without 'god did it to punish me' being a possible option for failure''
Would you, you Anonymous Coward' , reject a Christian or Muslim for a job interview on that basis?
Think very carefully before you answer......
Because if the answer is 'yes', then atheism has taken on the very mantle of the religions that it claims to reject and your oh so logical rationalism has become Doctrine. Reject religion AND those who believe in it?
Not a nice thought, in my opinion......
If this was an article about the monkey love suggestions of some loopy bloke and his faith wasn't specified I don't think there'd be such anger in the comments section... but because the bloke's a Christian there are a lot of people (who think of themselves as too rational, scientific and reasonable to believe in God) getting aggressive and very angry and insulting anyone who tries to say that religion isn't a bad thing, it's bad people that are a bad thing.
>Would you, you Anonymous Coward' , reject a Christian or Muslim for a job interview on that basis?
>Because if the answer is 'yes', then atheism has taken on the very mantle of the >religions that it claims to reject and your oh so logical rationalism has become >Doctrine. Reject religion AND those who believe in it?
I would take someone with a science background over a religious one for a technical position, yes.
It has nothing to do with doctrine; it is purely about appropriateness. Much as it would not be appropriate to hire someone who could not perform basic addition and subtraction as an accountant, it is not appropriate to hire someone who demonstrably has no skills in evidence analysis and critical thinking for a technical or scientific position. The simple fact they actually believed in creationism would mean they failed the test.
>If God would not like it, It (He? She?) would have made such hybridation impossible. After all God is supposed to be "amazingly" powerful, right?
Ever heard of free will? Without the freedom to make the right or wrong decisions there's not much point to morality, or the entire exercise of life itself. Without freedom of variation this would all be a pretty boring clock to watch for eons wouldn't it?
So no, just because your maker let's you commit mass murder, rape and beastiality, does not mean it/he/she wishes you to engage in it.
I'm not saying that there IS something there to fear post-life judgement from. I'm just saying that if you're going to reference it, at least show sufficient respect for the faculties it gave you by thinking first.
> I don't know who's worse. The fundamentalist religious mob or the fundamentalist atheist mob. Two sides of the same coin if you ask me: "Agree with me or you're a worthless shit".
Hardly. From the athiest standpoint it's actually more like 'stop presenting your baseless beliefs that have absolutely no evidence to support them as fact.' Along with 'here is a ton of evidence - why not actually look at it and think?'
'' I would take someone with a science background over a religious one for a technical position, yes.
It has nothing to do with doctrine; it is purely about appropriateness. Much as it would not be appropriate to hire someone who could not perform basic addition and subtraction as an accountant, it is not appropriate to hire someone who demonstrably has no skills in evidence analysis and critical thinking for a technical or scientific position. The simple fact they actually believed in creationism would mean they failed the test''
First let me say that a belief in a God does not imply creationism (assuming you're using the 'anti-Darwin' sense of the word)
Second - you're saying that a belief in a deity precludes someone from having skills in evidence analysis and critical thinking.
That rather fucks Isaac Newton for a start then .....
Let me take it to the next level then
Would you feel justified in ensuring that all religious believers employed in the scientific or technical arena should be dismissed from their posts due to their obvious unsuitability?
You do realise where you're going here, dont you?
@Anonymous Coward Bigot
> it is not appropriate to hire someone who demonstrably has no skills in evidence analysis and critical thinking for a technical or scientific position. The simple fact they actually believed in creationism would mean they failed the test.
WOW! You're not a bigoted hypocrite at all.
Einstein was a total moron, yet somehow I suspect that he was substantially smarter and more pleasant to be around than you.
>First let me say that a belief in a God does not imply creationism (assuming you're >using the 'anti-Darwin' sense of the word)
Forgive me but I thought we were talking about the Christian god - is this not the case? If so, how is it possible, without re-writing the bible, to 'believe' in the Christian god without also believing in creationism..? Or are people making up their own religions now..? You can't only believe half the bible - it's either the word of god or it isn't.
>Second - you're saying that a belief in a deity precludes someone from having
>skills in evidence analysis and critical thinking.
In this day and age perhaps not 'precludes' but they certainly are not going to be as rational as someone who accepts scientific knowledge and procedures.
>That rather fucks Isaac Newton for a start then .....
Ah but Newton may not have known any better (and indeed who knows what he really thought), plus he would have been under tremendous societal pressure to toe the religious line. Remember we have different values now - for example being gay was actually a crime in the past (look at Alan Turing). Does this mean Alan Turing was actually straight..?
>Would you feel justified in ensuring that all religious believers employed in the >scientific or technical arena should be dismissed from their posts due to their
I would certainly seriously evaluate their motives if they were say, an evolutionary biologist but also a creationist, however I suspect that is unlikely to occur with any seriousness.
>WOW! You're not a bigoted hypocrite at all.
>Einstein was a total moron, yet somehow I suspect that he was substantially
>smarter and more pleasant to be around than you.
Where to start... firstly what makes you think Einstein was a moron...? Secondly I have no problem at all feeling inferior to Einstein, super-genius that the great man was. As for pleasant, well that's totally subjective.
Quote/Re: Chimpanzees in scotland?
By Chris W
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 13:59 GMT
The ones there are would be well advised to stay out of sight for fear of being mistaken for a Frenchman and consequently finding themselves hung. On the bright side they do get tried first./Quote. nah that was Hartlepool Near Newcastle ie England
First let me say that a belief in a God does not imply creationism (assuming you're using the 'anti-Darwin' sense of the word)
Second - you're saying that a belief in a deity precludes someone from having skills in evidence analysis and critical thinking.
That rather fucks Isaac Newton for a start then .....
Here's the rub.
Newton came forward with a whole bunch of stuff that could be *disproved* using basic scientific principals. Lets see the same for the "God" crap.
His God stuff didn't stand up to any kind of analysis - which if you know the history of the man is one of most heartbreaking parts of his life. He was not alone. Thousands of intelligent men and women were browbeaten/tortured or killed for disagreeing with "the Church". How much farther would the Western world gone if it wasn't for the fascism of 10 centuries of "Christianity"??
Still to this day in modern Britain we have teenage girls having swords thrust through their pregnant bellies because they fucked someone who loved exactly the same God as her partner, but not in exactly the way her parents approved of.
Newtonion physics. Just because he got some stuff right doesn't mean he'd be happy with all the excuses of the Sky Fairy Brigade.
Theists - accept being on the side of baby-killing barbarians, or stop laying claim to intellectual superiors like Newton.
Well, the residents of Fury 161 where Lt. Ripley made her final stand were all "YY Chromos", so I guess that answers your question. Oddly enough, YY seems to be related to the chav gene, if Fury 161 was anything to go by!
Mine's the one with the under'n'over pump-action grenade launcher strapped to it...
Many Christians accept completely that Darwin was right. Darwin and Christianity are not incompatible for intelligent Christians who consider Genesis to be an analogy.
Interesting that we've now has someone quite clearly stating that persons with religious beliefs should be cleansed from the 'scientific' job market.
So who are the Inquisitors now?
'Theists - accept being on the side of baby-killing barbarians, or stop laying claim to intellectual superiors like Newton'
Simplistic nonsense. This sort of reductionism that dismisses millions of people living on this planet as barbarians is bigotry of the worse sort. Whats next?
Dawkins' very own Nazis........
But so so rational of course.
>Many Christians accept completely that Darwin was right. Darwin and
>Christianity are not incompatible for intelligent Christians who consider Genesis to be an analogy.
And what about the many more who actually, seriously, think that the world was created in six days by a supernatural being who watches everything they do and if they are good they get to go and live with him in the sky when they die?
If that isn't the textbook definition of delusional I don't know what is.
>Interesting that we've now has someone quite clearly stating that persons with >religious beliefs should be cleansed from the 'scientific' job market.
Those are words you have tried on several occasions to put into my mouth however I think I've made it more than clear that I consider religious delusions inhibitory to certain cognitive disciplines rather than precluding them, and also that job candidates should be chosen on their merit.
Incidentally how is it one is only a bigot when talking about people with a specific delusion?
To use a specific example of suitableness for a position, the police do not knowingly recruit criminals into their ranks - does this make them bigots? No doubt you will side step that question.
>So who are the Inquisitors now?
You talk about criticism of delusional behaviour as if it is a bad thing. Note how you attempt to twist the point around from the issue of delusional religion attempting to dictate rules for genetic research into one of persecution. Indeed there was an inquisition many years ago that was used by those in power to further their own aims in a superstitious time. Thankfully due to the work of rational people and science the religious oppressors no longer wield as much power, but now they cry persecution when challenged about their beliefs which are un-proven without even the tiniest scrap of physical evidence to support them. In the meantime there are literally mountains of hard evidence that support rational explanations.
>Dawkins' very own Nazis........ But so so rational of course.
Hardly. We don't go around killing people, only asking them to provide evidence to support their baseless claims. If nobody challenges them the next think you know it will be the dark ages again.
>(a) religious believers are by definition stupid
>(b) religious believers are by definition insane, and:
>(c) they shouldn't be allowed to hold office
>which is, frankly, an amazing show of bigotry.
That isn't bigotry, it's an appraisal of mental competence.
If someone was running for prime minister or some other extremely responsible position but they were proven to be clinically insane or to be suffering from delusions, would it be 'bigotry' to suggest that they were unfit for the task because of their mental health?
We have political leaders who in the face of undeniable hard scientific evidence presented by the scientists of this world, *actually think* that the earth was in fact created in six days by a supernatural being and that if they are good they will go to heaven when they die, and that condoms are 'wrong'. That does not fill me with confidence in their leadership when confronted with real world issues such as war and disease, as ultimately, regardless of what scientific advisers tell these people they will simply disregard it because they think they know best.
How is a believe in creationism any different to someone who believes that the world was created by a gigantic pink elephant called Dave that lives under their bed but only they can see him and he tells them what to do? Would it be 'bigotry' to suggest that person needed help or that they were unfit for a responsible position where people's health and lives may be at stake?
If someone chooses to disregard mountains of evidence and cling to a delusion that is not supported by even the tiniest scrap of evidence, then there really is something wrong with that person. They might be harmless enough on their own keeping themselves to themselves, but I for one do not want such people in positions of power.
Your problem is reductionism.
Because other peoples' belief systems do not concur with your definition of 'rational', they are by definition 'delusional'.
I have twisted no points. What I have done is to point out the logical conclusion to your kneejerk bigotry.
You have already stated that you would happily discriminate against those with a religious faith in the job market. You now accuse those with religious faith as delusional. The logical conclusion therefore might be that they are dangerous lunatics who's liberty should be challenged for the good of others.
In a truly rational society the beliefs of others are respected unless they impede the rights of others to belief as they see fit.
You , sir, are not a rationalist
And I have no further interest in corresponding with someone who is obviously a dangerous madman.....
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020