"The exploding technology trend of 3D printing, which has already been used to manufacture everything from food to jewelry, has made its way into the realm of biomedical research, with one California company recently announcing that it had "bioprinted" 3D liver cells.
The San Diego-based company Organovo says it has used the technology behind 3D printing to create samples of liver cells that function as they would in a human."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2 … video.html
Is that your dirty face in that there profile?
If your point is that man can develop artificial ways to accomplish things a cell would accomplish, I don't think anyone doubted that would happen. With a child on dialysis I applaud their efforts. What is even more incredible is what they expect to be able to do applying 3d printing, utilizing living cells as the building material. What your title implies, however, is that man is on the verge of artificially duplicating the complexity and full functionality of a real cell and that isn't true, now is it?
Im so sorry bBerean, I didn't know your daughter was on dialysis.
Thank you. She is a very complicated kid. Dialysis is actually the easy part. We have always done it at home...first peritoneal, now hemo.
I cant imagine what you and your wife are going thru. Makes me realize how I need to stop feeling sorry for myself. I pray you'll find the strength to face each day.
I appreciate it Beth. Actually we are extremely blessed to have her so we consider ourselves fortunate for the opportunity to do whatever that takes. She was not supposed to survive birth, or for a day, or month, or year...she just turned 21 and although they do remind us how tenuous it all is, at least they have quit trying to speculate on how long we will get to keep her. We have clearly shown that is only God's call.
Now you know why I can't consistently post, and never seem to get any hubs done.
Once again, you can't make up your mind if He is real or not.
And, once again, you repeat the same thing that has been explained to you over an over.
If he exists and if he is like the one you describe then he is bad, does that help?
There is a corollary, the one who made this all up(about the god), was so dumb that he could't even bring a fairly decent one.
There is one more corollary which I hope you can infer.
"A religion that is small enough for our understanding would not be big enough for our needs."
Corrie Ten Boom
You do not understand who God is. If you did, you would not be so quick to spit out His name. He is all powerful and endlessly compassionate. When you are either of these things, please give your opinions on Him.
Is he endlessly compassionate because you want him to be? Because I don't see it. An endlessly compassionate all powerful person wouldn't let people suffer.
I never met my grandfather. I saw pics of him. He looked very stern, like my dad. I heard very little about him really. What I did hear, just added to my assumption that he was stern, but mostly I was just modeling him after ppl I knew, because I didn't know him personally.
About 10 years ago, when my dad died, my aunt and I talked. She told me all about her relationship with her dad. Apparently he was fun and playful. I could barely imagine that. My dad was kinda harsh... how could I have had a wrong picture of him for so many years? Because I never knew him personally. It took listening to someone who did know him to give me a clearer picture of what I couldn't fathom myself.
Oh right, you think you know God. You don't look around to see reality or see the vengeful side of the bible because you have this loving guy who makes your vacation plans fall into place while ignoring the starving or ill children all over the world.
All that power and all that compassion I don't see.
No, it's that I understand a little of how He is at work, whereas I understand that you view Him from how you *think He should be at work. Once you realize that God has a different perspective than you, and that He doesn't do things the way you think He should do things, you start to gain new understanding into who He is. As has been said, He is not a genie and He intervenes in ways you may never even know... it has also been explained that we live in a fallen world. Man has chosen this when we turned our backs on God.
It is truth. You ask questions, but you refuse to consider the answer. Once again leading me to the conclusion that you do not seek answers, but to scoff.
I think rad man really does want to know, regardless of how he goes about it. Some are here just because they want to be asses, but I don't think that's the case with him.
Just because I don't disagree with you doesn't mean I'm scoffing. I've said many times that I'm truly interested in what makes people tick.
I did consider your answer. I always do. I just have a different opinion and in no way intent to talk down to anyone.
I don't mind a differing opinion, but after all these months, I still don't understand asking a question when you wont even consider the answer... but maybe I have misunderstood you. And when ATM condescends to me (though of course he will say he is only mocking my faith, not me... and that he has to keep explaining this over and over because my brain is unable to comprehend) and you laugh at his hurtful jokes, it makes me feel that I can't have a conversation with you. You say over and over again how sensitive you are yet you seem to expect others to stand up to all sorts of mockery and insult over something more important to us than our very breath.
Again, I consider the answer. Do you consider my answers? Do you consider my understanding of faith? About the psychology of that little voice in your head?
Works both ways.
Im talking about your comments to my responses, to the questions you pose. I understand your disbelief. It's not terribly complicated to imagine not believing. I think I understand it.
No one here would have their beliefs mocked if they were at the very least honest, but we observe very little honesty from you believers, hence the ridicule.
And, you know very well that we all treat believers who are honest with the utmost respect.
See how easy it is to be respected.
Loving parents, doctors, teachers let thier children suffer every day. A two year old doesn't know shots are good for him, or a slap on the hand when he's about to touch a hot stove.
Maybe God has his reasons.
Yup! Exterminating races and kids are good for health!!.
People who justify barbaric acts are the first to commit it.
Perhaps humans are the barbarous ones, and we don't deserve any help from God. Luckily, though, we at least have salvation if we want it.
We don't have any help from anybody else. Child mortality reduced because medicine advanced.
But your answer is good, head I win tail you loose. As beth said when there is need, any justification will do.
Yeah, no I didn't... if you're going to misquote someone, you need to give the appropriate credit. You were misquoting Corrie Ten Boom.
Then why did you quote, if you don't approve it? What else is your reason to purport and justify fictional stories, if not psychological need?
Of course I did approve of what Ms. Boom said... of course you twisted the words to change the meaning. I don't like foolish games. Im sorry. That's why I left this forum a few weeks ago. The games are meaningless. Truth is what matters, you need to be willing to face it head on and deal with it and quit playing games. It's a waste of your time. We may not have time to waste. No man is promised another day. Prepare yourself.
You are the one who play games to avoid "facing the truth". You gave a quote that stated that 'religion fulfil a need" and when I pointed that out you say I am playing games.
You insist you should be taken at face value or 'you quit'. To be taken seriously you should provide something solid, not a wish or hope or a demand that a 2000 year old fiction be taken seriously, without any logic but only "because I said so".
You kind of went off on a tangent there. What we were actually talking about was the fact that you twisted Corrie Ten Booms quote as if to give it a whole other meaning. *That's actually what we were talking about.
The quote was about religion fulfilling a need. And the quote also said that to fulfil the need religion should not be understood. Correct? You were the one who was off tangent who said about game and quitting..
A loving, compassionate all powerful God that can't communicate?
Thanks for telling me with an "argument from authority" that it is your "need" that make you cling to the story as true, just like a child who says Christmas father is true because 'mamma said so" and because he needs presents.
I will try once more.
Lord Voldemort of Harry Potter is bad not because he exist but the actions of that character in the story is bad.
Similarly the god character in your story is a bad olne, that's all.
"You do not understand who God is"
Neither do I understand lord Voldemort.
I've never seen your Gods power? How does it work? Where can I see it? Do I need special sunglasses or something?
Endlessly compassionate? Didn't God wipe everyone out in a flood? Didn't he curse all mankind forever just because we were disobedient? Where is the compassion in all of that?
I'm very sorry and at the same time happy for her that she was given to such caring people.
I genuinely appreciate the kind words. It turns out, based on the skill sets and qualifications her mom and I each bring to the table, that not only are we the perfect team for her, (being able to navigate the medical, insurance and legal minefields as well as facilitate the technical aspects of her care), but it appears we have both been in training for it most of our lives. A happy coincidence? Perhaps. All we care is we have a great family. Pretty strange from the outside looking in, but we are happy and thankful for what we have.
I don't see how creating soulless abominations could be any good for anyone.
Except maybe for satan and his followers.
Perhaps to provide you with a new liver or heart when yours has quit functioning?
Or skin to graft over a bad burn. Or a new eye for one ruined by macular degeneration. A new thigh bone to replace one shattered by accident.
I can think of lots of good coming from such "soulless abominations".
I would prefer a natural death to that.
Why do you think clones don't live very long? No souls.
Would you prefer a real thigh bone or a steel one? Both are "soulless", after all, and both are man made - one just fits into the biology of your body much better.
Clones, has someone been cloning humans?
Do other animals has souls?
Is there evidence of a soul?
I wouldn't be surprised if humans have been cloned. If they can do it, they will.
Of course animals have souls. So do plants. Any living thing does.
To your last question, I think we've been through that nonsense before.
Does the soul in your philosophy inhabit each and every living cell, so you really have millions of them, or is your soul in one specific place?
Additionally: What if someone had a full-body transplant, retaining only their original brain? Does that mean the soul resides in the brain? What, then, of those who receive brain transplants? Do they have a new soul now?
I had clones like Dolly the sheep in mind, not humans.
I didn't say that. I said "creating" cells (body parts, clones) is a bad thing. We are not creators. God is. We can not give these "things" the life force.
Apparently we can. Are you against pace makers and artificial hips as well?
Those are mechanical devices. Not sad attempts at creating life. Frankenstien crap. satanic.
Frankenstein was successful, and Lucifer is incapable of Creation, in their respective fictions.
Ridiculous, we are simply talking about replacement parts here. Artificial hip, artificial liver, same thing. Nothing satanic about saving lives.
What if you could replace all of your parts as needed? Would you become immortal? Would you do that, Rad Man?
That's probably not how you achieve immortality, but you'd better believe there'd be a long line when a way is found.
I'm sure there would be. I wouldn't be in line for that. My allotted time by God is 120 years.
Could be 120. Could be 20. Could be 2.
God is funny like that--he derives endless pleasure from cutting lives short. If he didn't, then why do so many die before they reach that magical age of 120?
Jeanne Calment - Born Feb. 21st 1875 - Died Aug. 4th 1997 = 122 years and 164 days.
Perhaps the bible is mistaken.
Sure, I'd replace parts to survive. People do it all the time. My cousins 7 year old is currently getting new bone marrow. Should he not take it?
We were talking about FAKE, man made frankenflesh. Not real transplants. But of course you know that.
Prosthetics are fake, manmade items. Should we stop making them, too?
Stripped of the emotional label of "frankenflesh", no we're not. We're putting in a machine, constructed of millions of micro machines, all made of off the shelf chemicals.
You could declare it "alive" or not, but it would definitely be a construct, designed and assembled from readily available parts (chemicals). No different, in final analysis, from a plastic (from carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc.) and metal dialysis machine, sitting on the bench next to the bed. Just smaller and more efficient - something we've become increasingly good at.
And how do you put in the life force? You can't. You aren't God.
What life force? There is certainly none in a dialysis machine - why should there be any in an artificial kidney? Whether made of metal and silicone or carbon and oxygen, I don't see any need for it to be alive to fulfill it's function.
I suppose, though truthfully I see no disagreement.
You don't think we can make living cells, and while I don't know if we can now, I do rather think we will some day. I don't know it will ever be done, just think that we probably will and I could well be wrong.
Either way, I don't see a machine made of carbon and other elements/chemicals to be any different than one made of steel. Or is that what you mean by disagreement? That things we make out of carbon are automatically either "alive" or an attempt to make something "alive"? Or anything we put inside our body is "alive" (knee replacement, pace maker, steel pins and rods)? Because I would surely have to disagree with either statement.
Somewhere, it don't think I'm understanding what you've been saying.
What it actually is are believers constantly using the excuse that scientists can't do this and scientists can't do that, yet when scientists do something the believers claimed they couldn't do, they move on to disagree that scientists can't do something else.
You forget the part where they claim that it was already written in their holy book!
Hardly. I know what scientists can do. But the problem is they are doing things perhaps they SHOULDN'T be doing.
I could write a huge list of things scientists are doing that are wrong, and you would probably agree with many of them, But I think you know exactly what they are, you're just being obstinate.
Hey rad man. Science and technology have probably been responsible for more death, than life. It's a double edged sword.
Judging by the average life expectancy steadily rising we can draw the conclusion we are doing something correct.
Like I said. Double edged sword. We should shake our heads at ourselves while we pat ourselves on the back. The life expectancy in Nagasaki was woefully short not too long ago, thanks to science.
Bacterial Infections (I've got a nasty one that I'm currently being created for)
Appendicitis (would have gotten me when I was 12 without surgery)
You know I could go on and on, but I get your point about dropping nuclear weapons on innocent people. That was not America's best days.
Not America's best days? Very funny. We were part of the Allied forces. As was Canada. Or, don't you remember?
Oh, perhaps you're unaware of Canadian history. Canada fought Germany way before the US became involved, but it's involvement with Japan was just strengthening its Pacific coastal defences and the unfortunate Japanese Canadian internment which my friends parents were part of.
Not to point fingers, but the decision to drop those warheads were strictly American and American only.
Canada's only specific role in the Manhattan Project was providing raw material, including uranium ore from a northern mine which may have been used in the construction of the atom bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.
This is pathetic. America didn't start these wars. Either WWI or II. I suppose losing American troops in an invasion would have suited your fancy more. Kill the Americans, they deserve to die.
That's not fair at all. I said no such thing. I can't help it you don't know Canadian history.
But we both know those weapons didn't need to detonate over cities for the Japanese to get the message. Now they were a particular stubborn bunch, but the propaganda of the day made them look and seem subhuman and allowed for the drops. When the second was dropped the Japanese were defeated and trying to figure out what happened.
Mistakes may have been made, but you are over simplifying. They would not have surrendered that easily. Lives were saved on both sides, any way you look at it. But, hey. Like I said. We didn't start either war and we weren't particularly interested in joining in on that one, at the time we did. Our hand was somewhat forced. I suppose, those who died on our side by unprovoked attacks mean nothing. We're American. We don't matter.
You obviously don't know world history. Just propaganda.
Speaking of propaganda, there's someone here who blames science for the deaths in those wars.
I assume you are referring to me. I don't blame science. My point was that scientific discovery is not always for the good of all. For every good we do, we find a way to do some bad.
You most certainly did blame science for causing more deaths, it was a blatant fabrication and you know it.
That wasn't your point at all, you were very clear about what you said.
That isn't even remotely true.
Science certainly caused deaths in wars that would not have occurred if the combatants were limited to pointy sticks and large rocks. I am using "cause" to mean "necessary and sufficient prior circumstance for an outcome", which is an accepted meaning for the word. Obviously science does not "decide" to kill people any more than it "decides" to protect them from a disease.
I think we are talking about the people in those two cities, and whether they did. And whether breaking the rules of war and targeting civilians was in any way justified.
No. The subject began that way, when I first posted. What rad man decided to do was blame it on the Americans. That isn't realistic. The Allies worked together on the Manhattan project. Canada knew exactly what it was mining ore for. The Western Allies worked together to get the bomb to work. Truman gave direct orders that the bomb was not to be used until the Allies signed off on it. The Declaration of Potsdam is proof of that.
I don't mind discussing whether things were fair or not. But, if you can't have a discussion that is fair in its assessment of fair...what is the point? If we are going to rewrite history, I'll pass.
Edit. I'm curious where you came up with this idea as to what the rules of war are. The reality of war is that civilians are not off limits. And, especially in that war. I'm sure few in Europe considered themselves labeled off limits. I doubt many in the Pacific considered themselves off limits. Heck, we weren't even a part of the war and we weren't off limits.It's a noble idea which governments pay lip service to, yet governments at war don't follow.
If civilians were off limits then war would be less likely. Forced conscription ensures civilians aren't off limits also.
No, I keep trying to discuss where they were dropped and why.
Don't ignore your own post rad man. I simply said the life span of those there was not increased by the use of science. You retorted with a statement that made it clear it was America who did it. Your country was partof the Allied forces and provided support for the project.
Just so you know, we attempted to stay out of both wars. If your country, along with others, hadn't been so intent to run headlong into war that situation mighthave been avoided. Look at the years from the time Canada declared war to the time we finally joined. Your country helped escalate war to a world war status. Twice. We didn't start the mess. We were instrumental in ending it.
Emile, I merely stated that dropping those bombs on innocent people was not America's finest hour. We both know that if Canada, England and the US hadn't stepped in against Germany all of Europe would have been speaking German and under the nazi flag within a few years.
The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour for a different matter (trying to keep the US out of it's business of attacking British and US occupied countries. I've already explain what Canada's involvement with the Pacific was.
It's obvious that technology has increased the population and life expectancy despite the errors.
I'm simply stating the bombs needn't have been dropped on the innocent.
And I'm telling you if we had been forced into a ground invasion more lives would have been lost than were lost by dropping the bomb . By your argument, you would have considered that a better outcome.
Why do you put words in my mouth? I'm simply stating that they could have been deployed somewhere other than cities. The result would have been the same. Ask the Japanese if they want one of those over their cities and it would have been over. The Japanese were under the illusion that their leader was a God and were following blindly, but he did listen and would have understood the ramifications if they were deployed over military bases.
Whatever. Believe what you want. I think Churchill, Truman and their advisors took all the information they had into account and made the best decision they could. Sitting here laying blame doesn't make much sense. Nor does denying that it wasn't a group decision and a group effort. I realize Canada was still somewhat of a British lackey at the time; but they still cooperated in the effort to build the bomb. Unless your argument is that Canadians didn't know the definition of the word bomb you really shouldn't lay the blame for it on our doorstep solely.
I could have said it wasn't NATO's finest moment, or North America's finest moment. This is not us against them at all. Just the bombs shouldn't have not been used over cities plain and simple. Any Idea of how many Nuclear weapons Canada has? Truth is we don't need them. Care to discuss Canada's view on the war on Iraq? The search for weapons of mass destruction? I guess might is right.
Canada loves Obama. If we lost 1812 and were a state he'd have 99% of our vote.
You seem to have problems. I don't have a problem with you or your country. Thanks to your close proximity to us, I can see how you can comfortably save on defense. Unfortunately for us, it was your behavior patterns, as well as Europe's which caused America to realize it had no choice but to take an active role in the world. Oddly, we haven't started any world wars. I'd say, considering what came before us, that says something. I hope we haven't cramped your style too much.
Nope, I love the states and enjoy the people when I travel. Your misunderstanding and I can't help that.
I don't think I misunderstood. I think you didn't take into account the full ramifications of your initial accusation. BUT...I let the statement irritate me. Honestly, I do believe what was done had to be done to completely break their will to fight. Neither of us was alive. We are simply speculating.
While I agree I also look at what works today. It's the threat of nuclear weapons, not the use. The US didn't drop nuclear weapons over Iraqy cities and they haven't used the since.
Yeh. I don't think anyone trivialized the horror they stood ready to wreak. It was a horrible chapter in human history all around.
That is right; but if it didn't get dropped ...... square them numbers up concerning if just those numbers of people didn't die that day but signed the peace treaty and no one eles died.
The population would be much more than double what it is today in the world.
Tht is ????? Unless we found something else to kill each other for. Next war we have I think we should say it is because of them darned holen in donuts. Does it really matter why we say we are doin it?
One way or the other ... Wars or starvation ???? Untill we learn to spread the wealth better and get along.... we are doing about as well as we can under the circumstances.
edit .... gdnite yawl
What does science and technology have to do with life expectancy in Nagasaki.
Oh, I see, you're fallaciously blaming science for the bombs dropped on Japan.
Of course science is responsible, along with scientists, the military, and politicians. Those bombs weren't created by themselves. They weren't created while looking for something to better humanity. They were specifically researched and created FOR KILLING MASS AMOUNTS OF PEOPLE.
Actually, the goal and purpose of those two bombs was to end the war that was killing thousands of American citizens. I really don't think you would have found a single scientist or worker that viewed the killing of thousands of civilians as a desirable thing in an of itself.
You say that. I say that.
But neither one of us sent multiple children to die at the hands of the Japanese. Neither one of is watching our standard of living steadily fall as we work ourselves half to death to provide a war effort. Neither one of us is desperately afraid that we will die or be subjugated by the Japanese. Neither one of us has a deep hatred of Japan or it's people. Both of us have (hopefully) developed some differing and (hopefully) superior morality guidelines in the last 70 years. Both of us understand and know the effects of an A-bomb far better than anyone then did.
So, maybe, the ends did justify the means to people back then. I understand that the question was debated at length, with the conclusion that the expected loss of life, on both sides, was less than if the bomb was not used. The people that developed that weapon weren't monsters, and even the people that made the decision to use it probably weren't either.
The goal can be justified, but the fact the bombs were an example of science used for mass killing is pretty self-evident.
That is an outright blatant lie. Why would you say such a thing that is obviously false?
That doesn't explain the blatant fabrication.
What is this life force you are talking about? Energy?
I'm pretty sure that we've dissected living cells and could identify all of their parts, and chi, shakti, ki, and/or a soul was not among them.
Those are made up nonsense names of things that have never been found in the human body.
I would think that a human clone does have a soul .. but .. "IF" these human clones do not have a soul or are some how non human, as if they were man made machines, then what would be the difference in using them for medical research, as we do other animals in finding cures for Alheimers and cancer and countless human ailments? Just because we alter the natural process in fertalization and incimation in order to guarantee a specific genitic structure instead of leaving that up to chance, does not mean that the product is any less of a human than any other that was concieved through sexual intercourse.
The moral issue isn't the clone itself but what we do with them.
Is it right to create life just so we can kill it to use it for body parts?
Would it be OK to use them for parts ONLY if they died of natural causes?
Now we would have to better define Natural causes, and enforcing that would be next to imposible.
I think this issue may be a Pandoras box!
"For those who have said man has never made a cell."
The thought never actually crossed my mind.
Really? We discuss that over coffee frequently. Every morning, my husband asks "Honey, has Man made a cell yet?" I usually say "No." But, then I saw rad man's thread and had to admit my mistake. Now, over coffee, we don't talk. My husband doesn't consider me the fountain of wisdom he once did.
Thanks for nothing rad man.
I can't believe you said "no."
Im kind of embarrassed for you.
I'll be honest, but don't share this. Up until recently, I didn't know lots of things. For example, did you know the definitions of 'we' and 'you' is open for debate? And the Jews will soon be enslaved?
Hub Pages is now my news feed. Without it, I'd be a 'shroom.
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.