Men could have kids with chimpanzees - gov must act 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 …
>>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.
@adnim
"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.
respect
adnim
...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?
>>Cretin.
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'.
[spaghetti monster]
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.
[catholic church]
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.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
