The Biblical Case for Pro-Choice & Stem Cell Research

[BJean 16]

Poodles: I have no idea why umbilical cords aren't saved for research. Maybe someone at LBT has information on this. There are some people with medical backgrounds here who probably have the answer.

[serious 2]

BJean,

Please don't correct his posts. Then he'll say the dictionary he has which pre-dates anything we've seen and was actually composed from 6,000 books is the only authentic one, making the rest of us idiots.

[gadgetlady 4]

Hi everyone. Sorry I've been MIA for a while. I was out of town on business and didn't have time to respond to all individual posts with questions and challenges. And, to be fair, I still don't. I haven't read everything posted for a few days now and I'm too tired to go back and do it. If there's something someone particularly wants answered, please re-post and I'll do my best.

I am going to post a lot of links answering some of the questions brought up here. I don't think I can paraphrase what is being said in these links and do the discussions any justice, so I'm giving these references. I believe there are answers to every question raised, but I also know that brilliant scientists on both sides of the fence still disagree, so if I encounter someone who is so fixed in his position on this matter that he is unwilling to read the opposition's position, anything I say or do will not change his opinion. There have been books, courses, and whole lives dedicated to this discussion and there is little common ground, so in the end it all comes down to which "evidence" you believe to be more compelling. I don't believe in denigrating each other's position, and I'm tired of the "creationists are idiots" statements.

I don't even know who brought up the question of radiometric dating, but I will direct you to this page for some good discussions: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp

Here's the bottom line: since no one was around to tell us how old something is, scientists assume their dating methods are accurate. They then extrapolate to date other objects using the same method, which, if flawed with the first thing they dated, is equally flawed with subsequent dating. There are very real questions about the accuracy of radiometric dating, and I would submit that we cannot "KNOW" with certainty that the earth is 6,000, 10,000, 100,000, or 20 billion years old from this methodology.

I believe it was laurend who brought up archaeopteryx; please see http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp for a discussion of this topic.

As to the question of whether God's definition of a day could have been a million years, see http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/genesis.asp

Again, I believe there are answers to all of the questions posed. I find the questions interesting and I find the answers compelling. Can either side be proven? I don't think so. But that doesn't mean that the matter shouldn't be discussed.

[anonemouse 1]

Common Creationist Criticisms of Mainstream Dating Methods

Most creationist criticisms of radiometric dating can be categorized into a few groups. These include:

1. Reference to a case where the given method did not work .
   
2. Claims that the assumptions of a method may be violated :
   1. 
      
   2. Constancy of radioactive decay rates .
      
   3. Contamination is likely to occur .

1. Reference to a case where the given method did not work

This is perhaps the most common objection of all. Creationists point to instances where a given method produced a result that is clearly wrong, and then argue that therefore all such dates may be ignored. Such an argument fails on two counts:

• First, an instance where a method fails to work does not imply that it does not ever work. The question is not whether there are "undatable" objects, but rather whether or not all objects cannot be dated by a given method. The fact that one wristwatch has failed to keep time properly cannot be used as a justification for discarding all watches. How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it? Yet, when five radiometric dating methods agree on the age of one of the Earth's oldest rock formations ( Dalrymple 1986, p. 44 ), it is dismissed without a thought.
  
• Second, these arguments fail to address the fact that radiometric dating produces results in line with "evolutionary" expectations about 95% of the time (Dalrymple 1992, personal correspondence). The claim that the methods produce bad results essentially at random does not explain why these "bad results" are so consistently in line with mainstream science.

2. Claims that the assumptions of a method may be violated

Certain requirements are involved with all radiometric dating methods. These generally include constancy of decay rate and lack of contamination (gain or loss of parent or daughter isotope). Creationists often attack these requirements as "unjustified assumptions," though they are really neither "unjustified" nor "assumptions" in most cases.

2.1 Constancy of radioactive decay rates.

Rates of radiometric decay (the ones relevant to radiometric dating) are thought to be based on rather fundamental properties of matter, such as the probability per unit time that a certain particle can "tunnel" out of the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus is well-insulated and therefore is relatively immune to larger-scale effects such as pressure or temperature.

Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any conditions. Emery (1972) is a comprehensive survey of experimental results and theoretical limits on variation of decay rates. Note that the largest changes reported by Emery are both irrelevant (they do not involve isotopes or modes of decay used for this FAQ), and minuscule (decay rate changed by of order 1%) compared to the change needed to compress the apparent age of the Earth into the young-Earthers' timescale.

A short digression on mechanisms for radioactive decay, taken from USEnet article <CK47LK.E2J@ucdavis.edu> by Steve Carlip (subsequently edited in response to Steve's request):

For the case of alpha decay, [...] the simple underlying mechanism is quantum mechanical tunneling through a potential barrier. You will find a simple explanation in any elementary quantum mechanics textbook; for example, Ohanion's Principles of Quantum Mechanics has a nice example of alpha decay on page 89. The fact that the process is probabilistic, and the exponential dependence on time, are straightforward consequences of quantum mechanics. (The time dependence is a case of "Fermi's golden rule" --- see, for example, page 292 of Ohanion.)

An exact computation of decay rates is, of course, much more complicated, since it requires a detailed understanding of the shape of the potential barrier. In principle, this is computable from quantum chromodynamics, but in practice the computation is much too complex to be done in the near future. There are, however, reliable approximations available, and in addition the shape of the potential can be measured experimentally.

For beta decay, the underlying fundamental theory is different; one begins with electroweak theory (for which Glashow, Weinberg and Salam won their Nobel prize) rather than quantum chromodynamics.

As described above, the process of radioactive decay is predicated on rather fundamental properties of matter. In order to explain old isotopic ages on a young Earth by means of accelerated decay, an increase of six to ten orders of magnitude in rates of decay would be needed (depending on whether the acceleration was spread out over the entire pre-Flood period, or accomplished entirely during the Flood).

Such a huge change in fundamental properties would have plenty of noticeable effects on processes other than radioactive decay (taken from <16381@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> by Steve Carlip):

So there has been a lot of creative work on how to look for evidence of such changes.

A nice (technical) summary is given by

Sisterna and Vucetich (1991)

. Among the phenomena they look at are:

• searches for changes in the radius of Mercury, the Moon, and Mars (these would change because of changes in the strength of interactions within the materials that they are formed from);
  
  
• searches for long term ("secular") changes in the orbits of the Moon and the Earth --- measured by looking at such diverse phenomena as ancient solar eclipses and coral growth patterns;
  
  
• ranging data for the distance from Earth to Mars, using the Viking spacecraft;
  
  
• data on the orbital motion of a binary pulsar PSR 1913+16;
  
  
• observations of long-lived isotopes that decay by beta decay (Re 187, K 40, Rb 87) and comparisons to isotopes that decay by different mechanisms;
  
  
• the Oklo natural nuclear reactor (mentioned in another posting);
  
  
• experimental searches for differences in gravitational attraction between different elements (Eotvos-type experiments);
  
  
• absorption lines of quasars (fine structure and hyperfine splittings);
  
  
• laboratory searches for changes in the mass difference between the K0 meson and its antiparticle.

While it is not obvious, each of these observations is sensitive to changes in the physical constants that control radioactive decay. For example, a change in the strength of weak interactions (which govern beta decay) would have different effects on the binding energy, and therefore the gravitational attraction, of different elements. Similarly, such changes in binding energy would affect orbital motion, while (more directly) changes in interaction strengths would affect the spectra we observe in distant stars.

The observations are a mixture of very sensitive laboratory tests, which do not go very far back in time but are able to detect extremely small changes, and astronomical observations, which are somewhat less precise but which look back in time. (Remember that processes we observe in a star a million light years away are telling us about physics a million years ago.) While any single observation is subject to debate about methodology, the combined results of such a large number of independent tests are hard to argue with.

The overall result is that no one has found any evidence of changes in fundamental constants, to an accuracy of about one part in 1011 per year.

To summarize: both experimental evidence and theoretical considerations preclude significant changes to rates of radioactive decay. The limits placed are somewhere between ten and twenty orders of magnitude below the changes which would be necessary to accommodate the apparent age of the Earth within the young-Earth timescale (by means of accelerated decay).

2.2 Contamination may have occurred.

This is addressed in the most detail in the Isochron Dating FAQ , for all of the methods discussed in the "age of the Earth" part of this FAQ are isochron (or equivalent) methods, which have a check built in that detect most forms of contamination.

It is true that some dating methods (e.g., K-Ar and carbon-14) do not have a built-in check for contamination, and if there has been contamination these methods will produce a meaningless age. For this reason, the results of such dating methods are not treated with as much confidence.

Also, similarly to item (1) above, pleas to contamination do not address the fact that radiometric results are nearly always in agreement with old-Earth expectations. If the methods were producing completely "haywire" results essentially at random, such a pattern of concordant results would not be expected.

As for Archaeopteryx, here is an interesting site.

One of the major objections to radiometric dating in the Answering Genesis articles was that decay has not proven to be constant. Here is a response that I found:

Claim CF210:

Radiometric dating assumes that radioisotope decay rates are constant, but this assumption is not supported. All processes in nature vary according to different factors, and we should not expect radioactivity to be different. Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 139.

Response:

1. The constancy of radioactive decay is not an assumption, but is supported by evidence:
   • The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable, at least within limits of accuracy. This is despite experiments that attempt to change decay rates (Emery 1972). Extreme pressure can cause electron-capture decay rates to increase slightly (less than 0.2 percent), but the change is small enough that it has no detectable effect on dates.
     
   • Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes (Nomoto et al. 1997a, 1997b; Thielemann et al. 1998). These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away (Knödlseder 2000). Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is sixty million light-years away (Prantzos 1999), and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light-years away (Perlmutter et al. 1998).
     
   • The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976).

[*] Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would have produced enough heat to melt the earth (Meert 2002).

[*] Different radioisotopes decay in different ways. It is unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent. Yet different radiometric dating techniques give consistent dates. Furthermore, radiometric dating techniques are consistent with other dating techniques, such as dendrochronology, ice core dating, and historical records (e.g., Renne et al. 1997).

[*] The half-lives of radioisotopes can be predicted from first principles through quantum mechanics. Any variation would have to come from changes to fundamental constants. According to the calculations that accurately predict half-lives, any change in fundamental constants would affect decay rates of different elements disproportionally, even when the elements decay by the same mechanism (Greenlees 2000; Krane 1987).

Links:

Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html#R2 References:

1. Emery, G. T., 1972. Perturbation of nuclear decay rates. Annual Review Nuclear Science 22: 165-202.
   
2. Fujii, Yasunori et al., 2000. The nuclear interaction at Oklo 2 billion years ago. Nuclear Physics B 573: 377-401.
   
3. Greenlees, Paul, 2000. Theory of alpha decay. http://www.phys.jyu.fi/research/gamma/publications/ptgthesis/node26.html
   
4. Knödlseder, J., 2000. Constraints on stellar yields and Sne from gamma-ray line observations. New Astronony Reviews 44: 315-320. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9912131
   
5. Krane, Kenneth S., 1987. Introductory Nuclear Physics. New York: Wiley.
   
6. Meert, Joe, 2002. Were Adam and Eve toast? http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htm
   
7. Nomoto, K. et al., 1997a. Nucleosynthesis in type 1A supernovae. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706025
   
8. Nomoto, K. et al., 1997b. Nucleosynthesis in type II supernovae. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706024
   
9. Perlmutter, S. et al., 1998. Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the universe and its cosmological implications. Nature 391: 51-54. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9712212
   
10. Prantzos, N., 1999. Gamma-ray line astrophysics and stellar nucleosynthesis: perspectives for INTEGRAL. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9901373
    
11. Renne, P. R., W. D. Sharp, A. L. Deino, G. Orsi and L. Civetta, 1997. 40Ar/39Ar dating into the historical realm: Calibration against Pliny the Younger. Science 277: 1279-1280.
    
12. Shlyakhter, A. I., 1976. Direct test of the constancy of fundamental nuclear constants. Nature 264: 340. http://sdg.lcs.mit.edu/~ilya_shl/alex/76a_oklo_fundamental_nuclear_constants.pdf
    
13. Thielemann, F.-K. et al., 1998. Nucleosynthesis basics and applications to supernovae. In: Nuclear and Particle Astrophysics, J. Hirsch and D. Page, eds., Cambridge University Press, p. 27. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9802077

Further Reading:

Johnson, Bill, 1993. How to change nuclear decay rates. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/decay_rates.html

I really, REALLY recommend the www.talkorigins.org archive to anyone who is interested. They have all the creationist arguments and the responses to them indexed. You should really check it out. Plus, the lack of buzz-words really makes in pleasant to read.

[anonemouse 1]

More info on the "Archaeopteryx was just a bird" argument that was used at www.answeringenesis.org:

Archaeopteryx + modern birds, just variation within kind?

It has been suggested that the differences between Archaeopteryx and modern birds represents simple within-group variation. However, this is not correct. Modern birds show a large number of derived morphological characters not possessed by Archaeopteryx. Morphologically, Archaeopteryx clearly appears more closely related to theropod dinosaurs that any other group and is grouped with birds over theropod dinosaurs due to the possession of only two main characters, presence of feathers, and presence of a fully reverted hallux (toe).

The relevant morphological variation can be represented graphically (if crudely) in the following figure:

|

^ | A =

Archaeopteryx

| |

| ___________________

T | | |

i | | MODERN BIRDS |

m | __ __ __ __ __| |

e | | |___________________|

| | FOSSIL |

| __| BIRDS |

| | A|__ __ __ __ __ __|

| |___|

|______________________________________________

"reptile" "bird"

<--- Morphology -->

As can be seen, the variation within birds shows a distinct trend. The more "reptile"-like morphologies occur in the earliest birds, with the typical 'modern' bird morphology restricted to later birds. If, as suggested, morphological variation is simply variation within birds, we would expect to see the various morphological groups (fossil birds, modern birds) evenly spread throughout the relevant time interval. If, however, birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, then we would expect to see the first birds to posses more "reptile"-like characters and the more derived, modern birds to have less "reptile"-like characters. This, in fact, is what we see. Thus the distribution of characters within birds supports their derivation from theropod dinosaur ancesters and does not support the claim that variation is simply 'within kind'.

Well, this isn't displaying right. To see the graphic, go here and scroll down a bit.

[gadgetlady 4]

I find in the discussion of radiometric dating claims that use themselves to "prove" themselves. It's circular reasoning. For example,

The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years

This appears to me to be "we posit this thing to have an age of 1,800 million years, and because of this presupposition we find it's age is consistent with 1,800 million years"? There is no independent proveable criteria to validate the claim.

[TommyO 5]

ID and creationists start with a belief and then set about to prove it correct. Evolution started out as a question looking for an answer. Two very different approaches I suggest.

Tomorrow I turn 47, and from my perspective the world/universe began that day. A supreme being decided that it was time for a little fun so it decided to create the TommyO universe. Based on that premise I have decided to prove that the world is 47 years old and I can use much of the same argument as the creationist use. My theory will be called Design unto Him (Him being TommyO) or Duh for short. Now go ahead and disprove my theory, In no time I will put together all sorts of arguments why the other theory is wrong making mine right.

My theory is much closer to ID and creationism in it's premise so I would like to invite all of those folks to become active members in my society. If you do we can ten safely say that If the theory of evolution is wrong it proves that we are right Duh!

P.S the supreme being made me in his image so it's nice to know he is not skinny but he does have a rather large________

P.S.S He does approve of the band and he gave me a brain so I could think for myself and I do

[BJean 16]

Serious: I'm afraid you're right.

TommyO: Well said. I am always impressed when someone explains himself by presenting an easily understood picture with some humor thrown in to keep it light. You seem to have a great sense of humor and a keen intellect.

[Ron Cusano 0]

That argument does not wash and takes scripture out of context and twists it to make a point that cannot be justified! There is a lot of that going around!

The account in Gen 2:7 describes when God created the first man. It is not a formular for when life begins. He created women from Adam's rib. A rib is hardly a "breathing" being. The Bible contains many verses indicating that God recoginizes life within the womb. Maybe that is why we call a pregnant women "with child"!! For instance . . .

Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

God "knew", "sanctified" and "ordained" Jeremiah the prophet "before he came forth out of the womb"!! But according to your logic, Jeremiah was not alive!

The Bible also tells us that we are "concieved in iniquity" indicating that we inherite the sin nature from Adam from the moment of conception. Hard to do if your are an inanimate object and lot a living being.

Concerning stem cell research, they most promising type is that using stem cells from the plecenta. Research to day has shown little promise or excitment using fetal stem cells. Christians are not against stem cell research, we are against killing the unborn to obtain this type of stem cell, which does not appear to hold out much hope anyway.

The Biblical Case for Being Pro-Choice and Funding Stem Cell Research

Genesis 2.7 says, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Fetuses and stem-cells, on the other hand are not breathing. And until they take their first breath, they would not be considered as being alive or having a soul as indicated by Genesis 2.7 or by the law in most states. When a baby is found dead and abandoned, the test for whether it is a homicide or a stillborn is to perform an autopsy and determine if the lungs have ever been inflated. No inflation equals no breathing equals no homicide. So, it would seem that Genesis 2.7, our legal code and I all agree on the point that Abortion and Stem Cell Research are not murder.

[sweethot143 2]

well said ron!

[Wheetsin 714]

Cord Blood gives the same information as an embryo, so why don't we just have the babies and save the cord blood? Moral Delimma solved.

This may not be completely clear, it's been a LONG time since I've studied this, but I will try to remove the medical mumbo jumbo as much as I can.

The two types of cells you're referencing actually aren't the same, and the two sources don't yield the same kinds of cells. Embryonic stem cells are "pluripotent", meaning they can turn into just about any type of cell. They're "blanks". The cells derived from cord blood are "multipotent" cells, meaning they can turn into the same kind of cell, but not any kind of cell.

So an embryonic stem cell could turn into a red blood cell, or a brain cell, or a nerve cell, or a liver cell, or a kidney cell, etc. But cord blood cells have a limit to the types of cells they can turn into, so when the cell is harvested, it's already destined to be ONLY a blood cell or ONLY a brain cell. (That's greatly simplified, but hopefully the idea is there). So as opposed to being a completely blank canvas, the cord blood cells' broad cell type is already determined. The same is true for adult stem cells.

As a not great analogy, white can become any other color, with addition of the right pigments. Red can only become another color that has red in it.

They're also the hot topic because they will reproduce well in captivity, so to speak. Easier to multiple in controlled conditions than cord blood cells. So from an embryo you get a LOT of "anything" cells, that you have a great chance of being able to culture. From cord blood you get some "this or that" cells that are fairly difficult to culture.

*Edited - I should clarify that when I use the color analogy, applied to the topic of stem cells, "pigments" become the environmental and internal factors the scientists can manipulate, such as conditions in the culture's environment, adding gene data to the cell, etc.

[Wheetsin 714]

ID and creationists start with a belief and then set about to prove it correct. Evolution started out as a question looking for an answer. Two very different approaches I suggest.

TommyO - we agree!!!!!!! Pretty much, anyway!:faint:

[Alexandra 55]

Just popping in to remind everyone that personal attacks are not welcome, even in this forum. As a rule of thumb, if you're going to criticize someone else's posting style, please think twice.

Debate the ideas, not the people.

Kirk out.

[gadgetlady 4]

ID and creationists start with a belief and then set about to prove it correct. Evolution started out as a question looking for an answer. Two very different approaches I suggest.

I disagree. I think most evolutionists set out to prove their belief correct on a daily basis.

Tomorrow I turn 47, and from my perspective the world/universe began that day. A supreme being decided that it was time for a little fun so it decided to create the TommyO universe. Based on that premise I have decided to prove that the world is 47 years old and I can use much of the same argument as the creationist use. My theory will be called Design unto Him (Him being TommyO) or Duh for short. Now go ahead and disprove my theory, In no time I will put together all sorts of arguments why the other theory is wrong making mine right.

Well, I daresay your mother would disagree that the world is only 47 years old, since after all she was alive well before she gave birth to you. Making up a ridiculous theory and then showing how ridiculous it is doesn't disprove a legitimate scientific theory. It only proves that your theory is ridiculous.

[gadgetlady 4]

I have a question that I'm opening up to everyone. I can name a bunch of scientists who used to believe in evolution but have, once presented with evidence of creation science / intelligent design and done their research, no longer believe in evolution. I have not heard of ONE that has gone the other direction. I'm not talking about some "average Joe", non-scientist who used to attend a church that preached creationism and didn't believe it and then discovered they "liked" evolution theory better. I'm talking about scientists who do this for a living. Does anyone know of one (or more) who have made this conversion?