Welcome to the #1 Chat Avenue Message Boards.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29
  1. #1

    Default The Reanimation of Dead Tissue

    Now, the Chinese hypothesised, thousands of years before the dawn of galvanism (i.e known today as electrophysiology) that the body was a vast chemical engine, and that energy flowed through the body to create movement. Their hypothesis at the time was that if someone was suffering an ailment that various needles could be pin-pointed at certain areas to re-direct the flow of electrical current, thus healing the ill. This practice still goes on in some places around the world, but for many years the idea that the body was an 'engine' was scoffed by Western science.

    The idea of creating a life is hard to pin-point in history and literature alike, but the earliest reference to using science of any kind as a means to was written in the Greek texts of Paracelsus, an alchemist who was branded a sorcerer, who claimed, which sounds perposterous these days, that he created a man in a tube, which he deemed a "homunculus", by using semen and eggs from a female and it fertilised in the tube and grew to be a person 12" in length----ironically in this day and age with "test tube" babies, the idea of it all, is not as far-fetched as it seems, as possibly the whole idea of fertilising eggs and then freezing them to be injected into women might have branched from the idea of the "humunculus".

    'Artificial' life has always been told in folk-lore, most famously, the Arabian Knights tale of the Golem, a creature made from clay and a magical ornament made the creature come to life, and would stop coming to life when the ornament was taken off it---much like a modern day robot run from batteries. Leonardo Da Vinci, ironically, was the very first man to create robots, by use of clock work engines and pulley's that would move arms inside the suit of armor of a knight.

    In the 1780's and 90's a man by the name of Luigi Galvani directed a flow of electrical current through the bodies of dead animals, most notably frog legs, and saw how the limbs would move, and with more current, they would move even more. Galvani called this 'animal electricity', for he believed he found a new source of energy. Several other scientists at the time took it a step further, as they applied great electrical currents through the bodies of criminals that were executed---and to many gasps and freakish horror of many the bodies would 'rise up' and even yell and shake convulsively, until the electrical streams were cut off.



    As you can see in this picture from the Victorian times, that 'galvanism' was deemed immoral and an abomination against God (see the demons around the 'reanimated corpse').

    It was then hypothesised that if enough electrical current was directed into the brain of the deceased person(s) that the subject would be brought back from the dead. One of the many people who witnessed these exhibitions of science was Mary Shelley, who would later write the infamous Gothic-Horror novel Frankenstein, Or The Modern Prometheus in 1818, which was inspired by the thought of "reanimation, through galvanism," as well as various other influences of the times.

    Cryobionics (also known as Cryogenics) is a method of trying to perserve cellular tissue by means of cold temperatures. There have been a few 'successes' in cryobionics but by and large, since the 1960's, the problem has still always been the same: all matters of life have water in their cells, and water expands when frozen, thus destroying the cells, thus no preservation of life.

    Then there is genetics and the field of cloning, or even the gentic study of manipulating genes to 'perfect' an individual. Genetics was first hypothesised, believe it or not, by a monk/pea farmer named Gregor Mendel, who noted that inheritance patterns of certain traits in pea plants and showed that they could be described mathematically.

    It has been proven in recent years that the DNA of a human being can be placed into the cell of an animal, and if breeded and born would be a man/animal, 90% man and 10% animal. Such ideas are considered blasphemous, and even in H.G. Well's time, who once wrote The Island of Dr. Moreau, was considered science-fiction and if possible, would be a great abomination; now it is possible.

    These days, scientists are trying to 'bring back' extincy species of animal, most notably the Tasmanian Tiger and the Wooly Mammoth---but the question of whether or not dead tissue can be reanimated is still in question, and the scientific communities are split between in answers, some stating that they are so close to the answer, while others say it will not happen in our life time.

    The two questions I ask is this:

    1.) Is it possible for this to happen in our life-times, considering how far along we are in anatomy and genetics and science?

    2.) Is it wrong to do so? If so, why?


    But He was wounded for our transgressions,
    He was bruised for our iniquities;
    The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
    And by His stripes we are healed.



    It's official, it's on BoxRec!


  2. #2
    I talk too much!
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    wild west midlands :P
    Posts
    1,962

    Thumbs up

    Hi i havnt read your thread but i just want to say i think its wrong a moral crime one you die youshould stay dead thats all buy buy.
    Nicked The Siggy From Blondy Uk's Thread

  3. #3

    Default

    Well, in ways I don't think it is wrong, and in some ways I do. For one, nobody is ever asked to be brought into this world, but the majority of people don't wish to die either. On the other end of the equation, is it wrong to wish to die? I actually applaud men like Kavorkian, I believe the right belongs in the hands of the patient, or individuals themselves.


    But He was wounded for our transgressions,
    He was bruised for our iniquities;
    The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
    And by His stripes we are healed.



    It's official, it's on BoxRec!


  4. #4
    I talk too much!
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    wild west midlands :P
    Posts
    1,962

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by "IRISH" RUFUS MURPHY
    Well, in ways I don't think it is wrong, and in some ways I do. For one, nobody is ever asked to be brought into this world, but the majority of people don't wish to die either. On the other end of the equation, is it wrong to wish to die? I actually applaud men like Kavorkian, I believe the right belongs in the hands of the patient, or individuals themselves.
    Your right to have a choice to do any thing is the most important thing in life and the paiteint has that right,but what if it works and he succeeds in reanimateing the dead.

    Think about it it would be the most profound thing in exsistance what would be the point of living forever we human beings breed like a plague and with all the religouse wars and hatred in the world today what would it be like living for thousands of years and nothing ever changing i think its not sutch a bad thing that we die some of us bloody deserve to but to further medicines and things like that it would be worth while but not to live beyond your time.
    Nicked The Siggy From Blondy Uk's Thread

  5. #5

    Default

    I believe in the preservation of life, as long as it can be held on to, and as long as the quality of life can be further improved through science and medicine. Now, what really is the difference between bringing back to life a deceased person, and using deceased body parts to further the life span of a very sick individual?

    Before the 20th century, such thoughts were only dreams, that it would be impossible to give someone you cared about a new heart or lung or liver or kidney etc if their present organ or limb was decaying on them. Now organ transplants, as well as mechanical organs, as well as robotics and culturing skin and cells are common place.

    That was one of the premises for Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Or The Modern Prometheus. That some day some how someone could save a life by means of conquering what is known as death, or by using the deceased to further the lives of those who are still living but ill.

    One such man who did this, but was labled as a heretic and against the laws of God, was Chemist Robert E. Cornish, who used ether and nitrogen gas to literally kill dogs---and by his own means and knowledge of chemistry, brought back the dogs from what is medically determined as death. This was in the 1930's. TIME magazine, as well as POPULAR SCIENCE wrote of his accomplishments---and was so determined that he held the secret to over-come death that he tried vainly to get the bodies of deceased convicts who were put to death in the execution chamber, but to no avail.

    These days, there are surgeries where doctors literally place their patients in 'brain dead' states, medically dead, by lowering their body temperatures so that they can perform dangerous neurological surgeries and then revive them from death.

    Is it wrong to further life? Is it wrong to find ways to further knowledge?

    In the end, myself, being a believer in Christianity, until the day mankind can attempt to make man from clay, is the day that it becomes an abomination---cus that is when mankind is playing God---I have studied and studied time and time again of genetics, chemistry, anatomy, microbiology and physiology---and the only way that I could ever deem it to be an abomination, is that if science literally cultured every limb, organ, cell, skin, eyes etc to create a being, all by artificial means.

    And the truth is, science is not at all far away from that particular idea either, and maybe that is where we should draw the line---but as far as "stitching" together limb and organ, you could have every single thing about you replaced---but in the end, your brain is still your own, and that still makes a person a person.

    ************************************************** **********************

    Month ago Dr. Robert E. Cornish, jet-haired young University of California researcher, killed two fox terriers with ether and nitrogen, brought them back to life (TIME, March 26). One dog lived a comatose life of eight hours, the other five hours. Last fortnight Dr. Cornish killed a third terrier. For dog No. 3, in addition to the oxygen-saturated saline solution, liver extract, adrenalin, canine blood and rocking board with which he resurrected Nos. 1 & 2, Dr. Cornish had a new help—gum-arabic, to keep the heart from overworking. Revived, the third dog clung to life day after day. Though unconscious, it blinked and stretched when a window-blind was raised, swallowed when food was forced between its lips, kicked when the reflex centre in its leg was tapped. Early this week it had been alive ten days. Working and watching grimly. Dr. Cornish hoped against hope that he would see dog No. 3 once more frisking about his sombre little laboratory.

    April 30th, 1934- TIME magazine Article




    1935- POPULAR SCIENCE cover & article

    Also, the life of Cornish and his work, was also made into a movie in 1935, with Cornish actually playing himself, and has actual footage from the University of Southern California where they brought the dog back to life. The film was called Trivia For Life Returns.


    But He was wounded for our transgressions,
    He was bruised for our iniquities;
    The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
    And by His stripes we are healed.



    It's official, it's on BoxRec!


  6. #6
    I talk too much!
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    wild west midlands :P
    Posts
    1,962

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by "IRISH" RUFUS MURPHY
    I believe in the preservation of life, as long as it can be held on to, and as long as the quality of life can be further improved through science and medicine. Now, what really is the difference between bringing back to life a deceased person, and using deceased body parts to further the life span of a very sick individual?

    Before the 20th century, such thoughts were only dreams, that it would be impossible to give someone you cared about a new heart or lung or liver or kidney etc if their present organ or limb was decaying on them. Now organ transplants, as well as mechanical organs, as well as robotics and culturing skin and cells are common place.

    That was one of the premises for Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Or The Modern Prometheus. That some day some how someone could save a life by means of conquering what is known as death, or by using the deceased to further the lives of those who are still living but ill.

    One such man who did this, but was labled as a heretic and against the laws of God, was Chemist Robert E. Cornish, who used ether and nitrogen gas to literally kill dogs---and by his own means and knowledge of chemistry, brought back the dogs from what is medically determined as death. This was in the 1930's. TIME magazine, as well as POPULAR SCIENCE wrote of his accomplishments---and was so determined that he held the secret to over-come death that he tried vainly to get the bodies of deceased convicts who were put to death in the execution chamber, but to no avail.

    These days, there are surgeries where doctors literally place their patients in 'brain dead' states, medically dead, by lowering their body temperatures so that they can perform dangerous neurological surgeries and then revive them from death.

    Is it wrong to further life? Is it wrong to find ways to further knowledge?

    In the end, myself, being a believer in Christianity, until the day mankind can attempt to make man from clay, is the day that it becomes an abomination---cus that is when mankind is playing God---I have studied and studied time and time again of genetics, chemistry, anatomy, microbiology and physiology---and the only way that I could ever deem it to be an abomination, is that if science literally cultured every limb, organ, cell, skin, eyes etc to create a being, all by artificial means.

    And the truth is, science is not at all far away from that particular idea either, and maybe that is where we should draw the line---but as far as "stitching" together limb and organ, you could have every single thing about you replaced---but in the end, your brain is still your own, and that still makes a person a person.

    ************************************************** **********************

    Month ago Dr. Robert E. Cornish, jet-haired young University of California researcher, killed two fox terriers with ether and nitrogen, brought them back to life (TIME, March 26). One dog lived a comatose life of eight hours, the other five hours. Last fortnight Dr. Cornish killed a third terrier. For dog No. 3, in addition to the oxygen-saturated saline solution, liver extract, adrenalin, canine blood and rocking board with which he resurrected Nos. 1 & 2, Dr. Cornish had a new help—gum-arabic, to keep the heart from overworking. Revived, the third dog clung to life day after day. Though unconscious, it blinked and stretched when a window-blind was raised, swallowed when food was forced between its lips, kicked when the reflex centre in its leg was tapped. Early this week it had been alive ten days. Working and watching grimly. Dr. Cornish hoped against hope that he would see dog No. 3 once more frisking about his sombre little laboratory.

    April 30th, 1934- TIME magazine Article




    1935- POPULAR SCIENCE cover & article

    Also, the life of Cornish and his work, was also made into a movie in 1935, with Cornish actually playing himself, and has actual footage from the University of Southern California where they brought the dog back to life. The film was called Trivia For Life Returns.
    Thats amazing but you also have to take into consideration the human condition by where greed and jelousy and the want for power rules over all,i would say conquer death further the human life span but look at our leaders now and the power they weild over us all and the blatent way they abuse that power every day all over the world.

    Now do you think if a sientist or professer had miraculously found all the secrets behind conquering death that average people like you and me who where very ill in hospital or even the millions of dieying starving people in africa for exsample do you think they would waste there time helping the needy the only thing they would do is crave more power but i dont think its wrong for sientists to try thats what sience is i mean you said that man creating man is playing god but our leaders are doing that every day any way they have so mutch power i dont think people realise they dont need they power of imortality to go with it it would spell the end in my opinion ill gladly live my life and hopefully die when ime about 75 or so.

    Good thread mate points do yo have a link about the guy bringing dogs back to life. ?
    Nicked The Siggy From Blondy Uk's Thread

  7. #7

    Default

    I agree. It's odd that the medical profession can only do so-so for the average citizen, but will do everything possible for those with a few extra dollars. That's why I like socialised medicine based countries. But what is odd to me, the medical feild at one time strived to find cures for all kinds of diseases, making vaccines from everything such as rabies to the pox. Now these days, they claim they need more and more money to fund for research, yet we can launch space ships and have wars and other things that drain the country billions of dollars every year. My personal belief is, there are cures for these things, these ailments out there, but nobody is saying anything---that only the higest bidders can get it.

    Prime example of that, Babe Ruth, famous baseball player, was offered an experimental treatment to save his life from cancer---and he did improve for a while, only to suc***b because his cancer was far more spread than what they thought. That experimental treatment was chemotherapy---and still, nearly 80 years after his death we are using the same treatments? I highly doubt that chemotherapy is the only choice---it's just a front.

    Ruth only got the treatment because he had the money---he was the highest paid athlete in the world at that time, next to Jack Dempsey. If it was the average person, nobody would have gotten the opprotunity.

    Yea, I have two links actually, though they don't give as much information as I would like, I am still searching for more on this subject, as it really breaches my interest:

    http://www.time.com/time/archive/pre...930486,00.html

    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/frankenst...celluloid.html


    But He was wounded for our transgressions,
    He was bruised for our iniquities;
    The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
    And by His stripes we are healed.



    It's official, it's on BoxRec!


  8. #8

    Default

    Actually the Circle of Life flows in One Movement.

    Life = Death = Life = Death = Life = Death.

    It is a constant motion, your body with decompose to leave nutrients for the plants and the plants are eaten ny herbavores then eaten my carnivores then the Cycles leads to many many branches and it keeps it in motion.

    It's a Circle, Death is a part of life.

    But, Underline But

    There is a theory of electrical currents strong enough to reanimate the body.

    There is a certain amount of electrical pulse ENOUGH to revive it and not strong enough to burn the tissues.

    But for me Reviving the Dead is a moral injustice, if you live forever and see the horror of the world then It's a pain worse than death.

    Living forever with no Peace in mind is tragic D:

  9. #9

    Default

    The first two dogs returned briefly to life, died a second and final death. The third dog, which like its predecessors, has been put to death clinically and revived by chemical and mechanical means, did better (TIME, April 30 et seq.). Slowly Dog No. 3 learned to crawl, sit up on its haunches, eat, bark, snap flies. Last week it was eating 12 oz. of meat per day. But it could not stand alone, did not behave like the normal mongrel terrier it had once been. Lean, jet-haired Dr. Robert E. Cornish concluded that a taste of death had irreparably injured its brain. Dr. Cornish decided to try nursing...

    October 8th, 1934 TIME magazine article

    http://www.time.com/time/archive/pre...770001,00.html

    I can't find the complete article, unless I paid money for it, which sucks. But I will continue to find more on this subject.


    But He was wounded for our transgressions,
    He was bruised for our iniquities;
    The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
    And by His stripes we are healed.



    It's official, it's on BoxRec!


  10. #10
    I talk too much!
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    wild west midlands :P
    Posts
    1,962

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by IRISH" RUFUS MURPHY]I agree. It's odd that the medical profession can only do so-so for the average citizen, but will do everything possible for those with a few extra dollars. That's why I like socialised medicine based countries. But what is odd to me, the medical feild at one time strived to find cures for all kinds of diseases, making vaccines from everything such as rabies to the pox. Now these days, they claim they need more and more money to fund for research, yet we can launch space ships and have wars and other things that drain the country billions of dollars every year. My personal belief is, there are cures for these things, these ailments out there, but nobody is saying anything---that only the higest bidders can get it.

    Prime example of that, Babe Ruth, famous baseball player, was offered an experimental treatment to save his life from cancer---and he did improve for a while, only to suc***b because his cancer was far more spread than what they thought. That experimental treatment was chemotherapy---and still, nearly 80 years after his death we are using the same treatments? I highly doubt that chemotherapy is the only choice---it's just a front.

    Ruth only got the treatment because he had the money---he was the highest paid athlete in the world at that time, next to Jack Dempsey. If it was the average person, nobody would have gotten the opprotunity.

    Yea, I have two links actually, though they don't give as much information as I would like, I am still searching for more on this subject, as it really breaches my interest:

    [URL="http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,930486,00.html
    http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,930486,00.html[/url]

    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/frankenst...celluloid.html
    I 100% agree with you mate i think the problem lies arond two areas 1 being money and two being that sientists reley to mutch on machiens today i mean if they did things like charles darwin done for instance and got out there testing every thing i think they would have better succes in finding these cures that are out there and as for the money part of it your bang on again it does seem that where ever there is money you get state of the art this and state of the art that and only the mighty ritch have access to it i mean we donate so mutch money to these organizeations and what do we get to show for it a macheine that no bigger than a bloody tv instead they could be creating stocks of tb antibodies i mean even illnesses that should be cured are still rife today to think thousands of people die from things sutch as tb it makes you wonder what in the name of god there doing with the money we donate in africa you have some of the poorest most vulnerable poeple on earth dying from STARVATION AND CURABLE DECIESES THAT WE HAVE THE BLOODY MEDICEN FOR but it COSTS to mutch it makes me want to spew my bloody gutts up i sware to god instead os these people doing what we want with are money they send MACHIENES into space let me to you what i think about that one there are a million moreSECRETS TO BE FOUND HERE ON EARTH THAN THERE EVER WILL BE UP THERE IN SPACE there is a saying you can put on SIENCE and its true BREAK A FEW EGGS TO MAKE AN OMLETT thats what they do they let innocent poeple all over the world die from cureable diceises that we have medicines for so they can send tin cans into space its a HOLY DISGRACE *BLESSES MY SELF* ime done.

    GREAT THREAD IRISH RUFUSS MURPHEY AND THANKS FOR THE LINKS ILL CHECK THEM OUT.
    Nicked The Siggy From Blondy Uk's Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •