Liberals Perverted Science

Lowaicue said:
I must remember that 'life' begins at fertilisation when I am harvesting my tomatoes.
Click to expand...
This is a really stupid retort. I am one of the more pro-choice people on this site, and I know for a fact that human life begins at conception. It is mechanistic at it's inception and at some point the life of the fetus should be the most important unless you can show that going to term would kill not only the fetus but the mother as well. That is rare and late term abortions are rare, and as many of us have seen, many states count the removal of a dead fetus after 7 months as an abortion, Georgia being one of those states. So if you are going to debate from the pro-choice position, don't do it disengenuously. Admit that the the moment the sperm enters the egg genetic human life begins. The debate is whether we are going to give that zygote all the protections we give a live born human.
 
Over 50% of fertilized cells spontaneously abort. We don't know why. So, is is reasonable to believe that over 50% of the time something goes wrong and a human being dies or is it more reasonable to conclude a fertilized cell is not a human being?

If one chooses the first option, over 50% of human beings are dying on a regular basis, what do they suggest society do? If a woman is known to have suffered a number of miscarriages do we, as a society, allow her to continue participating in starting life only to have it die? That seems irresponsible, if not downright murderous.
 
Socrtease said:
This is a really stupid retort. I am one of the more pro-choice people on this site, and I know for a fact that human life begins at conception. It is mechanistic at it's inception and at some point the life of the fetus should be the most important unless you can show that going to term would kill not only the fetus but the mother as well. That is rare and late term abortions are rare, and as many of us have seen, many states count the removal of a dead fetus after 7 months as an abortion, Georgia being one of those states. So if you are going to debate from the pro-choice position, don't do it disengenuously. Admit that the the moment the sperm enters the egg genetic human life begins. The debate is whether we are going to give that zygote all the protections we give a live born human.
Click to expand...

exactly.... well stated
 
apple0154 said:
Over 50% of fertilized cells spontaneously abort. We don't know why. So, is is reasonable to believe that over 50% of the time something goes wrong and a human being dies or is it more reasonable to conclude a fertilized cell is not a human being?

If one chooses the first option, over 50% of human beings are dying on a regular basis, what do they suggest society do? If a woman is known to have suffered a number of miscarriages do we, as a society, allow her to continue participating in starting life only to have it die? That seems irresponsible, if not downright murderous.
Click to expand...
You're equating yourself to God by making the decision to abort.
 
Watermark said:
Science is infallible because science is always fallible; if there's ever a mistake in science, it's simply adjusted to fix the mistake.



Biology has created an arbitrary definition of life. It does not make moral judgments. If abortion is murder it would mean nothing to science; science says nothing about morality (besides, of course, in the field of ethics, although that honestly isn't the same thing as science).



Scientists promoted the fact of global warming, not liberals. Conservatives just happened to oppose it because they are degenerate subhumans.




I must have missed the "science disproves global warming" headline Dixie. Could you please link me?



:blah: :blah: :blah:



Every conservative society mankind has ever known has failed.



Darwin's theories provide natural explanations for how life evolved once it got started. You could, of course, backtrack and say that God just love consulted things, but you could do that at any time for anything, and it's a special pleading.



It would be one of the greatest discoveries of all time, and I would gladly accept it as soon as I saw the evidence. It would be truly amazing to find some other theory that fits the evidence as well as evolution. Currently there isn't another one.



:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:



Evolution explains every discovery ever. There has never been a discovery in history that evolution didn't explain.



Yeah; scientists adjusted the fucking theory, you moron. Unlike religious people, we don't invent a dogma, find evidence, and ignore the evidence because it doesn't fit the theory. We ADJUST THE FUCKING THEORY IF IT DOESN'T FIT WITH EVIDENCE. Nice how that works, huh?



There have literally been dozens of reasonable scientific hypothesis for the origin of life.



I'll agree it's as likely a possibility of being the result of intelligent design as it being the result of fairies.


it never has. This is a conclusion drawn by liberals with an agenda, and based on their own personal beliefs, or lack thereof. Nothing in science supports it, nothing has concluded it, other than liberals who continue to repeat it over and over as if it is a determined fact of life.
Click to expand...

As science progresses it makes it increasingly obvious that there is going to be a natural explanation for everything. Supernatural explanations were concocted by the human mind in its infancy to describe natural phenomenon it couldn't yet understand; we no longer need the crutch of super naturalism.



:blah: :blah: :blah:[/QUOTE]Dixie has just had his lunch ate by Watermark. However Watermark, you did fail to point out something obvious. That is, since Dixie doesn't even know what science is how could he know if it has been perverted or not?
 
Socrtease said:
This is a really stupid retort. I am one of the more pro-choice people on this site, and I know for a fact that human life begins at conception. It is mechanistic at it's inception and at some point the life of the fetus should be the most important unless you can show that going to term would kill not only the fetus but the mother as well. That is rare and late term abortions are rare, and as many of us have seen, many states count the removal of a dead fetus after 7 months as an abortion, Georgia being one of those states. So if you are going to debate from the pro-choice position, don't do it disengenuously. Admit that the the moment the sperm enters the egg genetic human life begins. The debate is whether we are going to give that zygote all the protections we give a live born human.
Click to expand...


the plan is for a new dark ages for humanity. The covering up of scientific truths. The de-education of humanity. Internationalist fascist elites want to be able to add and remove things to the uteruses of other human females without them even knowing about how babies are made.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Dixie has just had his lunch ate by Watermark. However Watermark, you did fail to point out something obvious. That is, since Dixie doesn't even know what science is how could he know if it has been perverted or not?
Click to expand...

hardly.....Dixie has shown more knowledge of science than WM on this thread....."evolution explains every discovery ever"?......lol
 
tom prendergast said:
Charles Darwin died in 1882, which was the nineteenth century, so how was he able to write Origin of the Species in the twentieth century? Maybe your science could explain that.
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough, Dixie doesn't understand that evolutionary theory didn't work the way Darwin wrote it out. There were problems with Darwins theory that even Darwin was well aware of. For example, Darwin did not know what the mechanism of evolution was. It took the work of Mendel, Pauling, Crick and Watson and others to discover genetics and DNA were the functional mechanisms of biological evolution and thus was formed the neo-Darwin synthesis of modern evolutionary theory. In other words, what occured is precisely what Dixie criticised scientist of, that is, not adjusting evolutionary theory to explain new discoveries has occured and has actually made the theory of biological evolution even stronger and more robust explanation of speciation then it was when Darwin first formulated his theory. What Dixie also fails to mention, and it's obvious from this that he's not read "On the Origins of Species" is that no onw knew better than Darwin what the flaws in his theory were. Darwin pointed them out and believed that posterity would discover the missing data/explanations. Virtually all of those predictions he made subsequently came true.
 
Superfreak said:
While I disagree with Dixie on his global warming 'it has been disproven' portion.... science does indeed dictate life begins at conception. That is fact. Whether you want to call that life a 'person' or afford that life 'basic human rights protections' is arbitrary and can be discussed. But genetics does dictate that life begins at the fertilization of the egg. It is at that point that the egg and sperm cells combine to form a unique DNA pattern. Given that the unique cells begin to grow and develop at that point, it is factual to state that it is 'alive'. Therefore it is at that point in which life begins.
Click to expand...

Yes, well conservatives kill life all the time, so I guess they don't have a problem with that.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
science observed it, liberals turned into a political movement
Click to expand...

Scientists turned it into a political movement.

PostmodernProphet said:
note the contradictions between the two above statements....
Click to expand...

Mostly because the first was meant as a mockery of Dixie's huge declarations of what is and isn't. If you'll only notice, I only made such statements in response to similarly ridiculous statements by him.

PostmodernProphet said:
it's a shame you don't understand the fundamentals of science......there is not one scientific speculation regarding the origin of life that qualifies as an hypothesis under the scientific definition of that term.....
Click to expand...

If I said I farted and lfie came out of my ass, that would be scientific hypothesis. However, there are a few that are much more respectable than that.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
If I said I farted and lfie came out of my ass, that would be scientific hypothesis.
Click to expand...

actually, that would be closer to an hypothesis than abiogenesis, since it would be capable of testing in a laboratory....it might not be pleasant for you, but we could conduct an experiment.....
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Interestingly enough, Dixie doesn't understand that evolutionary theory didn't work the way Darwin wrote it out. There were problems with Darwins theory that even Darwin was well aware of. For example, Darwin did not know what the mechanism of evolution was. It took the work of Mendel, Pauling, Crick and Watson and others to discover genetics and DNA were the functional mechanisms of biological evolution and thus was formed the neo-Darwin synthesis of modern evolutionary theory. In other words, what occured is precisely what Dixie criticised scientist of, that is, not adjusting evolutionary theory to explain new discoveries has occured and has actually made the theory of biological evolution even stronger and more robust explanation of speciation then it was when Darwin first formulated his theory. What Dixie also fails to mention, and it's obvious from this that he's not read "On the Origins of Species" is that no onw knew better than Darwin what the flaws in his theory were. Darwin pointed them out and believed that posterity would discover the missing data/explanations. Virtually all of those predictions he made subsequently came true.
Click to expand...

I'd also like to point out that early in Darwin's life he had a theory that the contents rose up out of the ocean, and that's what created modern geology. The theory was obviously wrong but he held onto it for twenty years. Clearly, there is no case of hero worship here. We discarded the bad theory and kept the good one.

The most important thing to note about Darwin's theory is that it's primitive. When creationists make any scientific attack on evolution, they always try to point out flaws in Darwin's original theory. That just isn't the same thing as the modern theory.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
actually, that would be closer to an hypothesis than abiogenesis, since it would be capable of testing in a laboratory....it might not be pleasant for you, but we could conduct an experiment.....
Click to expand...

Well actually life does come out of my ass when I fart. Bacteria; etc...

Abiogenisis is not permanently untestable, we just can't do so with modern technology. If it we could test it right now, it would have become a theory already.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
science observed it, liberals turned into a political movement
Click to expand...
Ahh so you admit that Climate Change has been scientifically observed. Why shouldn't this become a political movement? How else can this problem be addressed? By stiking your head in the sand till Peabody Coal's mines are empty?




note the contradictions between the two above statements....
Click to expand...
No. I don't. I see a poorly worded statement. Please identify the contradiciton.


it's a shame you don't understand the fundamentals of science......there is not one scientific speculation regarding the origin of life that qualifies as an hypothesis under the scientific definition of that term.....
Click to expand...
Really? It's been demonstrated over and over again that, like Dixie, you don't understand what science is.

So to that affect, the definition of a scientific hypothesis is;

"A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation."

or more simply;

"A hypothesis is an educated guess based on observation."

With that being the case there are quite a few scientific hypothesis on the origins of life that meet this scientific definition of a hypothesis. Some examples would be;

Hypothesis of biopoesis
Miller-Urey Hypothesis/Experiment
Phospholipid hypothesis
Nucleic Acid First hypothesis
Peptide structure hypothisis
Self Replicating Hypercycle hypothesis
Iron Sulfur World Hypothesis
Radioactive beach hypothesis
Homochirality hypothsis
Self Organization/Replication hypothesis
RNA World hypothesis
Thermosynthesis World hypothesis
Autocatalysis
Clay Hypothesis
Deep Hot Biosphere hypothesis
Primitive extraterestrial life hypothesis
extrateretrial amino acids hypothesis
Polyphosphates hypothesis
PAH World Hypothesis
Multiple Genesis hypothesis

and this is not an all inclusive list.

Seems to me, as a scientist, that Watermark has a better grasp on scientific understanding then you do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top