Liberals Perverted Science

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Ah yes, the truly great debate of the ages:

Is dixie being deliberately obtuse or is he really that stupid?

This is like someone saying "if history has taught us anything, it's that wars are bad"

...

and then dixie lumbers by, and begins ranting "WRONG, HISTORY IS A STUDY, ONLY PEOPLE TEACH HISTORY!" (as if this is some great unveiling)... Dixie knows what's up!

What it actually is, is a pointless tangent that means abso-fucking-lutely nothing. It's words, it's a paragraph, to trick people dumber than dixie (i.e. no one) that he's actually saying more than he really is. So he can have the illusion of a long post. Dixie does this hoping and praying that no one will stumble upon the fact that he's just typed something completely meaningless to take the guise of a retort or a meaningful contribution to the conversation.

Let me bring you up to speed dix,

It's a Colloquialism, stupid.

I agree it is very stupid that I have to take the time to explain this to Onzies. When I say something is "scientific fact" and he parades out an old quote taken out of context to supposedly show a contradiction in what I have said in the past, I think it is ridiculous that I have to divert from the thread topic and explain the subtlety of words used and what "context" means.

There is nothing pointless, stupid or obtuse about what I said. It is a true statement, and doesn't contradict anything I have previously said. Science is a series of predictions and theories, conclusions regarding "facts" are made by man, not by science. That said, man can sometimes conclude positively, based on science and physical observation... but sometimes man can't conclude positively, perhaps because something cant be directly observed or tested. Sometimes man has to admit that he doesn't know conclusively, maybe he has a good guess, or an idea of what might be an explanation, much depends on what science reveals and man's perception of it. In no case does science draw conclusion or determine facts, those attributes are only found in man.

Onzies wants to take a statement I made about "science doesn't prove things" out of context, and have you understand that to mean that mankind can't conclude scientific facts. I never claimed that. In fact, they are two entirely different things. This is presented by Onzies to repudiate my assertion that a living organism, which is the product of a human sperm and egg, and resides inside a human female womb, is a human life, and can't possibly be any other form of living organism. Going back to my previous statement, when mankind repeatedly observes the conception of a sperm and egg, and observes it always results in producing a living human organism, it is silly and superfluous to try and argue that science can't prove things, so this is not biologically factual. That is Onzie's retarded argument in a nutshell.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

If YOU believe in the bible that should be reason enough for every man, woman and child who ever gave credence to the book, to throw it on the fire where it belongs.
YOU? Believe in the bible? You? The most foul mouthed, offensive, unchristian ever to have polluted a forum anywhere? Don't be so fucking stupid. There is not a good bone in your body nor in those who cluster about you like the proverbial flies round shite.
Bible my arse!

OUCH, that really hurt.
Pleae no more.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

 

[Mott the Hoople]

i don't have a problem with self correcting....but to say science is infallible is wrong and especially when you claim science is infallible because it is fallible...the fact science necessarily makes mistakes and has to often be corrected means it is obviously not infallible as science is capable of error

That is true. He made an incorrect statement. He would have been correct had he said "Science is self correcting because it holds that all knowledge is tentative in nature and all theories falsifiable in principle."

 

[Mott the Hoople]

2 examples of when science has got it wrong:

Regarding the age of the earth, evolution would require a very old earth to allow time for evolution while creation doesn't require old or young. Old age for the earth was calculated based on accumulated rock layers assuming that each layer represented one year but when Mt. St. Helens erupted, geologists discovered that over 600 distinct layers of ash accumulated in one afternoon during the eruption and as the eruption column collapsed. (See Mt. St. Helens and Catastrophism by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.)

Old age has also been suggested by radioactive dating of rocks. This is also highly questionable. A lava flow in Hawaii was dated historically at 200 years but potassium-argon dating indicated that it was 2,000 years old. According to potassium- argon dating, the oldest rock at the Grand Canyon is a lava flow which flowed across the rim, dribbled down the side and puddled at the bottom of the canyon. Obviously, the lava flow is actually younger than the canyon but potassium-argon dating gives the false indication of great age for the lava flow. (See Excessively Old "Ages" For Grand Canyon Lava Flows by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.)

Ahhh there are zillions of examples of where science got it wrong (though I question the examples you presented are valid ones). The point is science has an built in mechanism to correct these mistakes.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

lol....if an hypothesis is testable, then it's an hypothesis....nobody is arguing it isn't.....what we were discussing was WM's claim that something which isn't testable was an hypothesis....so, Dick Tracy, you've just said the same thing that I was saying, put you own reading glasses on.....

Please show me where Watermark stated that.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

and yet, rather than respond to my point about climate change, you choose to claim I know nothing about the issue and run away yet again.....

kind of funny that ZappAss gave me negative rep today just for accusing you of running away.....and to think the one person on this board who is afraid to debate won the MasterBater award.....

I'd be more than happy to debate you on the issue of climactic change. Name the time and place and the conditions of the debate and we can set something up in the battle zone.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Apparently you missed the rather lengthy explanation I gave. Go back and read my post again. I have not made a contradiction in what I believe. You misunderstand something very basic and primary, that most 6th graders learn and know, but apparently didn't make it into your young melon of mush.

Science does not determine or conclude things, it is incapable of doing so because it is a STUDY not a PERSON! PERSONS make determinations, PERSONS conclude facts, not SCIENCE! Do I need to draw you a picture to go with that, or can you stop drooling long enough to focus on what the fuck I just typed?

Dixie, you don't know what your talking about. Part of the scientific method is for a scientist to make observations and determinations about facts and then draw conclusions about those facts. A Scientist does that with virtually every observation or experiment.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Please show me where Watermark stated that.

his very first post....as you well know....

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

there is no testable one....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I'd be more than happy to debate you on the issue of climactic change. Name the time and place and the conditions of the debate and we can set something up in the battle zone.

or origin of life here, now or runaway....

if you want to argue about climate change go back to that thread and respond....

or both, I don't care.....

 

[Onceler]

Dixie, why are you such a loon? There is nothing out of context in your original post; that's what you wrote, verbatim. There is no qualifier, or explanation beyond that. As a matter of fact, you go on to argue it further on the same thread:

"From a purely philosophical perspective, that is a relevant consideration. However, that is not what I stated or defined in any way. Science can "suggest" what is factual, it can't conclude it. We can use scientific suggestions to form opinions on what we believe to be true and factual, we can even draw well-founded conclusions, but sometimes science is incorrect. That's my only point, science can never "know" something conclusively, if it did, it would stop being science and start becoming faith"

There is no way around those words; no way to spin them so you get off the hook. Science is conclusive when it's convenient for your argument, but there is no way it can be conclusive when it doesn't suit your needs.

Pretty psychotic on this one, Dix....

 

[Jarod]

.

 

[apple0154]

Again I will pose the question you continue to avoid. You sate above "...over 50% of fertilized eggs die within minutes or days" If something "dies" then it has to first be living. Again, this is just plain simple common logic, nothing tricky about it. If the cells died, they had to be living. Can we agree on that? Okay, if they are living organisms, what type of living organism are they, if they aren't human?

Sperm is living but it is not considered a human being. An egg is living but it is not a human being and we don't know if every fertilized cell is a complete organism. All we know for sure is a fertilized cell is living human material.

We do indeed know, once conception of a human sperm and egg take place, this begins human life. There is no debate on this, it is not subjective, it is not up to the individual to decide, it is not one of several theories or options, it is a basic biological fact. You can continue to refuse to accept science, but you only further illustrate the point I make in this thread. This wasn't a debate about Abortion, it was a thread about how Liberals pervert science. It is about how Liberals will use science to support their agenda whenever they can, and when science gets in the way of their agenda, they ignore it... or do like you're doing, and try to derail the conversation with minutia and obfuscation.

No, we do not know that once conception of a human sperm and egg take place, this begins human life. For example, consider the anencephalic baby. ([ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly[/ame]) A fertilized cell goes through the embryo, zygote and fetus stages and results in a baby being born without a brain.

Is it so unreasonable to conclude some fertilized cells are further damaged to the point where they are not human "life" but merely human material? Isn't that a reasonable explanation why over 50% of them exist for such a short time? Do we know for certain one way or another? No, we do not and that is the point.

It is an outrage to infringe on the rights of a human being (a woman) by classifying something (a fertilized cell) as a human being when we do not know. And we do not know.

Saying all human life starts as a fertilized cell is not the same thing as saying all fertilized cells are the start of a human life.

 

[DamnYankee]

Liberals should abort themselves along with their babies.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

his very first post....as you well know....

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

there is no testable one....

And your factually wrong. I, in turn, posted almost 20 testable hypothesis for the origins of life. How convienant of you to ignore them.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

or origin of life here, now or runaway....

if you want to argue about climate change go back to that thread and respond....

or both, I don't care.....

I'd debate you on origins science too. Again do you want to make it a formal debate? With specific conditions? So far your not doing to well here.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Sperm is living but it is not considered a human being. An egg is living but it is not a human being and we don't know if every fertilized cell is a complete organism. All we know for sure is a fertilized cell is living human material.



No, we do not know that once conception of a human sperm and egg take place, this begins human life. For example, consider the anencephalic baby. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly) A fertilized cell goes through the embryo, zygote and fetus stages and results in a baby being born without a brain.

Is it so unreasonable to conclude some fertilized cells are further damaged to the point where they are not human "life" but merely human material? Isn't that a reasonable explanation why over 50% of them exist for such a short time? Do we know for certain one way or another? No, we do not and that is the point.

It is an outrage to infringe on the rights of a human being (a woman) by classifying something (a fertilized cell) as a human being when we do not know. And we do not know.

Saying all human life starts as a fertilized cell is not the same thing as saying all fertilized cells are the start of a human life.

Dixie is living, is he a human being?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

And your factually wrong. I, in turn, posted almost 20 testable hypothesis for the origins of life. How convienant of you to ignore them.

are you claiming that all 20 of those are testable hypothesis for the origins of life?......is that your final answer?....would you like a lifeline?.....does that mean if I prove any one of them is not testable that you lose the debate?.....would you rather just pick one of them and prove that is testable?.....I will give you a chance to consider......(hint: if I have to pick one I will start with 'extraterrestrial source')......

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Apparently you missed the rather lengthy explanation I gave. Go back and read my post again. I have not made a contradiction in what I believe. You misunderstand something very basic and primary, that most 6th graders learn and know, but apparently didn't make it into your young melon of mush.

Science does not determine or conclude things, it is incapable of doing so because it is a STUDY not a PERSON! PERSONS make determinations, PERSONS conclude facts, not SCIENCE! Do I need to draw you a picture to go with that, or can you stop drooling long enough to focus on what the fuck I just typed?

Dixie, when people say that science has concluded something, it's a figure of speech. Stop pretending like you've made some deep point.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Please show me where Watermark stated that.

We can devise a tests for creating life. In fact, people are probably attempting to make a test for it right now.

Untestable doesn't mean able to be tested easily.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Sperm is living but it is not considered a human being. An egg is living but it is not a human being and we don't know if every fertilized cell is a complete organism. All we know for sure is a fertilized cell is living human material.

A human egg and human sperm are not human beings, that much you got right. Both the egg and sperm are made up of multiple cells, not just one. A sperm and egg are "living human material" but a fertilized egg becomes a human in state of being, or a "human being." When the sperm permeates the egg and conception occurs, the result is the beginning of a human life. There is no other point at which a human life can begin, this is not arbitrary, this is not up for debate, this is not an unknown. The biology of what something is, doesn't change depending on whether a brain is formed, or whether it spontaneously aborts. Those are red herrings you toss out to muddy the waters.

What we know for sure is, conception begins human life. This is why you find it difficult to even try and defend your point of view without illustrating your stupidity... if 50% of the "cells" die, they must have been living! If they were living organisms, they must be human. If they spontaneously aborted, they have to abort from something.

No, we do not know that once conception of a human sperm and egg take place, this begins human life. For example, consider the anencephalic baby. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly) A fertilized cell goes through the embryo, zygote and fetus stages and results in a baby being born without a brain.

Again for the stubborn, YES WE DO KNOW WHEN HUMAN LIFE BEGINS! Now you can repeat the opposite over and over again and you can even stick your fingers in your ears and just keep repeating it like a third grader, but it isn't EVER going to make it a fact. The anencephalic baby is a human being! There is no other living organism it qualifies for, there is nothing else it can be! Things are NOT defined by the level of function they have. If your computer stops working, does it cease to be a computer?

Is it so unreasonable to conclude some fertilized cells are further damaged to the point where they are not human "life" but merely human material? Isn't that a reasonable explanation why over 50% of them exist for such a short time? Do we know for certain one way or another? No, we do not and that is the point.

A fertilized egg made up of hundreds of cells, containing its own unique DNA, is a human life in its earliest stage of development. There is nothing scientific to suggest it is anything else. Again, this is not about what is "reasonable" to you, this is biology and what man knows for a fact, because of science. If 50% of them "exist" then they must be in a state of "being" ...if they are human organisms, they must be "human beings!" It doesn't matter when they die, that doesn't change what they are.

It is an outrage to infringe on the rights of a human being (a woman) by classifying something (a fertilized cell) as a human being when we do not know. And we do not know.

Saying all human life starts as a fertilized cell is not the same thing as saying all fertilized cells are the start of a human life.

No, it is an outrage to continue debating with morons who don't accept science. It is an outrage that you can't comprehend the most basic of biological facts, and insist on repeating absurd notions which have no basis in fact or science. It is a further outrage that you maintain a woman has the "right" to kill another human being for the sake of her own vanity and convenience.

Why don't we suspend all drunk driving laws? It's not an alcoholics fault he is drinking and driving, he has a disease! Who are we to tell him what to do with his own body? ...But you say, Dixie, he may kill someone... Well, there is a chance he won't kill anyone. Abortion results in killing someone every time.