Liberals Perverted Science

Mott the Hoople said:
You're, again, showing your misunderstanding of science. Science may convince people to your point of view (or it may not) but on this topic science and scientist will have nothing to say. It's a subject outside the scope of science.
Click to expand...

lol....sorry Mottley....until you can actually demonstrate some failing in my understanding of science your claims have no weight....so far, you've been afraid to try....
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yes, but that was never part of the Miller-Urey hypthesis. SF or String (whomever it was) made an incorrect statement. That doesn't either invalidate Miller-Urey as a hypothesis or mean that it's not testable, which of course, it is.
Click to expand...

a testable hypothesis for the formation of organic compounds?......accepted....beyond that, no......
 
MOe said:
sm, as stringfield said, religion != society. also, israel, while not being completely jewish in the first place, has only been around for half a century, give or take. and the vatican can hardly be considered a society. its the headquarters of the catholic religion. nothing more.

the main point is that nowhere on earth can you find a nation/society of people that has any sort of influence/relations on the nations/societies around it that is even remotely close to what it was 4000, 2000, 1000 or even just 150 years ago.
Click to expand...

Israel is a nation based on the mythological tales of old racist documents.
 
Dixie said:
Once again, whether a human life is "mourned" does not change what it is! Whether a human life ceases to exist, doesn't change what it was. It doesn't matter if 99.99999% of the fetuses are spontaneously aborted, it doesn't change what they are. You continue to argue from a position in which you define "life" in the way you want to define it, and not by the criteria required in science. You continue to use parameters and classifications to distinguish a difference, when there is no difference in the organism based on these things.
Click to expand...

Fine. The next time a woman requires an abortion let the objectors prove it is a human being. Science does not know if the fertilized cell inside a given woman has the necessary components/genes/ material to become a human being. One fact they do know is that over 50% of fertilized cells do not become human beings.

This is where you go from bizarre to sublimely ridiculous. It "cheapens" what it means to be a human being when you deny the factual scientific evidence of when human life begins! YOU are the one trying to "classify" humans based on ability, functionality and stage of development, instead of biological fact. Is it just amazingly ironic this is what you are accusing others of doing?
Click to expand...

It does cheapen human life to declare something a human being when it is not proven. The fact is we do not know if every fertilized cell is a human being.

We do know nature makes mistakes. We do know over 50% of fertilized cells either abort or are absorbed. Are we to bestow the designation of "human being" on something that has less than a 50/50 chance of passing the development of a one celled "organism" assuming it is an organism and not some mishap of nature?

Can we possibly further cheapen what it means to be a human being?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No, your the one who stated that there were no testable hypothesis for the beginnings of life. I listed a large number of testable hypothesis. If you wish to demonstrate to me that they are not testable, have at it and I'll be more than happy to shoot you down.
Click to expand...

from the opening post by WM
There have literally been dozens of reasonable scientific hypothesis for the origin of life.
Click to expand...

my response
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...

your entry
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
Click to expand...

you need to demonstrate that one or all (your choice) meet the scientific definition of an hypothesis for the origin of life.....it is your burden of proof....

I believe the required criteria for a scientific hypothesis has been established as
For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it
Click to expand...

begin.....or at least respond to post #201, oh Ringer of Featherweight Balls.......
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
yet scientifically accurate....and I think a good example of what Dixie was talking about in the opening post....

you think science won't solve the issue of abortion.....I disagree....I believe science will gradually progress to the point that liberals will no longer be able to persuade themselves that the unborn aren't living human beings......

will there still be a majority of pro-"choicers" if they have to admit they are killing children?......I doubt it....

this is a classic example of a situation where liberals MUST ignore science in order to maintain their beliefs.....
Click to expand...

I agree that science/medicine will solve the issue and that will be when the embryo/zygote/fetus can be safely removed. Until then it is the woman's right to say how her body will be used. Ultimately, she decides who or what resides inside her body and that's the way it should be.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Does that mean that for one to consider Dixie a human being one must have a "liberal" definition of human life?
Click to expand...

Very, very Liberal.

In a way similar to one who, upon opening the fridge and seeing a green mass growing on the shelf, refuses to clean it proclaiming their reverence for life.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol....sorry Mottley....until you can actually demonstrate some failing in my understanding of science your claims have no weight....so far, you've been afraid to try....
Click to expand...
Afraid to try? Hell I keep pointing out over and over again till people are laughing at you. But you are indefatigable. I'll give you that. You keep right on with your circular reasoning against all reason! LOL
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Afraid to try? Hell I keep pointing out over and over again till people are laughing at you. But you are indefatigable. I'll give you that. You keep right on with your circular reasoning against all reason! LOL
Click to expand...

then stop running and try.....the problem is, all you ever do is 'point'....you never actually 'do'......
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
I will give you a head start....I told you that if you left it up to me we would begin with primitive extraterrestrial life...

You haven't specifically stated your proposal, but I found this....


http://www.bio-medicine.org/Biology-Definition/Origin_of_life/#.22Primitive.22_extraterrestrial_life

does that adequately describe what you believe is a testable scientific hypothesis or do you have something different in mind?...

First, let me ask you....does this speculation (not hypothesis) explain the origin of life or merely defer the question to an earlier origin?......at best it is an explanation of the source of life on Earth, agreed?.....
Click to expand...
Again, your showing the limits of your knowledge of science. A hypothesis test an idea, guess or observation. It does not explain interlated phenomena. You are confusing theory with hypothesis.

Second in terms of the criteria of testability......how?.....
Click to expand...
Certainly this is a testable hypothesis. It's easily testable (in principle) and it's easily falsifiable (again, in principle). Go out to space, find an asteroid or a comet, examine it for prebiotic chemicals (amino acids, phospholipids, etc), self replicating organic compounds (RNA, DNA), subcellular organisms (e.g. viruses) or simple single cell organisms (prokaryotes). You will have tested the hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top