I'm cool w/ that. As long as you now seem to understand that those quotes were perfectly in context, and you completely contradicted yourself.
Liberals Perverted Science
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
I'm cool w/ that. As long as you now seem to understand that those quotes were perfectly in context, and you completely contradicted yourself.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Nope, don't understand that, and only the retarded could possibly see things your way. I didn't contradict myself, I stand by what I said, I haven't conceded anything to you, I am just finished discussing it, because it is silly and ridiculous, and doesn't have a damn thing to do with the thread topic. Now, if you just want to continue to try and push my buttons, I can add you to my ignore list, like I have Waterhead and Chicklet, it doesn't bother me a bit. Take note, I am not going to be playing these silly little middle school games with you idiots anymore, I have made up my mind not to do it anymore. I am open to us having an intelligent conversation, discussing the issues like mature people, but this 7th-grade juvenile "gotcha" bullshit is going to stop with me. I don't have time for it, and it's gotten old.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
yes I did, I saw nothing there that I disagreed with, whatsoever
lol....which is precisely what I said.....TESTABLE.....since you are admitting exactly what I said why have you spent all your time pretending I didn't know what I was talking about.....
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
it isn't difficult at all, I agree with that wholeheartedly.....but your speculations regarding the origins of life aren't proven scientific explanations (theories).....they haven't been successfully tested.....they are not hypothesis, because they are not testable.....they are merely speculations.....
you realize that, you know you can't demonstrate them to be hypothesis....that is why you are afraid to actually engage in the debate.....
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Exactly!!
Mott, unless you've constructed a time machine and resolved the space/time continuum issue, enabling you to travel back to the origin of life, you can't test it or observe anything. You can attempt to simulate a speculative scenario, and it might give you some insight in what could have happened, but it may not prove anything. In the end, you have opinionated speculations, based on an agenda-driven ideology. You are doing precisely what you scold 'religious' people for, starting with a conclusion then building preconceived evidence to support it.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
recently, a human vegetable was considered non responsive, thought, feeling, etc.....
science said that watermark....but then we have your ever correcting science.....that says different now...what faith you have in a science that needs.....ever correcting.....
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
When I said that, I meant that they are capable of feeling, even if their machinery is out of whack and it's not happening at that moment - barring some sort of very severe brain injury, like Schaivo had. But people do come out of PVS all the time.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
You don't need to literally observe the origin of life to prove that it can arise spontaneously. As I said before, the easiest way to do it would be to simulate reasonable conditions that could happen in nature and nudge life out of them. Then you could prove that life COULD arise spontaneously, which would lend evidence to your theory of how life was started.
There may even be SEVERAL reasonable ways that life could have arisen spontaneously, but all we'd really need to do is make it happen once to prove that life could arise spontaneously.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
I expect you also think the passage where Jesus says "suffer the little children to come on to me" is divine instruction in favor of abortion.......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
yes, WM, that's what we're talking about.....it's called testability, an experiment
apple0154
MEOW
Back to square one. Let's look at the definition of "organism".
Medical Dictionary. Organism: "An individual form of life, such as a plant, an animal, a bacterium, a protist, or a fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/organism
Take note of the last part. "a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life."
We don't know if every fertilized cell has the organs, organelles, or other parts necessary. Again, until it can be determined one way or another it's reasonable to conclude most fertilized cells do not have the necessary organs, organelles, or other parts because over 50% of fertilized cells do not carry on the processes of life. They do not keep dividing and growing. They do not carry on the processes of life.
What part of that are you having difficulty with?
We don't know if all the necessary stuff is there. Again, over 50% do not pass that stage. "Construction" stops.
If the cell had the necessary parts to carry on the processes of life why would it abort? Although we don't know for sure it's reasonable to conclude it does not have the necessary parts because logic dictates that if it did it would not self-abort.
It is what it is and sometimes it isn't anything more than human living tissue. If it was a human being then it would grow and be born.
Yes, they were living and died just as all other cells in our body live and die. That does not mean they were/are a human life anymore than skin cells. If they were human life they would have grown and a human being would have been born.
What is so difficult to understand?
"If it was living, it must be some kind of living organism." That is an assumption and most likely wrong as over 50% do not carry on the functions of a living organism.
What is absurd is your conclusions. All human life may start at conception but that does not mean all conceptions are human life. Once again, I ask, "What are you having problems with?" I explained this before. All "A"s may be "B"s but that does not mean all "B"s are "A"s. Somewhere along the way you missed that part of your education.
It had to be living but that does not mean it was an organism. Science has not determined whether the over 50% of fertilized cells that spontaneously aborted were organisms.
Again, let's take a look at the definition of organism. Organism: "An individual form of life, such as a plant, an animal, a bacterium, a protist, or a fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life."
In over 50% of the cases fertilized cells do not carry on the processes of life so why would you say all fertilized cells are organisms? Does the word "logic" mean anything to you? The term "common sense"?
I have provided circumstantial evidence. Overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Over 50% of fertilized cells do not carry on the processes of life and carrying on the processes of life is crucial for something to be considered an organism.
Here we go again.
Science having determined that human life begins at fertilization does not mean every fertilization is human life. Every trip to the grocery store begins with the person leaving their house. That does not mean every time a person leaves their house they are going to the grocery store. Do you know anyone who is a teacher? Do you have children in school? You need someone to explain to you the examples I've provided. You're having difficulty understanding a basic concept.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
At all phases of the lifecyle, A living human organism is a human being.
You're apparently ignorant of science, apple, and that's sad for you.
You're apparently ignorant of science, apple, and that's sad for you.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Here we go again.
Of course it does.
apple0154
MEOW
It is you, AssHat, who fails to take science into consideration. We know that people are born with defective genes. We know some fetuses are so mal-formed they self-abort. Is it so unreasonable to conclude some fertilized cells do not have the proper "parts" to become a human being?
We do not know if every fertilized cell is an organism. That's the problem with your argument and considering over 1/2 of them do not conduct themselves like an organism (grow) it's logical to conclude some are not organisms.
We don't know. Science does not know. It is continuing to evolve.
It's easy to say life starts at conception, at the fertilization of a cell, when testing those that were/are organisms. It's easy to say a six month old fetus started life when a cell was fertilized because that particular cell was/is an organism and developed like organisms are supposed to develop.
I've tried to use analogies. Your argument is like a guy standing at the grocery store saying everyone who leaves their home goes to the grocery store. Yes, everyone at the grocery store had to leave their home but that does not mean everyone who leaves their home goes to the grocery store.
This is one of the basic things everyone should have learned/understood at a relatively young age.
Sure.
apple0154
MEOW
No, it doesn't. I posted the definition of "organism". Over 50% of fertilized cells do not fulfill the definition of organism which includes "carrying on the processes of life." They do not carry on the processes.
It may be possible some are organisms and something stops them from carrying on the processes, however, science has absolutely no idea what that "something " is or even if there is a "something" other than the cell(s) not being an organism.
Many women go through a number of miscarriages and then have a baby. They have no idea what they did differently and in many cases they didn't do anything differently.
Until proven otherwise the logical conclusion is the cell(s) were defective. In other words there was no human being. The "organism" was missing the parts necessary to carry on the processes of life.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I am having difficulty with the word "or" in the definition you posted. It seems you think "or" means something different than I do. I am also having trouble understanding how something can "not carry on the process of life" if it isn't alive to begin with. Perhaps you can explain? Didn't the 50% have to be living first, in order to die?
Again, I am having trouble understanding how something is growing, yet not alive. How "construction stops" if there isn't anything being constructed to start with. Can you resolve this illogical puzzle? It seems that what you are saying is, all 100% were growing and living, and 50% died. But if they were all growing, regardless of how many died, weren't they living?
Uhm... Again, having trouble understanding what the "cell" is aborting from. How can it stop carrying on a process it hasn't yet obtained? You maintain it is not a living human organism, but then you indicate it was living and died. How can this be? The "cell" was either living or not living. If it was living, it has to be classified as some form of living organism, and if it is a "fertilized egg" from a female human, it can only be called a human. I honestly don't know what else you could call it, nothing else is added to make it "human" later on, we know all humans start from here, so what other possible kind of living organism do you think it could be? Please explain this to me, it is perplexing!
Hmm... Human living tissue? I don't know, but I think we might be making progress with you! You almost have it right! Yes, living human tissue with it's own unique DNA, which will continue to grow and develop for the next 100 years or more, if it isn't terminated or doesn't "self-abort" from the process.
WOW! Now "they" are alive! We HAVE made progress with you! But unlike other cells in your body that die, a human embryo is not a single cell. Once conception takes place, the "fertilized egg" becomes a unique living multi-cell organism called a human.
WTF?? You just admitted they were alive!!! We have lost all that progress already! LOL
No idiot, what is absurd is that I am still having a conversation with your stupid ass. Go pick up any 7th grade science textbook, and I am sure you will find a chapter on how human life begins.
Listen to this stupidity! Just fucking unbelievable! If it was living, that is EXACTLY what it means! It was a LIVING ORGANISM! What the fuck are you even talking about now? Do you even know???
I will agree, once the human being dies, it is no longer a living organism.
Yes, I would say you have provided incontrovertible evidence, when something dies, it is no longer a living organism. The 50% of "fertilized cells" which "do not make it" are indeed, NOT living human organisms. I agree!
Here we go again.
*sigh* YES, AGAINNNNN!
Man has determined through science, that human life begins with conception of a sperm cell and egg cell. It needs nothing else to become human life or a human being. Just like all other reproductive organisms, some human beings do not survive the life process very long. You want to argue, until they are born, they are not "considered" human, and that is not scientific. They are living, we know this for a fact, you have confirmed it several times. You want to set up artificial thresholds, and say the living organism must pass those, before you "consider" it a living organism, and you point to the dead ones to support your claim they are not really living organisms. It's lunacy!
No, here's the deal, I don't know how old you are or how much actual science education you've had, but I venture to say it's not a lot. Your entire rant sounds more like you are trying to convince yourself that human life is not really human life. You've made no points of validity, you've really offered nothing to support your waffling, flip-flopping, ever-changing, contradicting notions of when life actually begins. You continue to deny biological facts and insist that science doesn't know what it has known for years. Even when you are trying to explain it, you get tangled in contradictions... things are living, but not living organisms! Things can't be living because 50% died! LMFAO... if it weren't so sad, it would be hilarious!
if you are allowed to make up your own axioms and postulates you can prove any theory
this is what dixie does
the problem is that reality intrudes...
this is what dixie does
the problem is that reality intrudes...