Liberals Perverted Science

Lowaicue said:
There is no such thing as god so we can translate:

Liberals hate nothing and love death.

What makes you think that what you call liberals (people who support freedom) should love death. Surely all people are pretty well resigned to it, aren't they? Or does it not apply to you and yours?
Click to expand...
Ask him what his definition of "Liberal" is? LOL It's basically, anyone who disagrees with me. ;)
 
Dixie said:
When are you going to offer us anything other than your erroneous opinions?
Click to expand...

As soon as you stop offering yours.

Way back in msg 361 I wrote,
Show me a report, article, web page, a note book, a scrap of paper, anything documenting where a reputable individual has examined an egg which spontaneously aborted AND stating the known cause. Just one.
Click to expand...

I also told you about the time experts, using infallible DNA, "proved" a woman's biological children were not her own. Google that
fiasco.

All you've done is taken the fact all human beings start at conception and drawn the erroneous conclusion all conceptions are human beings.

Again, show me one case where a self-aborted, fertilized cell or a conception or whatever you want to call it was examined. Show me one report where any reputable scientist/qualified individual has stated every fertilized cell/conception/whatever contains all the necessary parts to be considered a human being AND they have documentation to back it up.

This reminds me of the arguments by universal medical opponents. They rant and rave about how terrible universal medical plans are but can't show one country that implemented a universal plan and then reverted to a "pay or suffer" system. (Just thought I'd throw that in there.) :)

So, give me something to work with. So far you have not provided any proof scientists/qualified individuals have examined fertilized cells/conceptions/whatever that self-aborted. You have not provided any documentation showing they know why they self-aborted but you're telling us they're absolutely, positively sure they were all human beings.

I'm sure you're capable of much better performance. You really have to do better.

May I suggest checking different search engines. Are scientists capable of determining whether a fertilized cell/conception/whatever has the necessary parts to be considered a human being? Do they even know what parts are necessary?

I think it's time you did a little homework, Dixie. It's fine to have an opinion but I'm sure you'll agree that when discussing something as important as what constitutes a human being and the consequences other human beings will suffer resulting from such a designation ones opinion should be backed up by some kind of "official" acknowledgment/documentation/proof.

I'll be periodically checking in to see how you're progressing.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Dixie said:
If they BEGAN the process of life, they WERE living organisms, and we know exactly what caused them to be a living organism. None of this is disputable, why do you keep pretending it is?



If it was alive at any point, it was a living organism, there is no other way to classify it. The fact that it didn't survive, doesn't mean it was something other than human life. The fact that you will one day "self-abort" from the process of life, doesn't mean you aren't a human!



Again, go look at your definition of an organism, if it was alive, it was a living organism, there is nothing else it could be. It doesn't matter when they die, that only confirms they are living organisms because something non-living can't die!



Science doesn't have to conclude the cause of death to determine something was alive! You are being ABSURD! Science does say that an organism is created, the moment of conception! You admit, 50% "don't make it" which means they were "making it" and died, therefore, they were LIVING!



And this applies at any point after conception! Once the process of life has started, it is a living organism, there is no other way to describe it. It doesn't matter how many die, they are still what they are! The ONLY point you have successfully made is, dead organisms are no longer living organisms.



No, it won't, because it will be yet another silly analogy that doesn't apply.



There is no "fertilized cell" it ceased to exist the moment of fertilization. How much actual science education have you had? Once conception happens, it is no longer a single cell, it becomes a multi-cell living organism, and remains that until it terminates. If I need to repost this another couple dozen times, I can, but most people know this to be a fact, because we learned it in 7th grade.

When are you going to offer us anything other than your erroneous opinions?
Click to expand...
 
Dixie said:
Liberals don't support freedom, they oppose freedom at every opportunity.
Click to expand...
And what would a conservative know about Freedom? Anytime someone actually practices freedom we have to listen to you howl in outrage. Freedom and Liberty are just empty words to conservatives.

Ya'll seem to think Freedom is the freedom to conform to your narrow point of view.
 
Last edited:
ib1yysguy said:
The retards on this thread should be reminded that nearly no scientists identify as Republicans.

The vast majority identify as Democrats or independents. Six percent call themselves Republicans according to Pew.

http://people-press.org/report/528/

In other words - it ain't Liberals perverting scientists.
Click to expand...
Unfortnately it's because of the ideological purity test the right wing of the party has painted themselves into. Scientist used represent the general public in party affiliation. Now, thanks to right wing extremism and its anti-intellectualim scientist have abondoned the Republican party is droves like just as have moderates.

Am I the only one to catch the irony here but that this thread was started by a person who believes the definition of science should include supernatural causation?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
And what would a conservative know about Freedom? Anytime someone actually practices freedom we have to listen to you howl in outrage. Freed and Liberty are just empty words to conservatives.

Ya'll seem to think Freedom is the freedom to conform to your narrow point of view.
Click to expand...

Except it's the libtards who want to shut down free speech. *shrug*
 
evince said:
No country has done completely unfettered capitalism either.

It does not work.
Click to expand...
That's not true. It does work but is so predatory and oppresive that no one in their right mind would want to live in an uregulated purely capitalist society unless you were one of the lucky few capitalist.
 
apple0154 said:
As soon as you stop offering yours.

Way back in msg 361 I wrote,

I also told you about the time experts, using infallible DNA, "proved" a woman's biological children were not her own. Google that
fiasco.

All you've done is taken the fact all human beings start at conception and drawn the erroneous conclusion all conceptions are human beings.

Again, show me one case where a self-aborted, fertilized cell or a conception or whatever you want to call it was examined. Show me one report where any reputable scientist/qualified individual has stated every fertilized cell/conception/whatever contains all the necessary parts to be considered a human being AND they have documentation to back it up.

This reminds me of the arguments by universal medical opponents. They rant and rave about how terrible universal medical plans are but can't show one country that implemented a universal plan and then reverted to a "pay or suffer" system. (Just thought I'd throw that in there.) :)

So, give me something to work with. So far you have not provided any proof scientists/qualified individuals have examined fertilized cells/conceptions/whatever that self-aborted. You have not provided any documentation showing they know why they self-aborted but you're telling us they're absolutely, positively sure they were all human beings.

I'm sure you're capable of much better performance. You really have to do better.

May I suggest checking different search engines. Are scientists capable of determining whether a fertilized cell/conception/whatever has the necessary parts to be considered a human being? Do they even know what parts are necessary?

I think it's time you did a little homework, Dixie. It's fine to have an opinion but I'm sure you'll agree that when discussing something as important as what constitutes a human being and the consequences other human beings will suffer resulting from such a designation ones opinion should be backed up by some kind of "official" acknowledgment/documentation/proof.

I'll be periodically checking in to see how you're progressing.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Click to expand...

Apple, you can talk down to me and hope that people won't read your idiocy, and maybe they will think you bested me in debate on the topic. Is that what you are hoping? It certainly sounds that way to me.

There is nothing erroneous about the scientific FACT that human life begins at conception. There is nothing erroneous about the FACT that once the female egg is "fertilized" it is no longer a female egg, but a living multi-cell organism, and this happens immediately upon conception. You are the one who is continuing to contradict your own point. If something DIES, it is a requirement that it first be LIVING! It is impossible for something to DIE if it hasn't been ALIVE! It is also impossible for something to be ALIVE and not be a living organism. Your position continues to be, that because something died before it reached a certain threshold, that means it was never living, and that is ludicrous. Human life begins at conception, and every conception begins a human life, and it doesn't matter when that life expires, it doesn't ever change what it was.
 
there is also nothing dumber than cons arguing against abortion.
WE ARE NOT GOING BACK TO WOMAN NOT HAVING A CHOICE.
You and other hard core conservatives are ruining the republican party.
keep it far right, religious and ultra conservative and your losses will explode on you.
 
Topspin said:
there is also nothing dumber than cons arguing against abortion.
WE ARE NOT GOING BACK TO WOMAN NOT HAVING A CHOICE.
You and other hard core conservatives are ruining the republican party.
keep it far right, religious and ultra conservative and your losses will explode on you.
Click to expand...

What is really dumb is nitwit pinhead who apparently can't read and comprehend things. I've stated numerous times in this thread, this debate is NOT about the issue of abortion. We can't have that debate until we are all on the same page on what we are talking about. As long a ignorant pinheads repudiate science and refuse to accept when life begins, the debate on abortion is futile. You view this as a "womans right" but that is based on your anti-science assumption that life begins some time after conception. We don't delegate ANYONE with the right to kill other innocent human beings, why should we bestow such a right to women?

As for your political predictions, you really should be more concerned with how you're going to keep the Liberal Locomotive on the tracks, because America is waking up to your fraud, and she is pissed.
 
Dixie said:
What is really dumb is nitwit pinhead who apparently can't read and comprehend things. I've stated numerous times in this thread, this debate is NOT about the issue of abortion. We can't have that debate until we are all on the same page on what we are talking about. As long a ignorant pinheads repudiate science and refuse to accept when life begins, the debate on abortion is futile. You view this as a "womans right" but that is based on your anti-science assumption that life begins some time after conception. We don't delegate ANYONE with the right to kill other innocent human beings, why should we bestow such a right to women?

As for your political predictions, you really should be more concerned with how you're going to keep the Liberal Locomotive on the tracks, because America is waking up to your fraud, and she is pissed.
Click to expand...

My view of you as an old school kkk member is what is unchanged. Abortion is legal and that is not changing much to your dissmay. Also blacks and woman can vote. Get over it.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You didn't look very hard then. Scroll down towards the very bottom of the page.
Click to expand...
Gee, this looks familiar:
There is a Pew research study purporting to poll “scientists.” The question I immediately want answered is, what’s a “scientist?” The answer, as far as Pew is concerned, is anyone who is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The AAAS is a liberal organization with stated goals such as “Increase diversity in the scientific community,” “Use science to advance human rights” (sometimes in collaboration with leftist-sympathizing Amnesty International), ”Sustainable Development” and ”Women’s Collaboration”.

You don’t in any way have to be a real scientist to be a member of this organization. All you need to do is send them $146. School teachers are especially encouraged to join, and no one should confuse a grade K-12 school teacher with a real scientist.

So who would join an organization like this? LIBERALS! Which explains why only 6% of “scientists” who were polled said they were Republican.
Click to expand...
http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/07/shame-on-pew-worlds-most-biased-poll.html

ibgayguy still telling the same lie:

[ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=470980&postcount=56"]Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - ONLY SIX PERCENT OF SCIENTISTS ARE REPUBLICANS[/ame]
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Considering your understanding of science, that's not an inappropriate metaphor.
Click to expand...

???....you think several pages of discussion about Marxism and Halloween has something to do with science?.....then you know even less about it than what you have revealed so far....
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
What is it that you don't understand about "testable"? Alls one has to do is obtain an extraterstrial object and examine it for signs of life. BINGO! The hypothesis is testable! What is it that you don't understand about that?
Click to expand...
the same things I questioned you about the first time you said it. Isn't it true that when the first extraterrestrial object comes up showing no sign of life that we need to keep looking?....doesn't it require looking at every extra-terrestrial object in the universe?....How is it falsifiable.....and, even then, how does it deal with the origin of that extra-terrestrial life?.......
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
Apple, you can talk down to me and hope that people won't read your idiocy, and maybe they will think you bested me in debate on the topic. Is that what you are hoping? It certainly sounds that way to me.

There is nothing erroneous about the scientific FACT that human life begins at conception. There is nothing erroneous about the FACT that once the female egg is "fertilized" it is no longer a female egg, but a living multi-cell organism, and this happens immediately upon conception. You are the one who is continuing to contradict your own point. If something DIES, it is a requirement that it first be LIVING! It is impossible for something to DIE if it hasn't been ALIVE! It is also impossible for something to be ALIVE and not be a living organism. Your position continues to be, that because something died before it reached a certain threshold, that means it was never living, and that is ludicrous. Human life begins at conception, and every conception begins a human life, and it doesn't matter when that life expires, it doesn't ever change what it was.
Click to expand...

I've tried talking to you on the same level I do with everyone else. I've tried using analogies. I've tried using every day common sense and you continue to miss the most basic point.

You keep repeating, "If something DIES, it is a requirement that it first be LIVING!"

We both agree a human being is an organism. Organism: An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or 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 special note of "to carry on the various processes of life." In order for something to be classified as an organism it must be able to carry on the processes of life which is different from simply "living", such as our finger is living or our kidneys are living.

When we see over 50% of conceptions perishing with out any known external cause(s) it's reasonable to conclude they were not capable of carrying on the various processes of life, a function required in order to be classified as an organism.

It appears you are assuming the conception did operate correctly for a period of time and then died. I contend the conception never did operate correctly, thus, there never was a human being.

Until we know for certain it is outrageous to classify it as a human being and subjecting other human beings to the consequences of such a move.
 
apple0154 said:
I've tried talking to you on the same level I do with everyone else. I've tried using analogies. I've tried using every day common sense and you continue to miss the most basic point.

You keep repeating, "If something DIES, it is a requirement that it first be LIVING!"

We both agree a human being is an organism. Organism: An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or 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 special note of "to carry on the various processes of life." In order for something to be classified as an organism it must be able to carry on the processes of life which is different from simply "living", such as our finger is living or our kidneys are living.

When we see over 50% of conceptions perishing with out any known external cause(s) it's reasonable to conclude they were not capable of carrying on the various processes of life, a function required in order to be classified as an organism.

It appears you are assuming the conception did operate correctly for a period of time and then died. I contend the conception never did operate correctly, thus, there never was a human being.

Until we know for certain it is outrageous to classify it as a human being and subjecting other human beings to the consequences of such a move.
Click to expand...

One more time... You are looking at something that has DIED and claiming that, since it did not continue LIVING, it was NEVER a living organism!!!! If the organisms PERISHED, they HAD TO BE ALIVE FIRST! You can't leap ahead to when they DIED and claim they were never LIVING, because they HAD TO BE! IDIOT!

Here's another fucking news flash for your retarded ass, EVERY fucking living organism ever known to man, will eventually not be able to carry on the life process! Including your worthless clueless ass! When you die, can we proclaim that you were never anything more than a meaningless clump of human tissue cells, and NOT a human being????
 
Dixie said:
One more time... You are looking at something that has DIED and claiming that, since it did not continue LIVING, it was NEVER a living organism!!!! If the organisms PERISHED, they HAD TO BE ALIVE FIRST! You can't leap ahead to when they DIED and claim they were never LIVING, because they HAD TO BE! IDIOT!

Here's another fucking news flash for your retarded ass, EVERY fucking living organism ever known to man, will eventually not be able to carry on the life process! Including your worthless clueless ass! When you die, can we proclaim that you were never anything more than a meaningless clump of human tissue cells, and NOT a human being????
Click to expand...

My goodness. You are one dense soul. You accuse me of talking down to you, yet, you fail to understand the most logic.

Back to square one. Organism: An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.

Over 50% of conceptions, fertilized cells, die. Not human beings. Human tissue. Try to understand it was tissue that lived and died, not an organism.

They did not carry on the processes of life.

It doesn't make sense to say every conception is a human being, an organism, when over 50% of them can not carry on the processes of life.

You wrote, "....EVERY fucking living organism ever known to man, will eventually not be able to carry on the life process!"

Yes, eventually. The point is every organism did carry on the processes of life for a period of time. We do not know if the conceptions/fertilized cells ever carried on the processes of life.

No one, not one single scientist, doctor or other qualified individual has established those conceptions ever carried on the processes of life.

The most likely scenario is the sperm enters the egg and both start dying resulting in their death within minutes or hours. No organism. No human being. That would be the logical conclusion until further data is received.

If you're incapable of comprehending that I can't dumb it down any further for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top