Liberals Perverted Science

Apple, has it occurred to you that you have been arguing this same ridiculous and absurd point for over a week, and as of yet, not one single poster has agreed with you? Even your own pinhead friends who hate my guts and can't stand to admit I am right, can't side with you on this, it is too absurd and foolish. If nothing else, THAT should tell you something!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
good, then you agree with me....proceed.....how is it falsifiable?.....
Click to expand...
In principle it would be falsifiable by testing all extraterrestrial objects. If there's no life or indications of life then it could not have come from an extraterrestrial object. The corrolary being you test any or all extraterestrial objects and do find life or indications of life.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
In principle it would be falsifiable by testing all extraterrestrial objects. If there's no life or indications of life then it could not have come from an extraterrestrial object. The corrolary being you test any or all extraterestrial objects and do find life or indications of life.
Click to expand...

In principle, how would you know (and confirm) you had tested all extraterrestrial objects?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
In principle it would be falsifiable by testing all extraterrestrial objects. If there's no life or indications of life then it could not have come from an extraterrestrial object. The corrolary being you test any or all extraterestrial objects and do find life or indications of life.
Click to expand...
/boggle....if that is sufficient for "falsifiable in principle" then I expect we can consider 'creation' as a falsifiable scientific hypothesis as well.....all we have to do is wait till God comes back and ask him.....
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
No, you did. I said it was a testable hypothesis. Which it is as are the other hypotheses I listed.
Click to expand...

no, here is what you said...and that is the reason we are arguing the issue.....
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.
Click to expand...

if you are prepared to concede there are NO testable hypothesis for the origin of life, I will allow you to withdraw gracefully.....
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
First you claim the argument isn't about abortion, then you jump right into the usual rhetoric used by anti-abortionist.

Bottom line: if you were so adamant about perserving life, you would a virulent pacifist.

You are anything but, and I dare say neither are the majority of genuflecting, myopic science spouting anti-abortionist.

Also, with all the medical scientific devices that are easily mass produced and available....there should NEVER be another abortion in America based on an unwanted pregnancy (unless rape based or a threat to the life of the mother). But thanks to the congenital mental defect of puritanism and religious dogma...our children grow up virtually ignorant about sex and ways to prevent pregnancy and the spread of STD's.

The old argument that sex education promotes teen sex and pregnancy is a tired old joke. WITHOUT sex education in the schools, the aforementioned increased over the years...which elicited the reaction to do something about it.

If sex education were given the same treatment as indoctrinating our kids about sports and car ownership, the need for abortions would plummet (IMHO).

But since the anti-abortionist are dead set against such changes, abortions will continue to exists.

Deal with it.
Click to expand...

apple0154 said:
You make an excellent point.

Frequently a parent will give their teenager some money and tell them that if the driver drinks they are to use the money and call a taxi. I doubt anyone would say the parent is encouraging the teen to go out with drinkers.

Strange how the same logic doesn't apply to sex. I wonder how many parents give their teenager a condom before leaving the house on a Saturday night? :cof1:

And another thing. If teenagers did carry condoms and the parent found one they'd hit the roof. Sort of like screaming at ones teen for wearing a seat belt.
Click to expand...

Yep, and you just can't get a lot of people past an issue that clearly is not being handled well with the time honored methods for the masses.

One can't point to the poor, minorities and poorly educated as the ONLY culprits in the boom of unwed teenage mothers, STD's and abortions. This falls among ALL walks of life in America.

People are stubborn, they'll hold onto their beliefs and call call shit "ice cream" before they'll change. A shame, because the beat goes on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top