Atheists Spin on Evolution...

a fertized chicken egg is not yet a chicken... a human fetus is not yet a human being.

Yes, a chicken egg is indeed a chicken, it's not a duck or a cow, it can be only one kind of life form, and it's a chicken at the earliest stage. A human is a human, it doesn't matter what stage of development it happens to be in.
 
Dixie said:
a fertized chicken egg is not yet a chicken... a human fetus is not yet a human being.

Yes, a chicken egg is indeed a chicken, it's not a duck or a cow, it can be only one kind of life form, and it's a chicken at the earliest stage. A human is a human, it doesn't matter what stage of development it happens to be in.
Click to expand...

and at that point we must agree to disagree....because you will never convince me that an egg is a chicken or a fetus is a human being...they are both, from my perspective, potential chickens or human beings....

If, the minute after a chicken egg is fertilized, you crack that egg and make an omelet, you are not eating chicken... you are eating an omelet made from an egg that, had it been allowed to fully gestate, might have become a chicken.
 
maineman said:
and at that point we must agree to disagree....because you will never convince me that an egg is a chicken or a fetus is a human being...they are both, from my perspective, potential chickens or human beings....

If, the minute after a chicken egg is fertilized, you crack that egg and make an omelet, you are not eating chicken... you are eating an omelet made from an egg that, had it been allowed to fully gestate, might have become a chicken.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe abortion is wrong then?
 
because I think that every embryo, under ideal circumstances, should have the chance to become a human being... but I know that life isn't ideal...and some embryos will come into this world addicted to crack cocaine, or borne to single mothers who have consumed alcohol excessively during pregnancy... or into a variety of mean circumstances...

It is my personal belief that God gives babies their souls shortly before birth, and for those fetuses that don't make it, no souls are handed out. There is nothing in the bible that would categorically disprove that belief so I continue to believe it.
 
because you will never convince me that an egg is a chicken or a fetus is a human being...they are both, from my perspective, potential chickens or human beings....

It doesn't matter what you feel like, that isn't what determines what something IS or ISN'T! Your perspective doesn't have one damn thing to do with the biological fact of what something IS or ISN'T! From your perspective, you've found a convenient way to deny the truth and biological facts, and you simply refuse to overcome your ignorance.

It doesn't matter that you can crack a fertilized egg open, and it appears nothing like a chicken, that doesn't mean it's some other form of life! An infant doesn't appear anything like an adult, it doesn't mean an infant is a different form of life, idiot!
 
because I think that every embryo, under ideal circumstances, should have the chance to become a human being...

Look you fucking retarded moron loser, until you can show someone where an embryo is something besides a HUMAN BEING, you need to STOP being ignorant of BIOLOGY! An embryo can't ever become something it already IS! IF this were possible, you could tell us what ingredient is needed to make an embryo become a human being, and you simply CAN'T!
 
It is my personal belief that God gives babies their souls shortly before birth

Again... you have ZERO support for this idiotic SHIT! It's YOUR fucking pathetic idiotic IDEA, with no basis for support, nothing more!
 
It is my personal belief that God gives babies their souls shortly before birth, and for those fetuses that don't make it, no souls are handed out.

That is then to say that biology precedes God. And that God somehow relies on biology to tell him when to issue a soul. I find this to be a big stretch.
 
Beefy said:
It is my personal belief that God gives babies their souls shortly before birth, and for those fetuses that don't make it, no souls are handed out.

That is then to say that biology precedes God. And that God somehow relies on biology to tell him when to issue a soul. I find this to be a big stretch.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but it assumes an omnipotent God is "uncertain" of things. I find that an incredible confession from Maine, on how he really views God.
 
You know, the more I think about Maine's egg and chicken analogy, and how that is supposed to prove the existence of two completely different beings of life form, the more I am amazed at how profoundly ignorant he is. How the hell did he graduate high school?

If a doctor told him to not consume any poultry life form, or he would die... would he assume eggs were okay? After all, the chicken eggs haven't decided to hatch into chickens yet, so they aren't really chicken... they might decide to be omelets instead! What a fucking simpleton goofball!

Biology 101... A chicken embryo, like a human embryo, is a living form of being, by definition, and can't BE or NOT BE anything other than this. It defies logic and biological fact. A chicken embryo resides inside a shell, a human embryo resides inside a womb, a fetus doesn't look like an adult human being, and an omelet doesn't look like Cornish Hen. Nevertheless, they are still biologically a certain form of living matter, nothing changes them into this, nothing has to occur except time for development, they are what they are already. A "being" is something that exists... a human being, is a living being of human origin. These are biological facts of life, Maine. Please try to educate yourself before you continue "thinking" about this out loud.
 
maineman said:
and at that point we must agree to disagree....because you will never convince me that an egg is a chicken or a fetus is a human being...they are both, from my perspective, potential chickens or human beings....

If, the minute after a chicken egg is fertilized, you crack that egg and make an omelet, you are not eating chicken... you are eating an omelet made from an egg that, had it been allowed to fully gestate, might have become a chicken.
Click to expand...
Rather arbitrary, what makes it a different life form when it leaves the egg than it was before it left the egg? It was the same being from the beginning, just in a far earlier stage of development. There is nothing else it could possibly be.

Just as, at one point, you were a zygote, you were at that point a human life, at the very earliest stage, but definitively human.
 
Damocles said:
Rather arbitrary, what makes it a different life form when it leaves the egg than it was before it left the egg? It was the same being from the beginning, just in a far earlier stage of development. There is nothing else it could possibly be.

Just as, at one point, you were a zygote, you were at that point a human life, at the very earliest stage, but definitively human.
Click to expand...

I am sorry...but I am unable to bring myself to grant legal rights and full citizenship status as a human being to a zygote. And, oddly enough, the Supreme Court agrees with ME.
 
maineman said:
I am sorry...but I am unable to bring myself to grant legal rights and full citizenship status as a human being to a zygote. And, oddly enough, the Supreme Court agrees with ME.
Click to expand...
Regardless, it makes no sense to imagine it to be a different life form because of an early stage of development. I am not arguing about the Supreme Court, etc. I am simply asking questions.

"Sorry I am unable." is a copout. I asked, what makes it a different life form? You have no answer. I'm fine with that, people carry dichotomy everywhere.

I just believe the whole argument about it being only the woman's body when there is clearly a third life involved other than the doctor and the woman to be a bit disingenuous. Saying, "It has no rights because of its early development." makes far better sense than saying it is something other than human.
 
Damocles said:
Regardless, it makes no sense to imagine it to be a different life form because of an early stage of development. I am not arguing about the Supreme Court, etc. I am simply asking questions.

"Sorry I am unable." is a copout. I asked, what makes it a different life form? You have no answer. I'm fine with that, people carry dichotomy everywhere.

I just believe the whole argument about it being only the woman's body when there is clearly a third life involved other than the doctor and the woman to be a bit disingenuous. Saying, "It has no rights because of its early development." makes far better sense than saying it is something other than human.
Click to expand...

and I find the discussion about "what it is" to be nearly rhetorical in nature...what it "IS" is a little lump of cells that, during the first trimester in any case, is no bigger than a peach pit. Whether you think it is a cop out or not, I am unable to get all worked up about a lump of tissue the size of a peach pit that is growing inside a woman's body when she does not want it there. Adios peach pit. end of discussion.
 
uscitizen said:
So should child support begin at conception ? Welfare payments ?
Click to expand...
Dunno. Currently no. The current views of the courts simply do not support such an action.

It isn't like I'm trying to make people feel evil or not. I simply recognize human life even when it is at its earliest stage of development. Now whether you think it is a "person" yet or not may be an argument one can make, but pretending it is something other than human life is just pretense to avoid a guilty feeling. I think people do this often, they pretend that something is not what it is, you can see it in old time wars. They would call the enemy something that dehumanized them.

This isn't a war, but it seems to be definitely a term used to dehumanize. There is nothing other than human life to term the zygote, embryo, progeny, infant, child, etc.
 
It has always amazed me how so-called Atheists will argue the theory of evolution as a basis for origin, and attempt to refute creationism with it. They seem to totally disregard the basic fundamental, that evolution deals with speciation, not origin.... but don't let the facts get in the way of a good anti-God rant!

Ha! Ha! Ha! The ONLY person I've seen try to equate evolution with origins is YOU, whilst trying to dispute it!!!

Everyone knows that origins come under the theories of abiogenesis.

As for the rest of the post, you've tried to pull this ass out of your hat before and found yourself foundering, the notion that theism is true because humans utilise rituals and 'spirituality' (spirituality being merely the belief).

This is arse, you are assuming that a. belief in spirituality equates an existence of some spiritual transcendence and b. that human rituals interpreted in the modern day as spiritual aren't explained better by explanations concerning social cohesion and survival.

You are still labouring under the impression that something that appears and is interpreted as being designed is therefore designed, still labouring under Paley's watchmaker nonsense, despite the fact that the anthropomorphising in that notion was revealed over a century ago.

But I digress. You've tried every one of these points before, several times in fact. You need a new creationists' website to pull talking points from....
 
A biological being can only exist once it has achieved self-awareness, before that, it doesn't really exist as a being?

It exists, therefore it is a being. That isn't the point. Whether a fetus can be considered to be a human being is the point.
 
For instance.... The Chicken. A rather simple and efficient life form... Assuming evolutional theory.... how do you suppose this life form evolved into existence?.... it has a brain the size of a pea... it's only essential function in life is to find and consume protein... So do most animals! it only has sense enough to get into a tree at night and roost, and it exists as a small-boned, high-protein source of food for many other life forms. As do many many other animals, including in our natural state, humans. There are more chickens on the planet than humans, believe it or not. Now, I suppose the alleles just randomly decided to align themselves into a convenient food source for other life forms Chickens are no more convenient than any other living prey animal??? , but I really don't understand why they would make that choice. Evolution doesn't really explain that."

Au contraire! You simply don't understand evolution. This is nearly as ignorant as those creationist preachers who ask how a cat turned into a goat... They didn't randomly form. Please, so we can have an informed discussion, read Climbing Mount Improbable.
 
Prissy, you act like human breeding somehow trumps evolution.

Human selective breeding takes the place of natural selection and effectively accelerates evolutionary processes...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top