Atheists Spin on Evolution...

Another good example of how Evolution must be an intentional aspect of Intelligent Design. How did all these incredible food sources for predators, happen to mutate and evolve into what they are, and not something more advanced?

Ha Ha Ha! Your conclusion seems to be... because some animals prey on other animals, it must therefore be the work of a designer...

This is a formal logical fallacy, non sequiter. It is making the assumption that because you don't understand the evolutionary relationship between predator and prey it must therefore be the work of a designer. It is anthropomorphic attribution, attributing to unknown (to yourself) phenomenon to the human trait of design...

Logical fallacies aside, examining your notion outside of logical restraints, it still doesn't fit. If the prey/predator relationship had been designed, the design isn't very good. For example, the wildebeast has a phenomenal kick, which can fatally injure even the largest predator. The cheetah may be extremely fast, but it tires far quicker than a gazelle.

If the prey / predator relationship was 'intelligently designed', why do prey animals have defence mechanisms?
 
Not what I am asking at all... The question I have is, WHY?

As I mentioned, chemical imbalances when the cells replicate...??? You are following the wild goose chase of attempting to attribute 'meaning' to the fact that cells mutate during replicating.

'What is the meaning of life' is a misleading question. It assumes that there is a meaning beyond the consequences that simply just occurred. It assumes that because there is a how, there is a why.

Simply, there is no reason why. Searching for meaning is a human trait akin to a dog chasing its tale. Meaning is a human creation that humans spend so much time trying to find outside of humanity..

Why did a lion evolve into a lion? Because it did.
 
Wow! Well, then it's even more of a miracle that all of these various life forms managed to somehow naturally evolve into an intricately balanced and delicate life cycle!

Why does it seem like a miracle? Because something is complex and difficult for you to understand it doesn't make it miraculous.

If you have a real interest in how small chemical changes can accumulate to form complex species, read Climbing Mount Improbable.
 
What you are, is devoid of morality

This is the type of weak, pathos-laden argument that makes debating you so easy.

I could easily point to the moral relativism you exhibit in the paradox between your support for execution and disdain for abortion and state that that means you are devoid of morality.

But morality isn't something you either have or don't. Everyone has morals, though they might just differ from yours...
 
BUT the point Damo (and myself for that matter) get worked up about is the fact that at NO POINT IN TIME is it anything other than a human being.

Which is not true.

An amputated arm isn't a human being, even though it is human. It is a collection of organic cells. An amputated arm cannot survive on its own, it has none of the attributes a human being would have.

Same with a fetus. It is, essentially part of its mother.
 
please Maine... at what point is a fertilized egg anything BUT a human being?

You are confusing the terms 'human' and 'human being'. Something being human doesn't make it a human being.

Take a shit. Look in the pan. Your shit is human. Is it a human being?
 
Dixie said:

Now we get to the meat of the matter, you believe some human beings deserve rights and others don't, and it all depends on your subjective analysis of their condition. Why didn't you just say this to begin with?
Click to expand...


which has been my main beef about you all along. You seem to spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about the rights of fetuses, and a criminally negligent amount of time worrying about dead Iraqis or dead GI's or wrongfully executed convicts.

I tend to reverse those priorities somewhat....I care much more about the lives of living breathing eating walking talking interacting caring loving people than I do zygotes.... it seems to me that you use your outrage at abortion as a sham to avoid caring about the carnage your policies have wrought.
 
and the bullshit diagnosis you shared with Bill Frist of Teri Schiavo's sentience was yet another way for you to register false outrage. You spend your life appearing to worry about fetuses and vegetables just so you don't have to address the REAL blood on your hands.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Okay, so we've established a fetus is a being, now let's determine what sort of being it could be. Well, the DNA and genetics suggest it is human, what do you have to suggest otherwise? Anything? Can we not assume, since it's living and growing inside a human, and if left undisturbed, would produce another human person, that it is indeed human life? Is there any evidence at all, to suggest it is any other life form besides human? I think not.

A being is merely something that exists. Whether it is 'human' or not is in dispute.

No-one disputes that a fetus is 'of' humans, human cells, but so is an amputated arm and that isn't deemed to be a human. Why? Because an amputated arm isn't independent, it cannot exist (or live) on its own. Neither can a fetus. Until it is capable of existing on its own, it is a symbiant, part of the mother.

I can imagine the pathos you will pour onto this... 'You're equating a fetus with an amputated limb' with the usual righteous indignation. But this argument is no place for emotive outbursts, and should be dealt using reason and logic.

It would be also interesting to see how you unravel the paradox that you agree with executing prisoners for the benefit of society (and themselves) yet are so vehemently opposed to abortion?
Click to expand...
That would be no dichotomy, if I supported such. One is guilty of a crime, the other only guilty of existence in the most innocent of human states.

One you kill the absolute most innocent, the other you kill somebody convicted of the worst of crime.

That whole, "You support the death penalty but not abortion" argument is plain silly.

Now, I personally do not support the death penalty, so it isn't my argument but it is so very clear the line of delineation that it is a premise only put forth by the disingenuous. Such as somebody who would equate an arm with an entire lifeform.

One is a being, your word, the other just a piece of a being. It is the same with the inane Cancer argument. An entire being is not the equivalent of a few rogue cells, it is a human lifeform in its earliest and most innocent development stage, life taken usually only for convenience.
 
AnyOldIron said:
BUT the point Damo (and myself for that matter) get worked up about is the fact that at NO POINT IN TIME is it anything other than a human being.

Which is not true.

An amputated arm isn't a human being, even though it is human. It is a collection of organic cells. An amputated arm cannot survive on its own, it has none of the attributes a human being would have.

Same with a fetus. It is, essentially part of its mother.
Click to expand...
Again this disingenuous argument where you equate a portion of a being with an entire being? This is truly the lamest of arguments I have ever seen you propose. I should give your arm the rights you have because it has your DNA? Rubbish, total unequivocal rubbish on the lowest order. This is disingenuous and you should be embarrassed for even attempting to make such an argument.

You get so excited that you emit inanities like this because you support abortion so strongly?

One is an entire human life, the other only a part of a being. The arm argument is just plain silly and you are way smarter than that.

One could argue when the human life becomes a person. IMO that would be when higher thought forms, usually about week 20... But arguing that a limb of a being is equal to an entire being is simply total rubbish.
 
AnyOldIron said:
please Maine... at what point is a fertilized egg anything BUT a human being?

You are confusing the terms 'human' and 'human being'. Something being human doesn't make it a human being.

Take a shit. Look in the pan. Your shit is human. Is it a human being?
Click to expand...
Your sh*t is not a human life, it is sh*t, the only thing living in it is bacteria and parasites.

However, the word "being" was yours earlier, either own it and move on or don't state it to begin with.

This is probably the most inane thing I have ever seen you type on any board that we have shared membership on.
 
Again this disingenuous argument where you equate a portion of a being with an entire being?
//

a zygot is not a complete human being yet.....
 
uscitizen said:
Again this disingenuous argument where you equate a portion of a being with an entire being?
//

a zygot is not a complete human being yet.....
Click to expand...
What part is missing? It is the entire being at that stage of life. Like I said, there is a difference between a portion, say the skin of a human, and an entire being. At that stage of human life, that is the entirety of the "being".

I would argue that it has yet to become a person, but it certainly is an entire organism and is human life.
 
I really don't care how anyone cares to categorize a zygote or a tiny fetus...if they want to say it is a potential human or a human or none of the above...I really don't care. I know what it IS: it is a tiny lump of stuff that cannot feel, cannot think, cannot dream, is unaware of its own existence.... when I contemplate limiting a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy in order to provide superlative rights to that little thing.... it is silly to me.
 
Damocles said:
What part is missing? It is the entire being at that stage of life. Like I said, there is a difference between a portion, say the skin of a human, and an entire being. At that stage of human life, that is the entirety of the "being".

I would argue that it has yet to become a person, but it certainly is an entire organism and is human life.
Click to expand...

Can it exist on it's own ?
actually it has the programming to become a human being but is not there yet. Kinda like having a big pile of materials that will make a truck, but it is not a truck yet.
 
maineman said:
I really don't care how anyone cares to categorize a zygote or a tiny fetus...if they want to say it is a potential human or a human or none of the above...I really don't care. I know what it IS: it is a tiny lump of stuff that cannot feel, cannot think, cannot dream, is unaware of its own existence.... when I contemplate limiting a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy in order to provide superlative rights to that little thing.... it is silly to me.
Click to expand...
Now this is a more valid argument than an attempt to equate it to an arm, and has been my point. This type of argument is far more valid than pretending that somebody who supports killing the worst of criminals should support killing a burgeoning life.

The idea that a whole life form is the same as only a part of a lifeform is unsupportable, arguing whether it is a "person", can feel, think, etc. I can see.

Now, visit www.silentscream.org and see whether or not a fetus can think or feel. Not a zygote, but a fetus...

At what stage do you end that right maineman, when it can think and feel? IMO that is when it becomes a person, at that state it is my opinion that you actually are killing a "being" rather than ending an early stage human lifeform.
 
Your sh*t is not a human life, it is sh*t, the only thing living in it is bacteria and parasites.

However, the word "being" was yours earlier, either own it and move on or don't state it to begin with.

This is probably the most inane thing I have ever seen you type on any board that we have shared membership on.

You misunderstand me. I am explaining the difference between a human being and human. Anything that is 'of humans' can be described as 'human', in the same way that horse shit is 'of a horse' but it isn't a horse.

A human being is an independent, sovereign entity. A fetus, or anything else described as being 'of humans', may be 'of human' but isn't an soveriegn entity, it parasites from its mother, it is part of the mother and thus can be described as not being a human being.

Nothing inane about that.
 
This type of argument is far more valid than pretending that somebody who supports killing the worst of criminals should support killing a burgeoning life.

No-one is stating that. Just asking those that are pro-execution and anti-abortion to answer the almost-hypocritical paradox their position throws up....
 
uscitizen said:
Can it exist on it's own ?
actually it has the programming to become a human being but is not there yet. Kinda like having a big pile of materials that will make a truck, but it is not a truck yet.
Click to expand...
This too is a ridiculous argument. An infant too cannot survive without support. It denotes the early stage of development rather than the fact that it is not a complete human lifeform. It is in fact the entirety of a human lifeform, it is just at an earlier age than other human lifeforms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top