Atheists Spin on Evolution...
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
So the chicken, in it's earliest stages, is an entire form because it is in an egg and therefore not dependant on the mother?
This too is again an argument of relativity. Dependence cannot be the measure of a human. A child born with microcephalus will always need the support of another, yet it is a human. Their thoughts will never reach the level of a normal human fetus at 25 weeks, yet they have some sort of presense because they are not at an early stage of development?
I believe that you argue that a "being" is when it becomes a "person" in my argument. I state that it happens when there is actual brain activity, which usually begins at week 20. However to say that the fact that it is a lifeform of its own is in question is simply denying science and/or logic. If, and when IMO, we reach the technology that we can incubate outside of the womb suddenly the zygote has massive presense becuase it is incubating in another place?
That is simply being dishonest with yourself and denying fact in order to support your argument in your mind.
It is an entire human lifeform at an earlier stage of development than you are at. It is 100% of a human, not a leg or an arm. It is dependant on others, just as an infant is. Being independant is not what makes you human.
maineman
Banned
indeed, that is a difficult question.... one which I certainly do not have the answer to and one which will need to be answered and re-answered by our political process. I do tend to agree with your opinion on that, but know full well that it will never be decided by two guys on a message board.
It does. The woman fully supports the child. The father, if they are responsible also supports the child.
Why not? If there is a reasonable way to do so I have no objection to that.
You can't give a social security number to a fertilized egg or fetus. No SS number - no deduction.
Long ago there was no need for a SS for a deduction, even when I was a child SS numbers were not required until you were about to enter the workforce. This is an excuse, not a reason
the income tax and deductions for dependents are a pretty recent thing in the history of this country.
I don't know how its possible to claim deductions for people you can't prove exist - i.e., people with SS numbers or taxpayer IDs. You'd have to give a social security number or taxpayer ID to a fertilized egg.
I don't know how its possible to claim deductions for people you can't prove exist - i.e., people with SS numbers or taxpayer IDs. You'd have to give a social security number or taxpayer ID to a fertilized egg.
My parents claimed us as children, I did not have a SSN until I was 15.
In their case they sent copies of the Birth Certificate. We would need a form that a doctor could fill out proving the state of pregnancy. However it would be doable. Again you make an excuse rather than give a reason.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Although my shits can be notorious, I don't believe any have ever had their own heartbeat and distinct DNA or brain function, so... no... my shit is not a human being.
We've already established, biologically, it is human. If we assume the dictionary is correct, and a "being" is something that exists, then a fetus must be a being, since it has to be either carried to term or aborted, which denotes existence.
Again, what you are trying to do, is deny reality, deny biological fact, and deny the truth. You had rather throw up some idiotic and unfounded argument about whether a fetus is a 'being', than to admit what you condone.
This thread is monumental! For the first time I can remember, pro-abortionists have admitted the life form is human, and have continued to try and argue the morality of terminating human life. It's a giant step! At least we now have people being honest about what they support.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
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?
Well, you seem to have failed to answer my question as to why this is? I've not made a conclusion, although it seems that you have. There is no logical fallacy, that is your way of deflecting reasoning and refusing to acknowledge my points, nothing more. The fallacy in logic is your assumption that you know everything here, when you don't.
I'll reform my question once again... Assuming the Big Bang theory, and subsequent cooling of the planet, simple-cell life forms began to develop and evolve at pretty much the same point in time, give or take a few thousand years.... so... why is it, some alleles randomly formed into predatory creatures, and others into prey? And how did this end up being such an intricately delicate balance across the spectrum of life?
Now, if alleles could think and rationalize, they certainly wouldn't voluntarilly chose to form into prey for other animals, and the theory of natural selection doesn't seem to lead one in that direction either, so how do you explain it? See, I don't have an explanation, not a rational one, and I was hoping you would, being you know everything. Apparently, you don't have a viable explanation either, or you would deliver it.
Amid all your blustering about logical fallacies, you threw in a few cheap slaps at Paley's Watchmaker analogy, which still stands as a legitimate refutiation of evolution theory as explanation for origin. Nothing in the analogy has ever been disproved or refuted, even though you act is if it has. I wish you would explain how this analogy is flawed or how you've concluded it to be invalid, because the way I see it, you haven't done that here, you've merely thrown out your typical pathos and blanket refutiations of things that disagree with your wrong-headed and stubborn view.
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?
Well, you seem to have failed to answer my question as to why this is? I've not made a conclusion, although it seems that you have. There is no logical fallacy, that is your way of deflecting reasoning and refusing to acknowledge my points, nothing more. The fallacy in logic is your assumption that you know everything here, when you don't.
I'll reform my question once again... Assuming the Big Bang theory, and subsequent cooling of the planet, simple-cell life forms began to develop and evolve at pretty much the same point in time, give or take a few thousand years.... so... why is it, some alleles randomly formed into predatory creatures, and others into prey? And how did this end up being such an intricately delicate balance across the spectrum of life?
Now, if alleles could think and rationalize, they certainly wouldn't voluntarilly chose to form into prey for other animals, and the theory of natural selection doesn't seem to lead one in that direction either, so how do you explain it? See, I don't have an explanation, not a rational one, and I was hoping you would, being you know everything. Apparently, you don't have a viable explanation either, or you would deliver it.
Amid all your blustering about logical fallacies, you threw in a few cheap slaps at Paley's Watchmaker analogy, which still stands as a legitimate refutiation of evolution theory as explanation for origin. Nothing in the analogy has ever been disproved or refuted, even though you act is if it has. I wish you would explain how this analogy is flawed or how you've concluded it to be invalid, because the way I see it, you haven't done that here, you've merely thrown out your typical pathos and blanket refutiations of things that disagree with your wrong-headed and stubborn view.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Looking over Arnold's voluminous mindless rantings, I find the following contradicting argument...
In once post he says....
A being is merely something that exists. Whether it is 'human' or not is in dispute.
Then, moments later....
You are confusing the terms 'human' and 'human being'. Something being human doesn't make it a human being.
Now, it sounds to me like, in the first instance, he wants to argue that a fetus is indeed a being, just not human.... while in the second instance, he wants to say a fetus is indeed human, it's just not a being.
Isn't that interesting?
In once post he says....
A being is merely something that exists. Whether it is 'human' or not is in dispute.
Then, moments later....
You are confusing the terms 'human' and 'human being'. Something being human doesn't make it a human being.
Now, it sounds to me like, in the first instance, he wants to argue that a fetus is indeed a being, just not human.... while in the second instance, he wants to say a fetus is indeed human, it's just not a being.
Isn't that interesting?
C
Cancel5
Guest
I didn't think evolution was about origin...
I thought it was about what happened to those "critters" once they arrived.
Evolution is not a law, that is why the "theory" is constantly changing and that is why science is science and mythology is mythology.
And those who believe that science and mythology should be mixed really don't understand science or religion for that matter.
Atheists haven't convinced themselves of anything, they are open to facts.
Also, how many scientists are atheists? I bet you will be surprised to find that most aren't. That is what always cracks me up about those who are against evolution. They don't get the facts before they start their ranting and raving. Many Catholics believe in evolution and it doesn't compromise their "faith" at all! Big word there, faith...
klaatu
Fusionist
Origin and distribution of the genus Apis
Bee collecting pollen.
Bee collecting pollen.
Apis cerana have formed a ball around two hornets. Their body heat being trapped in the tight ball they have formed will kill the hornets by overheating them.
Apis cerana have formed a ball around two hornets. Their body heat being trapped in the tight ball they have formed will kill the hornets by overheating them.
Honey bees as a group appear to have their center of origin in Southeast Asia (including the Philippines), as all but one of the extant species are native to that region, including the most primitive living species (Apis florea and A. andreniformis). The first Apis bees appear in the fossil record in deposits dating about 35 million years ago during the Oligocene period; that these fossils are from Europe does not necessarily indicate that Europe is where the genus originated, as the likelihood of fossils being found in Southeast Asia is very small, even if that is the true origin. The ancestors and close relatives of modern honey bees were all already social and so social behavior predates the origin of the genus. Among the extant members of the genus, the more ancient species make single, exposed combs, while the more recently-evolved species nest in cavities and have multiple combs, which has greatly facilitated their domestication.
Most species have historically been cultured or at least exploited for honey and beeswax by humans indigenous to their native ranges. Only two of these species have been domesticated, one (Apis mellifera) at least since the time of the building of the Egyptian pyramids, and only that species has been moved extensively beyond its native range.
Killer bees were a crossbreed of an African and South American set of bees, they were attempting to build better honey producers. They weren't moved anywhere, they were created.