Liberals Perverted Science

Watermark said:
If I said I farted and lfie came out of my ass, that would be scientific hypothesis. However, there are a few that are much more respectable than that.
Click to expand...
No, if you said that you farted and fire came out your ass and you bent over and farted into an open flam and thus vented fire out of your ass, that would be a "Fire out the ass" hypothesis. Just making a guess is not enough to be a hypothesis. You must build an experiment or make an observation which supports that guess too.
 
apple0154 said:
Over 50% of fertilized cells spontaneously abort. We don't know why. So, is is reasonable to believe that over 50% of the time something goes wrong and a human being dies or is it more reasonable to conclude a fertilized cell is not a human being?
Click to expand...

Spontaneously abort? What??? In order to "abort" there has to be something for the fertilized cell to abort, that is common logic. You fail to say what is being aborted. Let's clarify, what is being aborted is the process of human life. Whether it is spontaneous or man made, doesn't change that scientific fact.

This is not about what is "reasonable to conclude" at all. This is about what science says, is the beginning of human life. You can simply not conclude it begins at any other point, other than conception. This is not left to reason, this is not up for debate. When the sperm cell fertilizes the egg, human life begins, that is a fact. Nothing has to be added, nothing else has to happen, human life starts at that point, and continues until it's termination.

If one chooses the first option, over 50% of human beings are dying on a regular basis, what do they suggest society do? If a woman is known to have suffered a number of miscarriages do we, as a society, allow her to continue participating in starting life only to have it die? That seems irresponsible, if not downright murderous.
Click to expand...

Let me be perfectly clear about MY position. The issue of abortion can only be settled once all parties understand it is the process of ending human life. As long as one side refuses to accept science, and insists that human life doesn't begin at conception in spite of what we know to be the fact, then we can't have a rational and reasonable debate over when it is ethical and moral to terminate said human life. It is a pointless argument.

As a civilized society, we make determinations on the ending of human life all the time. I think it is imperative that a civilized society take this responsibility very seriously, and not marginalize what is being done. The willful taking of a human life should not be trivial and routine, as it is with abortion on demand.

We have ordained women with "the right of choice" in this matter, because it is involving their body. However, in death penalty cases, do we give consideration to the victims of the convicted? Nope, we give full and immediate consideration of the appeals by the convicted, we are concerned with his rights, because it is his life we are about to take. What concerns do we afford unborn human beings? In times of war, we follow protocols to try and minimize collateral damage, death to innocent people, the taking of innocent human life. We establish all kinds of human rights organizations and groups to watch for any violation of human rights, but what do we do for the unborn human beings?

The main problem with the issue of abortion, is a willing disconnect from science and fact, by those supporting abortion. Until you can come to terms with the facts, until you can accept that a human life begins at conception, and we are debating the willful termination of human life, we can't really have a rational discussion on the topic. Once we are all on the same page with regard to what abortion is, then we can debate when it is ethical and moral.
 
"science doesn't "KNOW" anything with absolute certainty. It theorizes, it speculates, it proposes suggestions, but to "KNOW" something, means you have factually concluded it, and science has never done that. "

Sorry - had to do it again. It's just that good...
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No, if you said that you farted and fire came out your ass and you bent over and farted into an open flam and thus vented fire out of your ass, that would be a "Fire out the ass" hypothesis. Just making a guess is not enough to be a hypothesis. You must build an experiment or make an observation which supports that guess too.
Click to expand...

I could if I wanted to.
 
Dixie said:
The main problem with the issue of abortion, is a willing disconnect from science and fact, by those supporting abortion. Until you can come to terms with the facts, until you can accept that a human life begins at conception, and we are debating the willful termination of human life, we can't really have a rational discussion on the topic. Once we are all on the same page with regard to what abortion is, then we can debate when it is ethical and moral.
Click to expand...

A fetus is alive. It is also unable to feel pain or even be capable of holding a desire to keep on living.
 
Dixie said:
We have ordained women with "the right of choice" in this matter, because it is involving their body. However, in death penalty cases, do we give consideration to the victims of the convicted? Nope,
Click to expand...

Yeah but it would obviously be pretty difficult to do anything for them. One day, though, science is probably going to find a way to bring people back from the dead.

Dixie said:
we give full and immediate consideration of the appeals by the convicted, we are concerned with his rights, because it is his life we are about to take. What concerns do we afford unborn human beings? In times of war, we follow protocols to try and minimize collateral damage, death to innocent people, the taking of innocent human life. We establish all kinds of human rights organizations and groups to watch for any violation of human rights, but what do we do for the unborn human beings?
Click to expand...

And what political section of our society opposes restrictions on collateral damage, and giving death penalty people appeals? Conservatives. Again, they are degenerate, and only oppose abortion because of the pain doing so will cause to women, who, unlike fetuses, have brains and feelings and desires.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Ahh so you admit that Climate Change has been scientifically observed.
Click to expand...
of course....ice core samples show repeated patterns of climate change over the course of hundreds of thousands of years.....I have posted the graph here several times...

Why shouldn't this become a political movement?
Click to expand...

because politics isn't going to change that cycle....

Really? It's been demonstrated over and over again that, like Dixie, you don't understand what science is.
Click to expand...
you've said that often enough.....you've never demonstrated it, you've only run away and hid.....you haven't the balls to debate science with me, Ringer....
 
Mott the Hoople said:
So to that affect, the definition of a scientific hypothesis is;

"A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation."
or more simply;

"A hypothesis is an educated guess based on observation."
.
Click to expand...
no....
For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it
Click to expand...
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis[/ame]

"further investigation" requires far more than an educated guess based on observation, it must be capable of verification.....or dismissal....
 
Last edited:
Me being knocked out is equivalent to turning off a computer. I don't lose anything when I'm knocked out, I'm just not working at that moment.

Yet it would be absurd to claim that an unformed computer case with nothing but a fan and some wires in it was truly a fully formed computer that needed to be protected because it might contain sensitive information.
 
Onceler said:
"science doesn't "KNOW" anything with absolute certainty. It theorizes, it speculates, it proposes suggestions, but to "KNOW" something, means you have factually concluded it, and science has never done that. "

Sorry - had to do it again. It's just that good...
Click to expand...

Well you go right ahead and repost my past quotes completely out of the context they were presented. That is so cute! Where did you learn that debate tactic? The 3rd Grader's Debate Club?

"SCIENCE" doesn't "know" or "determine" anything. "SCIENCE" is a branch of study, it is incapable of "knowledge" or "determination" because it is not a human being. We are people, we make determination and gain knowledge and understanding.

If I drop an object (on Earth), it is a scientific fact that it will travel downward to the ground. This is not a fact that SCIENCE concluded, it only provided a theory and prediction, man made the conclusion of the fact based on those predictions and theories, and physical observation of the phenomenon repeatedly. In the case of a human sperm and egg, science predicts it will conceive a human life, and in every observation of this prediction, man has found that it always produces a human life, and no other life form has ever been observed. Therefore, it is a reasonable HUMAN conclusion, that human life begins at conception, because the scientific evidence and repeated observation confirm that conclusion.

Whenever we repeatedly observe a phenomenon which science predicts, it is considered a "scientific fact" or "universal principle" or "physical law" ...again, SCIENCE did not make that distinction or determination, it did not arrive at that conclusion, it only provides the information because it's a study, humans made the conclusion and determination based on observation of the scientific prediction.
 
And here dixie plays the game of inventing some definitions for some concepts, comparing them to other concepts, and pretending that the other definitions and connotations and figures of speech do not actually exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top