Liberals Perverted Science

Dixie said:
they simply ignore it or scoff at how "science" can't prove things conclusively, so we mustn't just accept "science"
Click to expand...

"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."

Biggest, most embarrassing case of projection ever recorded.
 
Last edited:
Southern Man said:
You are assuming there is not. Fool.
Click to expand...
Not my job to prove the negative. Yours to prove the positive. Do it and I will be the first in the river for baptism. My bet is I would have to hold my breath less time for the baptism than for PROOF that god exists.
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

LMAO - "out of context"!

It's not out of context. That was your quote, verbatim. The only DIFFERENCE was that it was on a topic where you didn't WANT science to be definite. With abortion, you want it to be definite, and indisputable, so you changed your entire line of reasoning on science.

It's hilarious, for anyone but you. Seriously - it's somewhat pathological. How can you read your own words, understand that they contradict what you just said, and still stand by them?

Out of context...what a hoot!
 
AssHatZombie said:
the plan is for a new dark ages for humanity. The covering up of scientific truths. The de-education of humanity. Internationalist fascist elites want to be able to add and remove things to the uteruses of other human females without them even knowing about how babies are made.
Click to expand...

If any female is unsure how babies are made I am willing to tutor. :D
 
Dixie said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

We don't know if every fertilized cell is a human being or the life of a human being because we can't examine every fertilized cell. Again, with over 50% of fertilized cells either being expelled from a woman's body or absorbed by the woman we do not know if all the "components" are contained within that cell.

Scientists do experiments with all kinds of plants and animals. Adding and removing genetic material. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. For example, the first experiments with cloning. Cells were fertilized but never lived/developed.

Is it ethical to say something is equal to a human being, that it has the same rights and must be taken into consideration when a human being makes a decision, when we don't know for sure whether that "something" is a human being?

We just don't know. We don't know if every fertilized cell has all the necessary "parts". Logic tells me if over 50% of them die within a short period of time they probably do not have the necessary "parts".

However, if we're going to talk morals and ethics and say every fertilized cell is a human being while knowing over 50% die within minutes or days wouldn't the morally and ethically correct thing to do be to immediately hospitalize every woman immediately after she has sex? Or do we not give a damn if over 50% of human beings die shortly after coming into existence?
 
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.
Click to expand...

Science has also observed that over 50% of fertilized eggs die within minutes or days after being fertilized. They have no idea if those fertilized eggs were human beings.

Just as people are born with genetic defects (an extra gene or a missing gene) it's certainly possible there are fertilized eggs missing a lot of genes; so many genes that it would never qualify as a human being assuming it was extracted and examined.

Do we know if any given fertilized cell is a human being? No, we do not. Therefore, it is outrageous to assume just because a cell is fertilized it is a human being.



///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Socrtease said:
Not my job to prove the negative. Yours to prove the positive. Do it and I will be the first in the river for baptism. My bet is I would have to hold my breath less time for the baptism than for PROOF that god exists.
Click to expand...
First, I'm under no obligation to prove anything to you. Only you can obtain your salvation. In fact, the less liberals in my afterlife the better.

For the sake of argument, however, scientific proof has already been presented in this forum: [ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=537720&postcount=69"]Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Darwin Presents Another Swift Boot To The Lifeless, Bloody Corpse Of The Idea Of God![/ame]
 
PostmodernProphet said:
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...



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


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....
Click to expand...
Theres nothing to run away from. You don't simply understand the subject and you keep making the same lame circular arguments.
 
The problem with science right now it that's it's corrupt. People who fund it will only continue to fund it if the conclusions they desire are supported, and scientists are willing to distort the research to reach those fascist conclusions.

DId you think you would get a post without "fascist" in it?

Dream on.
 
Yurt said:
i mean like totally, pmp is so stupid he can't grasp this simple truism:

Science is infallible because science is always fallible
Click to expand...
A very poorly worded sentence by Watermark. Science is self correcting because all scientific knowledge is tentative. This is known as the falsification principle.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I think what Watermark was attempting to state here is that science works because of it's tentative nature. All scientific theories must be falsifiable, in principle, to be considered scientific. This is what makes science self correcting.
Click to expand...

Theoretically. But in reality, so much science is funded by the military industrial complex, that faith in it is misplaced.

They're lying to us all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top