Once Again Baxter is a fake libertarian

[Cancel 2016.2]

:superfreak:

The above demonstrates how women fail in the sciences. Next Darla will break out her pop-up books.

 

[Timshel]

Not shocking you try to attack the source rather than refute the content. Typical atheistic moron.

He is not a scientist. Your pitiful argument is that your position is the scientific one. Your source for that is a hack lawyer published in a journal dedicated to promoting faith based positions not science.

 

[Timshel]

and your Myers... is an atheist... Not shocking he shares the same anti-religion bullshit faith that you do.

Myers position has nothing to do with his LACK of faith. Yours and your sources position is absolutely dependent on it.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

He is not a scientist. Your pitiful argument is that your position is the scientific one. Your source for that is a hack lawyer published in a journal dedicated to promoting faith based positions not science.

Let me guess, you ignore the other link because you wish to bash this guy... who has proven far more correct with regards to genetics than you and your atheist nut job?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Myers position has nothing to do with his LACK of faith. Yours and your sources position is absolutely dependent on it.

Wrong again moron... It has nothing to do with faith. It has to do with genetics. You can run and spin all you want, but your atheist moron is trying to spin as much as you because of his hatred of religion. That is why he refuses to believe that Science is actually on the side of pro-life individuals, most of whom are religious.

The absurdity of his writings tells the tale. The fact that you parrot them is no surprise. You both wish to dehumanize the child in order to justify killing it. All because you hate religious people. So sad.

 

[Timshel]

LMAO... tell me moron, you keep SAYING there is far more than growth and time. Describe for us what the 'FAR MORE' encompasses. Tell us how the genetics of that human change.

LMAO... what traits and attributes does it depend on the mother for?

LMAO... so the skin cell would do what? Oh yeah... DIE. You are seriously delusional to keep pretending a skin cell is the same as a fertilized egg.

You have not gotten passed the fact that the zygote is but one cell and we are many and varied cells. That's just for starters.

Are you not able to read? I said, the zygote depends on the mother to DEVELOP the many traits and attributes that we associate with humans. I did not say the zygote depends on the mother for the traits and attributes.

The delusions are all yours as you constantly employ strawman arguments. I never said that a skin cell is the same as a zygote. It is the same in the key attributes that you claim constitute human life in the zygote. It is alive, of human origin and "contains all the information needed to form an organism."

Outside the mother the zygote would die as certainly as a skin cell.

You are an intellectually dishonest moron who rejects the relevant scientific facts because they are inconvenient to your faith based position.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Which is your opinion, it is not based on genetics. It is completely different than the individual sperm or egg cells. That is genetic fact.



Again, you roam into viability. Genetically, it is human, it has a unique DNA sequence separate from that of the parents.



ROFLMAO... no moron, viability is a SUBJECTIVE definition of life. It doesn't magically turn into a human when it reached viability.

http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/images/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf

Did you miss this one string? OR was it that you couldn't attack a professor of neurobiology?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You have not gotten passed the fact that the zygote is but one cell and we are many and varied cells. That's just for starters.

LMAO... poor string, is this your new line of bullshit? Every single human on this planet began as a zygote. Every single one. We were all human at that time. Not a single one of us turned into a tree or a dog or a cow. Every single one was human from day one. Every single one of us went from single cell to multi cell. All because our genetic mapping was in that fertilized egg.

Are you not able to read? I said, the zygote depends on the mother to DEVELOP the many traits and attributes that we associate with humans. I did not say the zygote depends on the mother for the traits and attributes.

I can read, but you are incorrect... the child depends on the mother for nourishment and protection (similar to a feeding tube in a nice safe hospital bed for coma patients). The genetic coding in the child is what develops on its own. The mother doesn't do anything in that regard.

The delusions are all yours as you constantly employ strawman arguments. I never said that a skin cell is the same as a zygote. It is the same in the key attributes that you claim constitute human life in the zygote. It is alive, of human origin and "contains all the information needed to form an organism."

No moron, it is not the same. Not even close. A zygote IS a human. A skin cell is NOT. A skin cell doesn't develop into anything else. It is always a skin cell.

Outside the mother the zygote would die as certainly as a skin cell.

Again you come back to viability, which has nothing to do with it being human. A coma patient on life support will also die if removed from life support.

You are an intellectually dishonest moron who rejects the relevant scientific facts because they are inconvenient to your faith based position.

1) I am agnostic, so it is ridiculous for you to claim my position is based on faith
2) I have not rejected and scientific facts. Your entire position is based on the philosophical/legal definitions and your numerous efforts to conflate that with hard science such as genetics.

You have demonstrated time and again you cannot even grasp basic genetics. Yet you insist your moronic position is correct.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Right now poor little String is desperately trying to find a way to discredit Dr. Condic.

 

[Bonestorm]

Did you miss this one string? OR was it that you couldn't attack a professor of neurobiology?

What's the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person and why is a scientific paper being published in it as opposed to a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What's the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person and why is a scientific paper being published in it as opposed to a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

Dont know what it is, don't know if it was published elsewhere. Obviously that completely discredits the work... right?

She is also a professor at the university of Utah. Shouldn't you be finding a way to slam them as well?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What's the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person and why is a scientific paper being published in it as opposed to a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

Did you ask String about his professors posting on a atheist blog site? Funny how you didn't question where that was posted.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What's the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person and why is a scientific paper being published in it as opposed to a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

Here is his site... have at it...

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng...-be-pro-life-only-by-lying-about-the-science/

 

[Phantasmal]

A big empty tent, having garnered less than 1% of the national vote in the 2012 presidential election.

I think it is because of the fear of the wasted vote.

 

[Bonestorm]

Dont know what it is, don't know if it was published elsewhere. Obviously that completely discredits the work... right?

It's a Catholic think tank.

She is also a professor at the university of Utah. Shouldn't you be finding a way to slam them as well?

No. In fact, that's what makes the publication by a Catholic think tank weird. She didn't achieve her position at the U without publishing research in actual peer-reviwed science journals so why go to a relgious organization to publish that piece?

 

[Timshel]

Did you miss this one string? OR was it that you couldn't attack a professor of neurobiology?

Better than the lawyer but not as relevant as developmental biology. She blows it in the opening...

The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism.

It is certainly, unlike the sperm or egg, but is not at all characteristic of a human.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's a Catholic think tank.

No. In fact, that's what makes the publication by a Catholic think tank weird. She didn't achieve her position at the U without publishing research in actual peer-reviwed science journals so why go to a relgious organization to publish that piece?

LMAO... again... who gives a shit? You are assuming that it isn't published elsewhere (and no... I am not going searching to see, feel free if you like). Funny how you aren't concerned about where Strings guy posted his blog. Shocking.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Better than the lawyer but not as relevant as developmental biology. She blows it in the opening...

The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism.

It is certainly, unlike the sperm or egg, but is not at all characteristic of a human.

LMAO... why is that String... because YOU say so?

She didn't blow it in the least. She is 100% correct. You are simply too ignorant to comprehend it.

It absolutely is characteristic of a human organism as it cannot be anything but that. It is human and alive and thus is a human organism.

 

[Bonestorm]

LMAO... again... who gives a shit? You are assuming that it isn't published elsewhere (and no... I am not going searching to see, feel free if you like). Funny how you aren't concerned about where Strings guy posted his blog. Shocking.

So where you claim to be making a scientific argument and you cite to a journal published by a religious group your response is "who gives a shit?" OK. LOL.

Also, too, the nice thing about this here board is that I get to decide what I want to write about. So can you. It's pretty cool.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

But why aren't you concerned about String's guy? I find that funny.