APP - Science Denial on the Rise

Mott the Hoople said:
Really? And by what scientific criteria? Please amaze me with your scientific acumen.
Click to expand...

let's start here
Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes from those which do not.


Now we can move to this

Fertilization (also known as conception, fecundation and syngamy), is the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism. In animals, the process involves a sperm fusing with an ovum, which eventually leads to the development of an embryo. Depending on the animal species, the process can occur within the body of the female in internal fertilisation, or outside in the case of external fertilisation

The entire process of development of new individuals is called procreation, the act of species reproduction.
 
seriously, what else begins at conception? Death?

think about your question for a second. It's absolutely retarded. Next, you'll ask what scientific proof I have that water is wet.
 
here's an even better link to make you look like the fool you are


http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/resources/white-papers/351-white-paper

Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a reasoned public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research. This article considers the current scientific evidence in human embryology and addresses two central questions concerning the beginning of life: 1) in the course of sperm-egg interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg? and 2) is this new cell a new human organism—i.e., a new human being? Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception.”
 
tinfoil said:
let's start here
Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes from those which do not.


Now we can move to this

Fertilization (also known as conception, fecundation and syngamy), is the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism. In animals, the process involves a sperm fusing with an ovum, which eventually leads to the development of an embryo. Depending on the animal species, the process can occur within the body of the female in internal fertilisation, or outside in the case of external fertilisation

The entire process of development of new individuals is called procreation, the act of species reproduction.
Click to expand...
Just what I thought. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're about as informed on this issue as you are on climate change.

No mammalian zygote, embryo or fetus meets the definition you just provided. None of those have "self sustaining biological processes". They are all utterly biologically dependent on their host (their mother). By your own ignorant definition life couldn't begin at conception for higher organisms.

The point I'm making here is how you (and Asshat) are making an argument from ignorance. You're taking a rock ribbed stance on science establishing that life begins at conception and you don't even fucking know why?

Well I'll explain it to you and then maybe then next time you pop off at the mouth on the subject you won't come off as such a complete and total ignoramus on the subject.

First let us propose a question to observe. Does a fertilized zygot/embryo/fetus demonstrate the properties of life? To make that determination first let us list what those properties of life are so that we can test this question as a hypothesis.

What are the properties of life then?

1) Chemical uniqueness. Living systems demonstrate a unique and complex molecular organization.
2) Complexity and hierarchical organization. Living systems demonstrate a unique and complex hierarchical organization.
3) Reproduction. Living systems can reproduce themselves.
4) Possession of a genetic program. A genetic program provides for the expression of inheritance.
5) Metabolism. Living organisms maintain themselves by obtaining nutrients from their environments.
6) Development. All organisms pass through a characteristic life cycle.
7) Environmental reaction. All animals interact with their environment.

So let us use these properties of life to test our hypothesis. Does a zygote, fetus, embryo exhibit these properties of life? If they do then one can conclude based on empirical observation that life begins at conception.

1) Chemical Uniqueness. Fertilized eggs possess their own unique DNA from conception.
2) Complexity and hierarchical organization. The most basic unit in the biological hierarchy is the cell. The cell holds the properties of living organisms, and cells can be manipulated in the laboratory and can be reproduced, whereas nonliving elements cannot. Therefore, the fertilized egg would meet this criteria, although it would be a more basic unit of the biological hierarchy.
3) Reproduction. The zygote possesses two different methods of reproduction: cell reproduction and twinning. Twinning is a form of asexual reproduction, which can occur after conception.
4) Possession of a genetic program. From conception, the fertilized egg has its own unique genetic code. The 46 chromosomes present at conception provide all of thegenetic information that will ever be needed.
5) Metabolism. From conception, the fertilized egg meets the requirement of metabolism. It is able to convert chemical energy into mechanical or heat energy.
6) Development. Development describes the characteristic changes that an organism undergoes from its origin (usually the fertilization of the egg by sperm) to its final adult form. Thus, although the fertilized egg will take on different forms throughout its life cycle, the development of life begins at conception.
7) Environmental interaction. The entity in the womb interacts with its environment in many ways. Kicking and jumping are both examples. In addition, research has shown that the fetus can be soothed by music and can recognize the voice of its mother.

The fertilized egg, from the moment of conception, meets each of the properties that have been found to determine if an organism can be classified as living. Based on testing the stated hypothesis against these definitions, it can be scientifically concluded that life begins at conception.

So Tinhead, the next time you're going to quote science as defending a particular point, why don't you try and actually know what that science is?
 
Last edited:
AssHatZombie said:
I stopped reading after this stupid sentence.

You're a blithering fool, mott.
Click to expand...
To bad. Maybe you should have read the rest. You'd learn some real science for a change.

If you're going to quote science to defend your point Asshat, then you should know what that science is. Don't you find it embarrassing that a so called "Liberal" can defend your point better than you can?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's anthropogenic climactic change. Please try to use the correct scientific terminology and not political ones.
Click to expand...

Funny... because is was AGW for years... until of course the earth stopped warming... THEN it suddenly became 'climate change'.

AGW IS the correct scientific terminology. No matter how much the frauds are trying to change it now that they have been exposed for what they are.
 
Superfreak said:
Funny... because is was AGW for years... until of course the earth stopped warming... THEN it suddenly became 'climate change'.
Click to expand...

No one is expecting the world to start cooling because we're pumping massive unprecedented amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. The point your trying to make here doesn't seem to exist.

Superfreak said:
AGW IS the correct scientific terminology. No matter how much the frauds are trying to change it now that they have been exposed for what they are.
Click to expand...

Here we go down into the paranoid rabbit hole of the deniers again.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Just what I thought. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're about as informed on this issue as you are on climate change.

No mammalian zygote, embryo or fetus meets the definition you just provided. None of those have "self sustaining biological processes". They are all utterly biologically dependent on their host (their mother). By your own ignorant definition life couldn't begin at conception for higher organisms.

The point I'm making here is how you (and Asshat) are making an argument from ignorance. You're taking a rock ribbed stance on science establishing that life begins at conception and you don't even fucking know why?

Well I'll explain it to you and then maybe then next time you pop off at the mouth on the subject you won't come off as such a complete and total ignoramus on the subject.

First let us propose a question to observe. Does a fertilized zygot/embryo/fetus demonstrate the properties of life? To make that determination first let us list what those properties of life are so that we can test this question as a hypothesis.

What are the properties of life then?

1) Chemical uniqueness. Living systems demonstrate a unique and complex molecular organization.

It is unique! You lose!


2) Complexity and hierarchical organization. Living systems demonstrate a unique and complex hierarchical organization.


WTF? It's alive and growing!Q you lose idiot


3) Reproduction. Living systems can reproduce themselves.
Uhhh dumbass, it will eventually be ablt to reprtoduce once it matures. You lose dumbfuck
4) Possession of a genetic program. A genetic program provides for the expression of inheritance.

Does it not have DNA? You lose again

5) Metabolism. Living organisms maintain themselves by obtaining nutrients from their environments.

Yep, and in this case, the environment is the womb. WTF is wrong with your fucking idiot brain?

6) Development. All organisms pass through a characteristic life cycle.

YEP
7) Environmental reaction. All animals interact with their environment.
YEP

WTF are you talking about?

So let us use these properties of life to test our hypothesis. Does a zygote, fetus, embryo exhibit these properties of life? If they do then one can conclude based on empirical observation that life begins at conception.

1) Chemical Uniqueness. Fertilized eggs possess their own unique DNA from conception.
2) Complexity and hierarchical organization. The most basic unit in the biological hierarchy is the cell. The cell holds the properties of living organisms, and cells can be manipulated in the laboratory and can be reproduced, whereas nonliving elements cannot. Therefore, the fertilized egg would meet this criteria, although it would be a more basic unit of the biological hierarchy.
3) Reproduction. The zygote possesses two different methods of reproduction: cell reproduction and twinning. Twinning is a form of asexual reproduction, which can occur after conception.
4) Possession of a genetic program. From conception, the fertilized egg has its own unique genetic code. The 46 chromosomes present at conception provide all of thegenetic information that will ever be needed.
5) Metabolism. From conception, the fertilized egg meets the requirement of metabolism. It is able to convert chemical energy into mechanical or heat energy.
6) Development. Development describes the characteristic changes that an organism undergoes from its origin (usually the fertilization of the egg by sperm) to its final adult form. Thus, although the fertilized egg will take on different forms throughout its life cycle, the development of life begins at conception.
7) Environmental interaction. The entity in the womb interacts with its environment in many ways. Kicking and jumping are both examples. In addition, research has shown that the fetus can be soothed by music and can recognize the voice of its mother.

The fertilized egg, from the moment of conception, meets each of the properties that have been found to determine if an organism can be classified as living. Based on testing the stated hypothesis against these definitions, it can be scientifically concluded that life begins at conception.

So Tinhead, the next time you're going to quote science as defending a particular point, why don't you try and actually know what that science is?
Click to expand...

WTF was the point of your post?
 
Atheistmark said:
No one is expecting the world to start cooling because we're pumping massive unprecedented amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. The point your trying to make here doesn't seem to exist.
Click to expand...

You appear to have created a point that I did not make. My only point is that up until the past couple of years... it has been known as AGW. NOT the new and improved 'climate change' that the frauds are using now.



Atheistmark said:
Here we go down into the paranoid rabbit hole of the deniers again.
Click to expand...

No paranoid rabbit hole. REAL scientists do not try to hide their data. REAL scientists put forth all of their raw data, all of their calculations and then their peers look to see if their are any holes in their argument. When scientists try to HIDE their data... there really is only one conclusion to be reached. They KNOW it won't hold up to scrutiny.

Nice try trollboy.
 
Superfreak said:
You appear to have created a point that I did not make. My only point is that up until the past couple of years... it has been known as AGW. NOT the new and improved 'climate change' that the frauds are using now.
Click to expand...


paranoia-Melese-Zenawi.gif



Superfreak said:
No paranoid rabbit hole. REAL scientists do not try to hide their data. REAL scientists put forth all of their raw data, all of their calculations and then their peers look to see if their are any holes in their argument. When scientists try to HIDE their data... there really is only one conclusion to be reached. They KNOW it won't hold up to scrutiny.

Nice try trollboy.
Click to expand...

Like you would know anything about standard scientific operating procedure. Again, this is the type of paranoid conspiratorial nonsense that the deniers thrive on. This is a belief, just like the moon hoax, just like Intelligent design, that is completely and totally contradictory to the evidence and irrational.
 
Superfreak said:
You appear to have created a point that I did not make. My only point is that up until the past couple of years... it has been known as AGW. NOT the new and improved 'climate change' that the frauds are using now.





No paranoid rabbit hole. REAL scientists do not try to hide their data. REAL scientists put forth all of their raw data, all of their calculations and then their peers look to see if their are any holes in their argument. When scientists try to HIDE their data... there really is only one conclusion to be reached. They KNOW it won't hold up to scrutiny.

Nice try trollboy.
Click to expand...


I laughed when I read that also.
What is really funny is that, though there is a tiny amount of forcing that human caused emissions can be blamed for, the alarmists tried to claim everything was human induced.

Now they are saying that the natural forcing is masking what was supposed to be dominating the cimate.

It's clear that human CO2 forcing is miniscule
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No. Science denial in America is on the increase because wingnut reactionaries, like you, have #1, never taken the time to learn science (and you've demonstrated that time and time again) and #2 you're determined to practice your own interpretation of science called "Ostrich Science".

Marginalzing those who have actually taken the time and dedication and made the effort to actually study and learn science as "liberals" is.....well.....beyond pathetic.
Click to expand...

having repeatedly demonstrated that I know more about science than you, I find your post amusing.....
 
Mott the Hoople said:
To bad. Maybe you should have read the rest. You'd learn some real science for a change.

If you're going to quote science to defend your point Asshat, then you should know what that science is. Don't you find it embarrassing that a so called "Liberal" can defend your point better than you can?
Click to expand...

Don't be stupid.

This thread is about who is denying science. It the libtards like you.

Even though you correctly believe life begins at conceptions, most libtards do not.

That's really the point.

And with AGW, it's the left politicizing science and falsifying data to fearmonger the public to accept a global fascist carbon tax.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
LOL I do too. Next to Dixie you're the most scientifically illiterate poster on this site! LOL
Click to expand...

silly boy, nobody here believes that to be true....after all since I arrived in July you have run away from every single debate we have begun......quite simply put, you haven't got what it takes to debate me....
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
silly boy, nobody here believes that to be true....after all since I arrived in July you have run away from every single debate we have begun......quite simply put, you haven't got what it takes to debate me....
Click to expand...
Oh please. You're a legend in your own mind. The only one who believes that is you. Hell three fourths of the board was roaring in laughter at how I crushed you in discussions of science. Even our resident PhD level scientist thought you were clueless about science. Hell even Watermark has shown more scientific acumen then you. I'll give you credit though. You're not as clueless as Dixie when it comes to science. Not saying much granted, but it is true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top