Today’s Teabagger News: Only 41% of Texans know humans did not live with dinosaurs

Pounceler doesn't have to explain himself to non-deities. Pounceler is a God. He does not have to answer anyone's questions or explain his illogical and hypocritical thoughts to mere mortals.
 
Dixie said:
Well a chicken and an egg are two different things. Just as a female egg and a baby are two different things. A tomato seed and a tomato are two different things, just as a male sperm seed and baby are two different things.

Once the human sperm cell and egg cell have combined, they become a multi-cell living organism, independent of the mother, and you have not been able to define the organism as anything other than human. You want to delineate some distinction based on stage of development, but a teenager is no less a human being than a senior citizen, a toddler is no less human than an infant. These are all stages of the same living organism... zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent, adult, geriatric. The changing stages doesn't alter what they are.
Click to expand...

To plagiarize RStringfield's post, "Batshit-crazy explanations are your forte."

Why are eggs and chickens different? They have the same DNA. If you are going to use DNA as the defining characteristic to prove a zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being then DNA it is.
 
Dixie said:
The biological finding that a human sperm cell permeates a human egg cell and human life begins, is not refutable. It is not possible to refute it, unless you want to argue that we don't know whether we really exist or not... save for some existential argument for existence, there is no refutation of what was presented.
Click to expand...

Who knows? Maybe there is something else involved and necessary for human life. Maybe God adds in something before life begins. Like I said, that's your field.

The point is it is quite possible that something is happening that we do not understand. Our knowledge is in ALL cases fallible, incomplete and subject to new information.

None of that means we can't or should not form conclusions or make decisions. None of that means all conclusions are equally reasonable.
 
Dixie said:
Oh yes there is a stark contrast. They certainly are not synonymous, as you alluded earlier. Thanks for admitting that much, generally you pinheads fight kicking and screaming and refuse to give an inch, it's refreshing to see one of you actually recant what you said and admit I am right about something.
Click to expand...

The distinction between evidence and proof is highly subjective yet there is a stark contrast? Okay, Dixie, whatever...
 
apple0154 said:
To plagiarize RStringfield's post, "Batshit-crazy explanations are your forte."

Why are eggs and chickens different? They have the same DNA. If you are going to use DNA as the defining characteristic to prove a zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being then DNA it is.
Click to expand...

I didn't use DNA to make the determination. When the sperm cell permeates the egg, a chemical reaction immediately happens and the two cells fuse and then begin to replicate. The process of the organism living thus begins. It's really not that complicated.
 
RStringfield said:
The distinction between evidence and proof is highly subjective yet there is a stark contrast? Okay, Dixie, whatever...
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a stark contrast between something that is "evidence" and something that is "proof" and you have even helped to define the stark contrast in this thread! I can't keep you on task, that is your job! Pay attention to what you've already learned!
 
RStringfield said:
Who knows? Maybe there is something else involved and necessary for human life. Maybe God adds in something before life begins. Like I said, that's your field.
Click to expand...


It's not MY field, I just call em like I see em. Extensive biological research and observation from a scientific perspective, indicates life begins at conception. I hate that is a fact and you can't run away from it, but that's the case. Sorry science refutes your liberal pro-choice agenda, but it just does! Live with it!
 
Dixie said:
It's not MY field, I just call em like I see em. Extensive biological research and observation from a scientific perspective, indicates life begins at conception. I hate that is a fact and you can't run away from it, but that's the case. Sorry science refutes your liberal pro-choice agenda, but it just does! Live with it!
Click to expand...

We are not discussing abortion.

The point is, that what you accept as fact is just theory. It is possible that our understanding of the process is in error.
 
Dixie said:
Yes, there is a stark contrast between something that is "evidence" and something that is "proof" and you have even helped to define the stark contrast in this thread! I can't keep you on task, that is your job! Pay attention to what you've already learned!
Click to expand...

There is no stark contrast. The difference is subjective and arbitrary. One piece of evidence may suffice as proof and it is all subject to the standard of proof applied.
 
Dixie said:
I didn't use DNA to make the determination. When the sperm cell permeates the egg, a chemical reaction immediately happens and the two cells fuse and then begin to replicate. The process of the organism living thus begins. It's really not that complicated.
Click to expand...

The same with a fertilized chicken egg. The same thing when one puts a tomato seed in the ground. If the human organism is a human being the moment the egg is fertilized then the chicken egg is a chicken and the tomato seed is a red, juicy tomato.
 
RStringfield said:
No, the weight of evidence leaves us with that as the reasonable conclusion.
It does not mean there is no possible alternative or other significant factors.
Click to expand...

so you have faith that given time science will be able to prove that the result of the joining of a human sperm and human egg will produce a being that is other than human?......you seculars are always so optimistic about the ability of science.......
 
apple0154 said:
The same with a fertilized chicken egg. The same thing when one puts a tomato seed in the ground. If the human organism is a human being the moment the egg is fertilized then the chicken egg is a chicken and the tomato seed is a red, juicy tomato.
Click to expand...

Now you are taking a logical leap away from your own original point. Once an egg has been fertilized and the life process of a chicken begins, it is a chicken in the earliest stage of development, no longer just an egg. The same thing with a seed that has germinated and started to GROW, it is LIVING, and it is classified as a LIVING organism of some kind. If it was a tomato seed, the LIVING organism can't be anything other than a tomato plant, which will eventually produce red juicy tomatoes. But we aren't talking about trivial insignificant forms of living organisms like tomatoes and chickens, we are talking about HUMAN LIFE, and it is much more important to us than tomatoes and chickens... at least it is more important to SOME of us, you apparently value human life as much as you value poultry and produce... that's nice to know.
 
apple0154 said:
Why are eggs and chickens different? They have the same DNA. If you are going to use DNA as the defining characteristic to prove a zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being then DNA it is.
Click to expand...

???...well, probably for the same reason that a grandfather and an infant are different....or an eight grader and a thirty year old.....that is, assuming that by "egg" you aren't just meaning the calcium shell surrounding the fluids intended to nourish the embryonic chicken inside it.......because THAT is just as much a chicken as a five year old rooster......
 
RStringfield said:
There is no stark contrast. The difference is subjective and arbitrary. One piece of evidence may suffice as proof and it is all subject to the standard of proof applied.
Click to expand...

If there is a difference, there is a stark contrast. That's what it means when someone says "stark contrast" ...that it is fundamentally different. Evidence is NOT synonymous with proof, that is what I stated, and that is a correct statement. If you wish to argue to the contrary, you are an idiot without a brain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top