Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > DIs new book "

Pages: (4) < 1 2 [3] 4 >

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,13:34    PuckSR opines, Quote Alright...I will give Thordaddy +3 points...he is correct YOU began at conception.  Conception(in the way he is referring to it) is the point that 2 seperate organisms(ovum and a spermatozoon ) formed 1 organism(zygote).   Problem(-1): "must first exist before there is consciousness then it stands to reason that conception is a very important matter" True, but it could be argued that since the whole is made up of the parts, the parts are just as important.... Therefore, the egg and the sperm are equally important. This is the stance of the catholic church, since creation of a zygote is just as important as the zygote, it is equally immoral to kill sperm, or prevent sperm from getting to the ovum..... We could go back even further....but i digress I'm not sure how this negates my argument that life begins at conception or that that conception represents an important event.  Tires are important to a car, but only if they're attached and functioning.  Yes, sperm and egg are important, but merely existing is equivalent to 4 tires on the ground with the car on the rack.  But I digress and I think a point needs to be added.  Afterall, you started the statement with "true." Quote Logical flaw:(-1) It is a very important matter, if you wish for consciousness to develop.  Otherwise it is not an important matter at all. Your entire argument is based around the fact that at conception it becomes "life".  We give the life a new definition(zygote), but it doesnt become life. Huh?  You give "life" a new name, but then claim it isn't "life?"  A zygote is alive similar to the sperm and ovum that created it.  But, it's not "life" because it lacks a consciousness.  In this sense the zygote is no more different than the ovem and sperm that created it.  Both are alive, but do not represent human life.  Is this the argument? It is a fact that a zygote is or will become conscious.  Afterall, you are conscious because you were a zygote.  But as of know there is no evidence to suggest that consciousness emerges anywhere other than at conception.  You could claim that there is no evidence of an adult being conscious of his/her birth, but you must then claim that birthed babies aren't human life.  Should I add another point?  LOL!   Quote Scientific facts(-1) You are actually not quoting "scientific facts", your quoting statistical facts. Statistical fact:  In the last 300 years the number of pirates has had an inverse relationship with the average temperature of the earth. Scientific fact: There is a direct correlation between the number of pirates and the average temperature of the earth.  IF we had more pirates the temperature would go down. or to use your example Statistical fact: homosexual males have a higher percentage of AIDS cases than heterosexual males thordaddy's "scientific" fact:  Homosexual males are the primary carrier of AIDS and are responsible for spreading AIDS. Of course, science needs more than just statistics to draw a conclusion....if not...then we need more pirates Total Score=0 I'll concede that last point.  Total score 2 (out of what though?).

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,13:40    Thordaddy, no Seven Popes opines?  I did 15 seconds of surfing for nothing?  If it's a reading comprehension issue, I'll type real slow.... -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,14:02    Stephen Elliot opines, Quote Thordaddy. I am not a biologist or a scientist. No I do not know when my life began. Do you know when yours did? If so, please state when that was. If you do not know when you began then doesn't your conception become the default position?  My life began at conception.  And just like I was not conscious of my birth at the time of birth, I was not conscious of my conception at the time of conception.  Will you now claim that you were no more human at birth than at conception?  You weren't human life at your birth?  I shudder to think of a world where that can be conceived of a true.  But then again, justifications for killing always progress inward. Quote BTW. I did not state that consciousnes alone describes human life. I am pretty sure a dog, cat or crocodile is conscious. I asked if human life could be predicated on consciousness ALONE to which you sounded incredulous to the idea that it could be otherwise.  So consciousness is not unique to humans and it doesn't emerge at conception for those that possess it?  So evidence of consciousness DOES NOT necessarily signify human life?  It may signify a dog, cat or crocodile.  Therefore, something else must help us to define human life.  I call it the zygote.  What do you call it? Quote However, I do think that being self-aware is a part of being human. When that happens, I have no idea. But I am pretty certain that a fertilised egg is not conscious. Just as I am reasonably sure an individual sperm is not conscious. But then you must concede that a birthed baby is not conscious.  Are you aware of any known child, teenager  or adult that was conscious at their time of birth?  Therefore, you must assume that babies are not human life if consciousness ALONE signifies human life or unless you are now claiming that consciousness is ONLY a PART of what makes a human life.  You need to clarify where you stand.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,14:08    Seven Popes, My reference to AIDS distribution was confined to America since it was the American public school system we were discussing.  There is little doubt that in America, AIDS is dominant amongst homosexuals.  I try to restrain my imperialist inclinations and let Africa deal with their AIDS problem which is entirely different than ours in America.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,14:28    Thordaddy, You seem to be mixing consciousnes with memmmory now. To make things easier, why do you not state your point clearly? Do you seriously believe that a fertilised egg is conscious? At the moment of conception?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,14:36    guys, the AIDS situation in Africa doesn't help attack the fags. Therefore, it doesn't count. I mean, stop being so biased.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,14:52    Stephen Elliot, I thought we were talking about science and now you are asking what I "believe."  I don't think it matters whether a fertilised egg is conscious because consciousness is only a part of being human life.   I don't understand where you stand?  Does consciousness ALONE define human life?  You first seemed to say yes.  And then you stated dogs, cats and crocodiles are conscious which would indicate you believe it doesn't alone define human life as consciousness could also help define a dog, cat or crocodile.  So how do we tell the difference between a conscious dog and a conscious child?  Must it not be something outside of consciousness?  I call it a zygote.  What do you call it?

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,14:57    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 28 2006,20:28) Thordaddy, You seem to be mixing consciousnes with memmmory now. To make things easier, why do you not state your point clearly? Because that's beyond his ability. Obviously.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,15:49    Quote So how do we tell the difference between a conscious dog and a conscious child?  Must it not be something outside of consciousness?  I call it a zygote.  What do you call it? I call it a central nervous system, thorguy. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,16:09    This debate is very tired. The issue isn't when someone becomes human (a genetic notion), but rather when someone becomes a person (a legal notion). And the answer is simple: a human becomes a person when the law says so. For nearly half the history of the US, negros were legally not persons. They could be legally treated as property in every way. This has nothing to do with genetics, intelligence, consciousness, education, or ability. It is strictly a legal definition. In the matter of abortion, the law is currently bowing to circumstances: abortions are like immigration from Mexico: something that happens and will happen regardless of the law. Beyond this is the congruity with American principles generally: Abortion is not mandatory (as it is some places), nor is it prohibited (as it is other places). Instead, Americans are *free to choose* without anyone's religious convictions being imposed on anyone else. The marriage of inevitable practicality with individual liberty is a marriage made in heaven. Let the bigots rant; their right to do so is rightly protected. In a very real sense, liberty means letting other people do things you don't like and wish they wouldn't.

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,16:19    Quote Oh dear. I seem to have accidentally stumbled into the abortion discussion area. Could someone direct me to where they're discussing science education issues? Actually, this does apply to the whole ID discussion.... Several people, including thordaddy, lack a clear way of seperating philosophy from science.... a scientific proof=a philosophical proof in their minds Quote (PuckSR)Your entire argument is based around the fact that at conception it becomes "life".  We give the life a new definition(zygote),but it doesnt become life. Quote (Thordaddy)Huh?  You give "life" a new name, but then claim it isn't "life?" Completely wrong thordaddy... I explained that it was life before conception I claimed it was life after conception I claimed that it doesnt become life...it already was alive Quote It is a fact that a zygote is or will become conscious.  Afterall, you are conscious because you were a zygote.  But as of know there is no evidence to suggest that consciousness emerges anywhere other than at conception. It is a fact that an ovum and sperm will become conscious too....if they are allowed to interact Actually...consciousness must emerge after conception consciousness-An alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation..... lets make it easier sentient-Endowed with feeling and unstructured consciousness either way you put it...you need to be thinking...in some way. A zygote doesnt have a brain, a mind, or even a neural network.... it cannot be concious...i would go as far as to give you conciousness as soon as neural cells begin developing...but that still doesnt happen for awhile If you havent noticed yet, this is all incredibly interesting stuff...but not scientific.... thordaddy....if you think the issue of the zygote is scientific...and that you have the answer...I have an equally scientific question that is remarkable similiar If you take an old car and start fixing it up; you might have to replace some parts.  At what point does it become a different car?  If I replace every part in the car, one at a time over several years....is it a new car?

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,16:54    Once again Thordaddy demonstrates his inability to comprehend clear, unambiguous English sentences: Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 28 2006,18:59) It doesn't matter to you and yet you still argue in favor of pointlessness and meaninglessness.  Huh?  Would your parents say your conception was pointless and meaningless?  Have you or will you claim your children's conception to be pointless and meaningless?  Ok... do whatever, but don't try to convince the rest of us that these "beginnings" are pointless and meaningless just because they are to you.  If this is what science has to offer, what's the point? Where did I say conception was meaningless? I said that arguments about when life "begins" are meaningless within the context of the abortion debate. As I've said a million times before, life does not begin at conception. Can we possibly get past that point? I'm sick of repeating myself. Quote But then you say, "life had a beginning," which is tantamount to saying life began at conception.  This is exactly what I believe.  Life begins at conception.  You are certainly coming around. WHAT?!! Saying life had a beginning, at some point in time, is tantamount to saying it began at conception? Are you out of your mind? Or are you as logically-challenged as you are semantically-challenged? Life began some time in the distant past, not "at conception." Can you understand the distinction between "in the distant past" and "a few decades ago"? Quote Excuse me if I'm missing the science in your statement.  The question of when life begins would be very important if it coincided with the emergence of consciousness.  And that is the very debate, isn't it?  Some claim human life begins at conception and some claim it begins at some unknown point after conception with the emergence of consciouness. Thordaddy, I have to ask: are you drunk when you write this stuff? We already know that the onset of consciousness does not coincide with the onset of life, unless you're willing to entertain the notion that sperm cells (along with every single other living organism--algae, liver cells--on the planet, arguably including viruses) is "conscious". You're placing points in issue that were settled long ago. No one but the most utterly clueless would argue that life =  consciousness. Once more from the top, Thordaddy: Life Does Not Begin at Conception. Can we finally, at long last, get past this point? Quote There is certainly no evidence as to when one becomes conscious and yet you are adamant that it DIDN'T begin at conception. If you're saying no one knows at which point, exactly, a fetus becomes conscious, you and I can agree (evidently the only point on which we agree). But if you're still going to maintain that it's even possible for a fertilized but undivided ovum to be conscious, you're quite frankly out of your mind. Quote  You must concede that consciousness REQUIRES human life first and foremost, but you won't concede that human life is conscious from its conception.  This is fine, but you run into a problem. I don't have to concede this at all. I'm pretty sure that, e.g., dogs, cats, dolphins, chimps, etc., are possessing something at least roughly synonymous with, if not identical to, consciousness. So you've lost that point too. On your second point, I can't imagine how anyone could possibly think that a freshly-fertilized but undivided human ovum could possibly be possessed of anything worthy of the name "consciousness," unless you're using the term in some novel sense that you have not yet defined. Quote If a zygote is not human life then a zygote, much like a ovum, sperm, flower or bacteria cannot become conscious. God, man, can you possibly start making a distinction between "consciousness" and "life"? No one is saying a human zygote is not human life (normally I'd assume that we're limiting our discussion to human zygotes, but based on the way this discussion is going so far I'm not sure that's a valid assumption). The point everyone else here is clear on is that a human zygote, at the moment of conception, simply is not conscious. Is this point really that hard to grasp? Quote If you are conscious and hence represent human "life" and where at conception a zygote, then it stands to reason that a zygote can become conscious.   Can we file this under "another statement of the bleeding obvious"? Yes, a human zygote can become conscious. So can an unfertilized ovum. So can a sperm cell. Did you have a point here somewhere? Quote And because a zygote can become conscious, it stands to reason that it must be human life and not the equivalent of a ovum, sperm, flower or bacteria. This, on the other hand, goes in the "bleeding non-sequitor" category. Because a zygote (any kind of zygote? a corn plant zygote?) can become conscious, it must be a human zygote? Well, what if it's a chimp zygote? Are you going to argue that chimps are not conscious? Or that if a chimp zygote can become conscious, it must in fact be really a human zygote? I'm afraid you've completely lost track of your argument. On the other hand, I know exactly what my argument is. Here's the take-home lesson, Thordaddy: life does not begin at conception. Consciousness does not begin at conception. There's very little special about the moment of conception. Yes, a fertilized ovum has a somewhat greater chance of becoming a person than an unfertilized egg (or a sperm cell for that matter) does, but it has a lot less of a chance of becoming a person than a third-trimester fetus does. There's certainly nothing inevitable about a fertilized ovum becoming a person. Drawing the line between personhood and non-personhood at the moment of conception is entirely arbitrary. Which goes back to my point that life simply is not as black-and-white/right-or-wrong as many on the right would like us to believe. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Jay Ray Posts: 92 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,17:05    You only think you just hit a home run.   Waterballons.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,18:52    PuckSR opines, Quote Completely wrong thordaddy... I explained that it was life before conception I claimed it was life after conception I claimed that it doesnt become life...it already was alive There was life before your conception.  There was life after your conception.  But at your conception there was ONLY you.  You are not a sperm.  You are not an ovum.  You aren't even a sperm and ovum real close together.  Their "lives" are very distinct from your life and your conception, but you claim them the same.  The sperm, ovum and zygote are all the same because they are alive.  But neither the sperm nor the ovum will become you or the zygote that was once you.  What do you say of this differentiation? Quote It is a fact that an ovum and sperm will become conscious too....if they are allowed to interact ...and not meet an untimely death.  But if the zygote will become conscious then what evidence is there that it is not conscious from conception? Quote Actually...consciousness must emerge after conception consciousness-An alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation..... lets make it easier sentient-Endowed with feeling and unstructured consciousness either way you put it...you need to be thinking...in some way. A zygote doesnt have a brain, a mind, or even a neural network.... it cannot be concious...i would go as far as to give you conciousness as soon as neural cells begin developing...but that still doesnt happen for awhile If you havent noticed yet, this is all incredibly interesting stuff...but not scientific.... Yes, one must be conceived in order to become conscious and if consciousness is important in determining human life then conception is ever more important because it's a clear indication of potential consciousness.   But, I'm a little perplexed that you could claim a zygote to be unconscious when no evidence exists for such a claim outside the fact that it doesn't have the alleged mechanisms for consciousness.  Yet, those very mechanisms that are believed to manifest consciousness are present in a baby at birth, but I am aware of no child, teenager or adult that has claimed consciousness at birth.  This throws into doubt the relevance of your alleged mechanisms of consciousness and whether they determine the consciousness of a zygote. Quote thordaddy....if you think the issue of the zygote is scientific...and that you have the answer...I have an equally scientific question that is remarkable similiar If you take an old car and start fixing it up; you might have to replace some parts.  At what point does it become a different car?  If I replace every part in the car, one at a time over several years....is it a new car? I don't claim to have an answer, but instead accept what I presently know. I guess it all depends on what you mean by different.  If only the owner gets to decide then he will decide.  If many others are allowed to pontificate then I guess we will have many different answers.

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,19:03    Quote but I am aware of no child, teenager or adult that has claimed consciousness at birth. You obviously misunderstand 2 things.... 1)  You wouldnt have to remember consciousness 2)  Do you see a baby interact with their surroundings?  They possess conciousness......that is why they can interact... Ive never heard a dog claim consciousness either...but im fairly sure they are conscious beings.. Quote I guess it all depends on what you mean by different.  If only the owner gets to decide then he will decide.  If many others are allowed to pontificate then I guess we will have many different answers. Hmm...then i guess you see the problem with this whole conversation....we all "opine"....you cannot prove when that car becomes a new car.... you probably think that if you replace one part it is still the same car you probably think if you replace every part...that it is a new car... but you cannot tell me when it changes....such is a question for philosophy.... all science can tell us is that you replaced 20 parts... Quote But neither the sperm nor the ovum will become you or the zygote that was once you. But the sperm and ovum do become the zygote that once was you? What are you trying to say...? Either your a cleverly disguised teacher feeding me koans...trying to put me on the path.... or your really, really confusing....

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,19:18    ericmurphy opines, Quote I don't have to concede this at all. I'm pretty sure that, e.g., dogs, cats, dolphins, chimps, etc., are possessing something at least roughly synonymous with, if not identical to, consciousness. So you've lost that point too. On your second point, I can't imagine how anyone could possibly think that a freshly-fertilized but undivided human ovum could possibly be possessed of anything worthy of the name "consciousness," unless you're using the term in some novel sense that you have not yet defined. First you claim that dogs, cats and dolphins have consciousness.  This means consciousness ALONE DOES NOT define human life, but instead may define several different conscious entities. This leads one to accept that consciousness is only a PART of what defines human life.  We cannot say, "thou is conscious, thou is human being."  That conscious thing might be a dolphin or a dog.   So I ask, what is the difference between a conscious dolphin and a human baby?  You say a fertilized ovum is not conscious yet you know nothing of when or where consciousness emerges.  And you also readily admit consciousness in lower life forms, but not for the zygote. Quote On the other hand, I know exactly what my argument is. Here's the take-home lesson, Thordaddy: life does not begin at conception. Consciousness does not begin at conception. Then your life either began at the Origin and you are billions of years old or your life began at the emergence of your consciousness in which you have no idea when it emerged and hence no idea when your life began. Quote There's very little special about the moment of conception. Yes, a fertilized ovum has a somewhat greater chance of becoming a person than an unfertilized egg (or a sperm cell for that matter) does, but it has a lot less of a chance of becoming a person than a third-trimester fetus does. There's certainly nothing inevitable about a fertilized ovum becoming a person. A somewhat greater chance?  Has a sperm or ovum ever evolved into a person?  And your right that there is nothing inevitable about a fertilized ovum becoming a person especially if abortion is just a choice.  If abortion was frowned upon the inevitability would be much greater. Quote Drawing the line between personhood and non-personhood at the moment of conception is entirely arbitrary. Which goes back to my point that life simply is not as black-and-white/right-or-wrong as many on the right would like us to believe. It's certainly no more arbitrary than drawing the line between personhood and non-personhood at the emergence of consciousness.  Afterall, you don't even know where that line is!  Now that's arbitrary.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,19:49    PuckSR opines, Quote consciousness-An alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation..... lets make it easier sentient-Endowed with feeling and unstructured consciousness   But then said, Quote You obviously misunderstand 2 things.... 1)  You wouldnt have to remember consciousness 2)  Do you see a baby interact with their surroundings?  They possess conciousness......that is why they can interact... Ive never heard a dog claim consciousness either...but im fairly sure they are conscious beings.. If one cannot remember being self-aware at birth then how can you make a claim of consciousness at birth? You must either assume a period of unconsciousness that erases all previous moments of consciouness.  Or you must assume that the interaction with one's environment is a sign of self-awareness.  Or, you must assume that the mere existence of the alleged mechanisms that manifest consciousness have in fact done so?   If one is forced to make these assumptions then how can a zygote be considered unconscious? A zygote may be conscious, but we have simply forgot this moment of self-awareness. A zygote can be said to interact with its enviroment.  Very precisely so! A zygote may not possess the alleged mechanisms for the manifestation of consciousness, but it certainly retains the mechanisms that manifest the mechanisms that are alleged to bring forth consciousness.  Would consciousness need to be in there somewhere? PuckSR, When did your life begin if not at conception?

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,20:03    Thordaddy, you're so far removed from your original argument I doubt you can even trace your way back there. Your original position was that life begins at conception, and that schools should teach this "fact." It has been pointed out to you in no uncertain terms that life does not begin at conception, but you stubbornly refuse to accept that fact. Somehow we now find ourselves wandering around in the weeds of trying to define what a human life is, which aside from being a waste of time in this context, is essentially undecidable. Society has defined and redefined personhood often enough to make it clear that there is no such definition. Certainly none that has applicability to your argument. You're asking me to describe the difference between a human infant and a dolphin. I'm trying to imagine what possible connection this could have to whether schools should teach a falsehood, i.e., that life begins at conception, and frankly I'm at a loss. I admit that consciousness can exist in non-human organisms because they have the necessary hardware, i.e., a central nervous system, to support consciousness—something a blastocyst emphatically does not have. You're trying to obscure a very simple issue here. A zygote does not have consciousness by any rational meaning of the term. You're acting like there's an argument here, when there isn't one. You're simply wrong. I most certainly do have an idea of when my consciousness arose. It arose at some point after I developed a central nervous system capable of supporting consciousness. That I can't pin when that happened down to a particular date and time doesn't change that fact. But when I achieved a state of consciousness has absolutely nothing to do with at what point I became "alive," and you stubbornly refuse to make the distinction between the two. Has a sperm or ovum ever evolved into a human? No. Neither has a zygote. Evolution doesn't work that way. Has a sperm or an egg ever developed into a human? Sure. It happens a few thousand times every single day. There's nothing inevitable about a fertilized egg becoming a human, abortion or not. Are you really so uninformed as to believe that every fertilized egg necessarily develops into a fetus, to say nothing of an actual person? Quote It's certainly no more arbitrary than drawing the line between personhood and non-personhood at the emergence of consciousness.  Afterall, you don't even know where that line is!  Now that's arbitrary. You're making my point for me. Any attempt to draw a line between personhood and non-personhood is necessarily arbitrary, and if you think you can get science to do it for you in a non-arbitrary way, you're dreaming. You're looking for a way to torture science into giving you a certainty where there's no certainty to be had. Life is not as black-and-white as you imagine it to be. You will never get science to draw the line you want it to draw, so if I were you, I'd quite while I was behind. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,20:11    Quote If one cannot remember being self-aware at birth then how can you make a claim of consciousness at birth? You must either assume a period of unconsciousness that erases all previous moments of consciouness.  Or you must assume that the interaction with one's environment is a sign of self-awareness. Do you remember when you started remembering? Was it a sudden moment, or do you remember it at all? For the sake of this conversation, please define conciousness.... My definition of conciousness has absolutely nothing to do with memory Quote PuckSR, When did your life begin if not at conception? Wonderful question....I dont even know if there is an answer...but i certainly dont know...and neither do you The point, which you have missed, is that life may start at conception...but no one...including yourself knows when it starts...we just have opinions... This is a big mistake some Christians make... knowledge does not mean strong conviction about your beliefs... You do not know god exists....you just believe that he does

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,20:58    PuckSR, You don't see the absurdity of claiming no knowledge of one's commencement of self-awareness.  You don't know when you became conscious, but you can state it wasn't at conception.   How do you know when you just said you didn't know?   How do you know you were conscious at birth when you just said you didn't know when you became conscious?   You only assume you were conscious at birth because you assumed you interacted with your environment or you had the mechanisms for consciousness or you simply observe other birthed babies and made the assumption.   But then how can this not be said of a zygote?  Clearly, a zygote interacts with its environment and it must at least contain the mechanisms that created the mechanisms for consciousness.  A zygote must contain the fundamentals of consciousness, no? If you don't know when YOUR life begins then why should you assume that it started anywhere other than at your conception?  What evidence leads you away from the obvious assumption? BTW, I'm not Christian nor am I particularly religious.  Although, I do see many valuable contributions in both science and Christianity.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,23:09    Thordaddy. Do you believe something without a brain or central nervous system can be conscious?

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,23:28    Stephen Elliot, I don't think the evidence shows consciousness in entities without a brain and a central nervous system, but neither of these things are required to be alive. Is there a point to the question?

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,23:50    Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 29 2006,05:28) Stephen Elliot, I don't think the evidence shows consciousness in entities without a brain and a central nervous system, but neither of these things are required to be alive. Is there a point to the question? The point was that a human zygote is not a fully fledged human being. You apeared to be making an anti-abortion argument based on a point that you considered a fertilised human egg to be a human being. Therefore implying abortion was murder. You have said things like "life begins at conception". When clearly both the egg and sperm are alive before conception.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,23:59    Quote I can't imagine how anyone could possibly think that a freshly-fertilized but undivided human ovum could possibly be possessed of anything worthy of the name "consciousness," unless you're using the term in some novel sense that you have not yet defined. Eric, he's using the term in the "Eternal Soul" sense, of course. Thordaddy, dont be ashamed to state your beliefs clearly: It might make your posts more coherent. Anyway, things are simple: Life (as in a living organism) does NOT begin at conception. "Life comes from life", remember that principle so dear to creationists? (and no, that does not disprove the theories of abiogenesis in the past- please don't try to derail the thread yet again at this point if you are even slightly honest). What happens at conception (and I'm sure we both agree) is that the foundations are set for what will eventually be an independent organism- a human, in our case. Now, we agree (science agrees) that this bunch of cells, if all goes well -and that's a big "if"- will become a human being. But is it a human being now? Not that certain a fact. You can argue that the human "soul" magically appears at conception, but I won't follow you there. Arguing that some supernatural, undefined and unobservable quality appears in a supernatural, undefined way in a living organism (much like ID, heh) Is not science. I am sorry but, speaking scientifically, there's not much evidence of the zygote being "human": What distinguishes us as humans, our intelligence, which is responsible (as in other creatures) for our self-awareness and also makes us capable of abstract thought, is entirely dependent of our central nervous system; and there is no trace of that in the bunch of cells that is the embryo the first weeks, let alone at conception. If you think there's any scientific evidence supporting that, you're clearly mistaken. There is NO scientific controversy here. Only a moral and religious one. (much like ID, but in the case with abortion all sides agree to the nature of the controversy -nobody tries to invoke science to prove the zygote is sentient and concious, that would be plain silly. ) And so, there is no reason for such a debate to be held at schools (except perhaps in some moral class). And that's as much as I'll discuss abortion with you (which even so, is clearly way off-topic). As for your other two arguments, they are both IMMENSELY inaccurate, and only prove the sort of bigotry one can find in whatever sites you dug them out of. The whole "AIDS as a homo disease" argument is a bad joke (the reasons have been clearly pointed out to you by others already- sorry if you don't get them), and as for  that other "theory" that tries to force racism in science: the only serious attempt to do so was with one infamous essay, which was immediately discredited as statistically unsound decades ago (if it denonstrated anything, it was that black people in the US recieve less education than WEMs -duh). And that is that. Now, do you have anything meaningful to add to this debate, or will you go on talking about abortion, trying to imply "soul" without actually saying it, and at the same time claiming you are not religious (yeah, right)? Because then I'm done here. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

W. Kevin Vicklund Posts: 68 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,06:33    Among black Americans, the primary mode of transmission of AIDS is heterosexual sex and IV drug use - this is especially true for black women.  So even restricting it to America does not assist thorluther's argument. I am also aware of quite a large number of social scientists who are, in fact, arguing about whether many of these topics should be included in school curricula.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,12:05    Not sure if you need a subscription, or can read this without and be subjected to ads, but you really ought to check this out: "GOP War On Sinners" -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,12:09    Here's a teaser, showing you why you really ought to check it out: Quote "I believe the most damaging thing Tom DeLay has done in his life is take his faith seriously in the public office, which made him a target of all those who despise the goals of Christ," said Scarborough, a former college football player and longtime DeLay ally. Taking the stage before the 200 or so adoring activists in the banquet hall, DeLay ran with the end-times theme. "We have been chosen to live as Christians at a time when our culture is being poisoned and our world is being threatened, at a time when sides are being chosen and the future of man hangs in the balance," he said. "The enemies of virtue may be on the march, but they have not won, and if we put our trust in Christ, they never will." -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

jupiter Posts: 97 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,13:19    Quote I don't think the evidence shows consciousness in entities without a brain and a central nervous system, but neither of these things are required to be alive. Thordaddy's existence must be one of constant vigilance and few creature comforts. By his definition, there's no distinguishing between "life" and "consciousness," and such absolute reverence for life makes PETA look like a Ted Stevens Bow-Hunting Club. Thordaddy's life-honoring diet of potting soil and paste must have serious health consequences, including neurological impairment. The mental rigidity; the illogical, circular thinking patterns; the inability to take in and consider written language -- quite likely, it's all due to advanced scurvy. Or maybe pellagra. Or both. The man desperately needs a lemon with a side of brewer's yeast. I'm still wondering how his beliefs about life, consciousness, or anything else have any relationship to science.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,17:03    ericmurphy opines, Quote Thordaddy, you're so far removed from your original argument I doubt you can even trace your way back there. Your original position was that life begins at conception, and that schools should teach this "fact." It has been pointed out to you in no uncertain terms that life does not begin at conception, but you stubbornly refuse to accept that fact. thordaddy asks, "So if your life didn't begin at conception then when did it begin?" ericmurphy responds, "I DON'T KNOW when my life began, but I KNOW it wasn't at conception!" So when little Johnny asks when he came "alive," his biology teacher can tell him, "I DON'T KNOW Johnny, but it sure wasn't at your conception." Who needs a biology teacher like that?  I'm looking for answers, man. Quote Somehow we now find ourselves wandering around in the weeds of trying to define what a human life is, which aside from being a waste of time in this context, is essentially undecidable. Society has defined and redefined personhood often enough to make it clear that there is no such definition. Certainly none that has applicability to your argument. The question is whether personhood is defined by real hard science or just ericmurphy's subjective notions?  Hitler and Sanger helped define human life and human life suffered greatly. Quote You're asking me to describe the difference between a human infant and a dolphin. I'm trying to imagine what possible connection this could have to whether schools should teach a falsehood, i.e., that life begins at conception, and frankly I'm at a loss. No, actually I'm asking you how you tell the difference between two conscious entities.  Other than mere physical difference, both are alive and consciousness  and according to you didn't begin at conception.  Yet, we don't hunt babies for their meat.  There is no scientific distinction between human infant and a dolphin though there is a distinction indeed.  What is it? Quote I admit that consciousness can exist in non-human organisms because they have the necessary hardware, i.e., a central nervous system, to support consciousness—something a blastocyst emphatically does not have. You're trying to obscure a very simple issue here. A zygote does not have consciousness by any rational meaning of the term. You're acting like there's an argument here, when there isn't one. You're simply wrong. First, I see no definition of consciousness that requires a central nervous system and so you are making an unfounded assumption.  Secondly, a zygote interacts with its enviroment and that, at the least, exhibits some degree of consciousness.  Thirdly, the mechanisms that are alleged to manifest consciousness (central nervous system) are almost assuredly contained within the zygote in some measure.  Lastly, you really have NO idea if a zygote is conscious because you have NO idea when or where consciousness emerges.  You simply put your faith in an idea the helps you rationalize the killing of human life. Quote I most certainly do have an idea of when my consciousness arose. It arose at some point after I developed a central nervous system capable of supporting consciousness. That I can't pin when that happened down to a particular date and time doesn't change that fact. But when I achieved a state of consciousness has absolutely nothing to do with at what point I became "alive," and you stubbornly refuse to make the distinction between the two. So what is the distinction, ericmurphy?  When did you become "alive" and then become "conscious" if it was not at conception for the former and completely unknown for the latter?  You're alive and conscious, but you don't know when you became alive and conscious.  I just assume it happened at conception.  No other evidence is sufficient to persuade me otherwise. Quote You're making my point for me. Any attempt to draw a line between personhood and non-personhood is necessarily arbitrary, and if you think you can get science to do it for you in a non-arbitrary way, you're dreaming. The line is simply drawn at birth and not conception.  This allows you to rationalize abortion.  Nothing more.  The problem is that there is no scientific reason to draw the line at birth and yet it has been drawn with little disagreement from the science community.  Of course, that is all changing rapidly as we speak. Quote You're looking for a way to torture science into giving you a certainty where there's no certainty to be had. Life is not as black-and-white as you imagine it to be. You will never get science to draw the line you want it to draw, so if I were you, I'd quite while I was behind. What is the science behind drawing the line at birth?

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,17:16    Stephen Elliot opines, Quote The point was that a human zygote is not a fully fledged human being. You apeared to be making an anti-abortion argument based on a point that you considered a fertilised human egg to be a human being. Therefore implying abortion was murder. You have said things like "life begins at conception". When clearly both the egg and sperm are alive before conception. What's a fully-fledged human being?  Does that description have scientific validity?  Is a 90 year old grandpa in a coma a fully-fledged human being?  Is a child with cerebral palsy a fully-fledged human being?  What about an Iraqi veteran with multiple amputations?   You what to argue in favor of objective science while you give human life a purely subjective meaning.  Your own subjective meaning.  I don't like subjectively defining human life because history is a prime example of the bad things that can happen when powerful minorities or majorities can define the value of our lives. But until you define a fully-fledged human being why should you assume it to be anything other than that which begins at conception?

Pages: (4) < 1 2 [3] 4 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard