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. 29 2006,17:54    Faid opines, (I got a real kick out of this one) Quote 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). When one starts like this can anything after be taken serious?  So life doesn't begin at the beginning and life comes from life except when it came from non-life?  LOL!! Quote 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. What happens at conception?  Nothing, according to you.  It's the beginning that doesn't begin.   Oh wait... actually conception is the setting of the "foundations" of what will "eventually be an independent organism."   As you state above, "[l]ife (as in living organism) does NOT begin at conception."  Conception just sets the foundations for LIFE!   Quote 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. Wow, what a profound insight.  The question for science is when does it become a human being.  You say it's not at conception even though you readily admit this event to be the foundational setting for LIFE.  That of course is when you're NOT saying "LIFE doesn't begin at conception." Quote 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": You beat that strawman up pretty good.  Have I made any mention of souls or supernatural qualities to bolster my debate that my life, your life or anyone's life begins at conception?   But the last one's the kicker!  You're right, science has found many zygotes within the women's womb that turned out to be nonhuman. Quote 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. Intelligence is not distinguishable between a birthed baby and an adult dolphin.  There is little to no trace of intelligence or consciousness in a newborn baby and no child teenager or adult has ever claim self-awareness at birth.  You need other criteria to define human life. Quote 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. ) If no one tries to prove the zygote to be conscious then how on earth can they claim it to be unconscious with any scientific validity?   Quote 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). I love it when the scientist proclaims the objectivity of science while interjecting his subjective values throughout his defense. If you are disputing the statistical fact that homosexuals in America are a disproportionate carrier of the AIDS disease then please do.  It doesn't change the fact.  If living the homosexual lifestyle puts one at a unquestionably high risk for contracting AIDS, should a public school system teach of the normalcy of homosexuality?  You'd probably rather stick you head in the sand than deal with some of the unpleasantries of scientific discovery. Quote 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 guy argues for the primacy of science and then makes a false assertion backed by no empirical evidence.  Too funny.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,18:28    [quote=thordaddy,Mar. 29 2006,233][/quote] Quote 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!" After all this time, you still don't get it. When life begins is utterly meaningless in the abortion debate. Whether you think life begins at conception, at birth, at the onset of puberty, at the point your mom's ovaries started producing ova before she was born, or whether it was back at the dawn of time has no relevance whatsoever to the issue. Nor is this a subject that should be taught at school, which was your original point, if you can remember back that far. This is the same kind of stupid argument that the Creationist thinks he wins when he notes that you can't tell him the time and day of the week when the first chimp popped out the first human. Quote 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. I've already explained to you why science will not give you these kinds of answers. You're making my point for me again by pointing out that when humans try to define personhood, terrible things happen. And yet here you are, trying to define personhood! Quote 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? God, Thordaddy, you're batting a thousand making my points for me. We don't hunt babies for their meat, and we shouldn't hunt dolphins for their meat either, for exactly the same reason. Ordinarily I'd be surprised you didn't see that one coming from a mile away, but then again you've pretty much telegraphed your political viewpoints anyway. But in the meantime you're stating that "there's no scientific distinction between [a] human infant and a dolphin," a statement that's so dumbfoundingly preposterous the only reason I even bring it up is to point out its preposterousness. Quote 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.   As I suspected, you're using the term "consciousness" in a completely non-standard way, and then not favoring us with an explanation of what sense you mean it in (shades of Dembski). If "consciousness" doesn't need a central nervous system, then what are its minimum requirements? Can a bacterium or a virus be conscious? (Given the relatively small difference in complexity between a bacterium and a fertilized egg, I'm thinking you believe a bacterium to be conscious.) Can a rock be conscious? Or does something need to have a "soul" to be conscious? If that's your definition of consciousness, then we're way, way out of the bounds of scientific discourse, and I wouldn't be the first one in this thread to point that out to you. Quote  Lastly, you really have NO idea if a zygote is conscious because you have NO idea when or where consciousness emerges. I certainly don't know what your definition of consciousness is, and neither does anyone else here. But whatever it is, I can tell you that it's utterly irrelevant to the abortion debate, that's for sure. Quote 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. Do you think the fact that I've already answered this question at least twice could possibly persuade you that I do in fact know when I became conscious? And if you still cannot distinguish between something being alive and something being conscious, I'm afraid neither I nor anyone else will be able to enlighten you. Put your money where your mouth is, Thordaddy. Do you believe that everything that's alive is also conscious? Because whether you realize it or not, that's what you're saying. And by your own logic, killing any living thing is just as much murder as having an abortion is. Think about that the next time you sneeze. Quote The line is simply drawn at birth and not conception. No it's not. No one, not the most rabid supporter of abortion rights, will argue that aborting a nine-month-old fetus is not tantamount to murder, under anything but the most extraordinary circumstances. Most abortion rights advocates are uncomfortable with late-term abortions for any reason other than to save the life of the mother, and many are willing to draw the line much earlier than the third trimester for reasons other than saving the life of the mother. Like most anti-abortionists, you're completely distorting the terms of the debate to demonize abortion-rights advocates. In your mind, being the black-and-white thinker you are, the only choices for line drawing are at conception or at birth. I'm assuming that, like our benighted president, you do not "do" nuance. Am I right? -------------- 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. 29 2006,18:59    Thordaddy opines: Quote You beat that strawman up pretty good.  Have I made any mention of souls or supernatural qualities to bolster my debate that my life, your life or anyone's life begins at conception? Well, let us see....you have constantly referred to "undefined" qualities.... You readily admit that life and consciousness are vague and difficult to define properties that humans inherently possess. You fail to realize the point, or maybe you do...and if so, kudos to you sir.... Science cannot, and does not enter into debates of this nature, for a very obvious reason...science does not hold opinions..... Science cannot tell you when life begins, science cannot tell you what conciousness is, and science cannot tell you if the world is designed. It is absolutely hilarious, thw whole reason you follow ID is because you want "science" to recognize your beliefs.... you get mad because science will not recognize your beliefs, because as you have stated several times..."attacking your reasoning for your beliefs is the same thing as attacking your beliefs".. You need to calm down for a moment and realize that science isnt claiming atheism or that abortion is 'good'.... Science, by sheer nature, holds an agnostic view on these issues.... Then again...you think an agnostic=atheist...IDiot The original point, which you do not remember, is that science avoids teaching controversial ideas in school...except evolution... It is wonderful that you have provided us interesting philosophical proofs for pro-life..... but you have completely failed to make your point about science.... Could you please link to some scientific studies on this topic Thordaddy...or at least attempt to get back on topic

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,20:33    ericmurphy opines, Quote After all this time, you still don't get it. When life begins is utterly meaningless in the abortion debate. Whether you think life begins at conception, at birth, at the onset of puberty, at the point your mom's ovaries started producing ova before she was born, or whether it was back at the dawn of time has no relevance whatsoever to the issue. Nor is this a subject that should be taught at school, which was your original point, if you can remember back that far. This is the same kind of stupid argument that the Creationist thinks he wins when he notes that you can't tell him the time and day of the week when the first chimp popped out the first human. The problem here is that humans don't strive towards meaninglessness and so color me unconvinced at the argument that YOUR conception was meaningless.   Why is YOUR conception meaningless?  Is it because you were alive, but not conscious and consciousness is the only important factor?  Is it meaningless because you could derive no meaning at conception?  What exactly makes your conception meaningless? Next you say, Quote I've already explained to you why science will not give you these kinds of answers. You're making my point for me again by pointing out that when humans try to define personhood, terrible things happen. And yet here you are, trying to define personhood! But only you are trying to define it.  You are saying it is not a person at conception worthy of protection from involuntary death.  I am simply stating that when the egg and sperm come together to form a zygote, one is at the beginning of HIS/HER life.  You say NO, this is not so.  This is meaningless.  A zygote means nothing because it is only alive like a sperm or an egg.  Again, this isn't what most people look to science for and if science doesn't want to put anything forward then stay out of the way of those that do.  Remember, it's meaningless anyway. Then you say, Quote God, Thordaddy, you're batting a thousand making my points for me. We don't hunt babies for their meat, and we shouldn't hunt dolphins for their meat either, for exactly the same reason. Ordinarily I'd be surprised you didn't see that one coming from a mile away, but then again you've pretty much telegraphed your political viewpoints anyway. But in the meantime you're stating that "there's no scientific distinction between [a] human infant and a dolphin," a statement that's so dumbfoundingly preposterous the only reason I even bring it up is to point out its preposterousness. For exactly what reason do we not hunt babies like we hunt dolphins?  And please give us the scientific distinction between a conscious infant and a dolphin beside mere physical traits and the nomenclature that goes with it.   I say the distinction is one is human and the other is dolphin and that is all that is required to value one over the other, but you see no value for the human life when it resides inside a mother's womb apparently unconscious. When does life become meaningful to you? Next you say, Quote As I suspected, you're using the term "consciousness" in a completely non-standard way, and then not favoring us with an explanation of what sense you mean it in (shades of Dembski). If "consciousness" doesn't need a central nervous system, then what are its minimum requirements? Can a bacterium or a virus be conscious? (Given the relatively small difference in complexity between a bacterium and a fertilized egg, I'm thinking you believe a bacterium to be conscious.) Can a rock be conscious? Or does something need to have a "soul" to be conscious? If that's your definition of consciousness, then we're way, way out of the bounds of scientific discourse, and I wouldn't be the first one in this thread to point that out to you. There are those with a central nervous system that remain unconcious.  A new born baby seems a prime example.  So a central nervous system alone does not predicate consciousness. consciousness The definition I use is the standard one found in a dictionary.  It can be summed up as self-awareness.  A zygote undoubtedly has all the mechanisms that create the mechanisms for the alleged manifestation of self-awareness.  The mechanisms for consciousness are within the zygote.  Do you disagree?  And if you have no idea when you became conscious and the mere existence of a central nervous system is no guarantee of consciousness then why assume that your consciousness began anywhere other than at your conception?   All you say is that a zygote can't be conscious, but you don't even know where or when consciousness emerges.  You don't see the flaw in that thinking? Then, Quote And if you still cannot distinguish between something being alive and something being conscious, I'm afraid neither I nor anyone else will be able to enlighten you. Put your money where your mouth is, Thordaddy. Do you believe that everything that's alive is also conscious? Because whether you realize it or not, that's what you're saying. And by your own logic, killing any living thing is just as much murder as having an abortion is. Think about that the next time you sneeze. I know that a zygote IS or will become a conscious human being if it doesn't meet an untimely death.  I know this first and foremost because the zygote is alive and life is required for consciousness.   You seem to think consciousness is primary.  It reminds me of those that distort that part of the Constitution that says, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Many believe that the "life" part can be skimmed over as though liberty and happiness can manifest outside of life. How can consciousness be more important than life itself? It's like claiming science to be more important than religion even though religion gave life to science. Lastly you say, [QUOTE]No it's not. No one, not the most rabid supporter of abortion rights, will argue that aborting a nine-month-old fetus is not tantamount to murder, under anything but the most extraordinary circumstances. Most abortion rights advocates are uncomfortable with late-term abortions for any reason other than to save the life of the mother, and many are willing to draw the line much earlier than the third trimester for reasons other than saving the life of the mother. Like most anti-abortionists, you're completely distorting the terms of the debate to demonize abortion-rights advocates. In your mind, being the black-and-white thinker you are, the only choices for line drawing are at conception or at birth. I'm assuming that, like our benighted president, you do not "do" nuance. Am I right?[QUOTE] I don't see any scientific evidence for drawing the line at birth.  I don't see any evidence that a birthed baby is conscious.  So how can you claim it to be "tantamount to murder" to abort what is nothing more than sperm and egg?  Unconscious, but alive!  You must claim consciousness to make this statement, but what evidence is there that the birthing process coincides with consciousness?  The simple existence of a CNS?  Is that the proof?  Have you met any self-aware newborns?  Has you met anyone that was conscious (self-aware) at birth? When does a human life become worthy of not being aborted ericmurphy?  When it gains consciousness?  At conception?  At birth?  Or, should we just leave it up in the air and let the abortions proceed unabated?

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,20:53    Thordaddy....let me ask you an abortion question if you had to choose between the mother definately dying or an abortion...which would you choose any why? Let's see some Kant.....

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,20:54    PuckSR opines, Quote Science cannot tell you when life begins, science cannot tell you what conciousness is, and science cannot tell you if the world is designed. Is this equivalent to saying we can not find these answers or is it simply saying science is not an ample tool to answer these questions? Then you say, Quote It is absolutely hilarious, thw whole reason you follow ID is because you want "science" to recognize your beliefs.... you get mad because science will not recognize your beliefs, because as you have stated several times..."attacking your reasoning for your beliefs is the same thing as attacking your beliefs".. LOL!  Is this based on verifiable empirical evidence or is this just your subjective opinion that requires instant disregard?  Mad?  I joined this forum for fun and I'm having a great time.  I only joined this debate about 2 months ago and had little or no knowledge of anything substantial concerning ID or evolution.  I haven't been in a church in 17 years other than a few marriage ceremonies.  I couldn't quote one passge out of the Bible and I say that with no braggadocios.   You're not attacking my beliefs.  You're are displaying your own. Quote You need to calm down for a moment and realize that science isnt claiming atheism or that abortion is 'good'.... Science, by sheer nature, holds an agnostic view on these issues.... Then again...you think an agnostic=atheist...IDiot The original point, which you do not remember, is that science avoids teaching controversial ideas in school...except evolution... This is too good.  Ideal science is value-free, but we don't have ideal science.  We have value-laden science.  We have science that teaches controversial subjects it wishes to propagate and science that plays coy when its findings butt up against political ideology.  Gosh... that's just what you said. Quote It is wonderful that you have provided us interesting philosophical proofs for pro-life..... but you have completely failed to make your point about science.... Could you please link to some scientific studies on this topic Thordaddy...or at least attempt to get back on topic I don't see the philosophical argument for claiming YOUR life began at conception.  What is this argument, exactly?

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,20:55    Thordaddy: Quote Or, should we just leave it up in the air and let the abortions proceed unabated? This is a science blog. Science cannot answer questions about social issues. Whilst many, especially women, may wish to discuss this important question, this thread is not the place. I suggest you start a new thread at least or, more appropriately take it to a forum specifically intended to discuss these social issues. I won't make any further comment in this thread on the subject, and suggest others don't.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,20:59    PuckSR opines, Quote Thordaddy....let me ask you an abortion question if you had to choose between the mother definately dying or an abortion...which would you choose any why? Let's see some Kant..... My stance is very simple.  An innocent human being is not morally obligated to die in order to save another innocent human being even if it is one's child.  If a mother chose to die so that her child could live, I would consider that mother to be amongst the most noblest of people.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,21:02    Alan Fox, Got sociology?

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,22:59    Quote Faid opines, (I got a real kick out of this one) Glad I could provide some mirth for you, thor, since trying to provide some lessons in common sence bounces on the brick wall of your stubborness. Quote When one starts like this can anything after be taken serious? You tell me. Your comment is: Quote So life doesn't begin at the beginning and life comes from life except when it came from non-life?  LOL!! You're easily manipulative, aren't you? I knew you were going to make that derailment (and since I've said it now it's deliberate, not due to your stupidity) but I wanted to show the intentional dishonesty in your arguing. You jumped at the bait, proving my point. Thanks. So, let's take this from the top: "Life doesn't begin at the beginning" is totally inane, and it's your words, not mine. "Life comes from life" is a principle valid when observing living organisms today. Do you deny it? Are you a spontaneous generation proponent? A possible exception to that is provided with the theory of abiogenesis, that claims that the enviroment of early Earth permitted the creation of life. Besides that, from organisms to the cellular level, nothing living comes from something that wasn't alive to begin with. Plain enough for you now? Quote Oh wait... actually conception is the setting of the "foundations" of what will "eventually be an independent organism."   As you state above, "[l]ife (as in living organism) does NOT begin at conception."  Conception just sets the foundations for LIFE! Oh boy. Here we go again... So, in your mind, life=emergence of a potentially independent organism? Sorry, but no dice. ALL the cells in your body are alive, thor, whether you like it or not. Even outside your body they'll remain alive for as long as they can be sustained. You need to do some serious studying on what life is. Quote Wow, what a profound insight.  The question for science is when does it become a human being.  You say it's not at conception even though you readily admit this event to be the foundational setting for LIFE.  (sigh) No I don't, thor. Read what I said above. Once again: I am sorry but, speaking scientifically, there's not much evidence of the zygote being "human": Quote You beat that strawman up pretty good.  Have I made any mention of souls or supernatural qualities to bolster my debate that my life, your life or anyone's life begins at conception? Of course you didn't- you're not that stupid. But I'd really like to know what exactly is this quality a zygote has, that provides all the characteristics that make a human human (conciousnes, self-awareness, emotions, intelligence etc) without requiring a central nervous system, glands or any organ and specified tisue whatsoever. And where it's located. And if it can be traced. I have a feeling this "strawman" is gonna get a good beating too... Quote But the last one's the kicker!  You're right, science has found many zygotes within the women's womb that turned out to be nonhuman. Excuse me? do you think a zygote contains a tiny homunculus inside, all cuddled up? You are so 14th centrury, thor. I'm sure you know this already and are just trying to avoid it, but being something is much different than becoming something eventually. Would you try to walk over a bridge that wasn't built yet? Quote Intelligence is not distinguishable between a birthed baby and an adult dolphin.  There is little to no trace of intelligence or consciousness in a newborn baby and no child teenager or adult has ever claim self-awareness at birth. There are plenty of traces of conciousness in a newborn baby, thor. You are a father, right? And, once again, self-awareness/=memory; We've been through that. Do try to keep up.   Quote You need other criteria to define human life. Please provide some. Other than intelligence, self awareness, capability of thought process and emotional responce- all the things our CNT and hormones are responsible for. (I can feel that strawman coming) Quote If no one tries to prove the zygote to be conscious then how on earth can they claim it to be unconscious with any scientific validity? By determining the features responsible for conciousness in humans, and seeing no trace of their existence  in the bunch of cells that is the early-stage embryo. Do you know of any other (scientific) way? (right this way, little "strawman"...) Quote I love it when the scientist proclaims the objectivity of science while interjecting his subjective values throughout his defense. Than you get a glimpse of how people see you all the time, thor. Quote If you are disputing the statistical fact that homosexuals in America are a disproportionate carrier of the AIDS disease then please do.  It doesn't change the fact.  If living the homosexual lifestyle puts one at a unquestionably high risk for contracting AIDS, should a public school system teach of the normalcy of homosexuality? Now who's "interjecting his subjective values"? The subject you wish to have taught in schools (abnormality of homosexuality) does in NO way derive from the statistical fact you mentioned (homosexuals being a high risk group). Anyone can see that, even people from those "lower IQ" races you seem to think exist. Yes, homosexuals are a high-risk group for contracting AIDS. So are heterosexuals with multiple partners. and surgeons. and nurses. And those that work at rehab clinics. Should we teach that surgeons are freaks of nature, because they have a higher chance of getting AIDS than other people? No. We should teach how AIDS is transmitted, and what we must do to prevent it. Should we teach that gays are an abomination that can give you AIDS because they're, you know, gay? Only in the Sunday School of Fundie Bigots. And in your mind. Quote A guy argues for the primacy of science and then makes a false assertion backed by no empirical evidence.  Too funny.   And that last one made my day. Trolldaddy accusing someone else for absense of empirical evidence!             Keep it up lil'champ, you might learn something eventually. ...probably not. -------------- 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."

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,00:31    Faid opines, Quote You're easily manipulative, aren't you? I knew you were going to make that derailment (and since I've said it now it's deliberate, not due to your stupidity) but I wanted to show the intentional dishonesty in your arguing. You jumped at the bait, proving my point. Thanks. So, let's take this from the top: "Life doesn't begin at the beginning" is totally inane, and it's your words, not mine. "Life comes from life" is a principle valid when observing living organisms today. Do you deny it? Are you a spontaneous generation proponent? A possible exception to that is provided with the theory of abiogenesis, that claims that the enviroment of early Earth permitted the creation of life. Besides that, from organisms to the cellular level, nothing living comes from something that wasn't alive to begin with. Plain enough for you now? Here is what you stated before, Quote 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). So when I said that you said "life does not begin at the beginning," in what way is this different from you stating,"[l]ife (as in a living organism) does NOT begin at conception?" And when I said that you said, "life comes from life except when it came from non-life," how is this different from you stating that "life comes from life" with the possible "exception" provided by the "theory of abiogenesis?" You don't know where to go.  It seems to me that life came from life and my life began at conception. Then you say, Quote Oh boy. Here we go again... So, in your mind, life=emergence of a potentially independent organism? Sorry, but no dice. ALL the cells in your body are alive, thor, whether you like it or not. Even outside your body they'll remain alive for as long as they can be sustained. You need to do some serious studying on what life is. Actually, my conception equals the emergence of a independent organism.  Do you disagree?  And please inform me of an emerging nonliving entity.  So only those things that are "alive" even have the potential to "emerge" (I assume you mean "emerge" to becoming self-aware).   Now we can argue about which things that are "alive" that can actually "emerge," but there is no argument that you and I have "emerged" from our conception (beginning).  If you disagree and none of your individual living cells can "emerge" independently, when did you "emerge?" Next you say, Quote (sigh) No I don't, thor. Read what I said above. Once again: I am sorry but, speaking scientifically, there's not much evidence of the zygote being "human": What's the evidence that it's not human?  I'll be intently waiting for this.  Both of us were zygotes and now we are humans.  Are you aware of nonhuman to human transformations?   Then, Quote Of course you didn't- you're not that stupid. But I'd really like to know what exactly is this quality a zygote has, that provides all the characteristics that make a human human (conciousnes, self-awareness, emotions, intelligence etc) without requiring a central nervous system, glands or any organ and specified tisue whatsoever. And where it's located. And if it can be traced. I have a feeling this "strawman" is gonna get a good beating too... The primary quality of a human zygote is that it represents the conception of a human being.  All those things you've listed that make a "human human" are meaningless without conception.  You're taking secondary traits (consciousness, intelligence, emotions) and claiming primacy while taking the primary trait (life) and making it secondary. A new born baby displays none of the traits you claim makes a "human human" and yet you wouldn't dare say a newborn wasn't human, would you?  You're only refuge is the existence of the alleged mechanisms for consciousness.  Yet, the mechanisms that created the mechanisms (CNS) had to be included somewhere within the zygote, no? Next you say, Quote Excuse me? do you think a zygote contains a tiny homunculus inside, all cuddled up? You are so 14th centrury, thor. I'm sure you know this already and are just trying to avoid it, but being something is much different than becoming something eventually. Would you try to walk over a bridge that wasn't built yet? I think the zygote contains all the information needed to proceed through the human life cycle including that information required for consciousness.  I don't think current science allows it to be any other way. "Being something" may be different than "becoming something," but if that "becoming something" is ENTIRELY DEPENDANT on "being something" first then I would say that "being something" is very important indeed. Next you say, Quote There are plenty of traces of conciousness in a newborn baby, thor. You are a father, right? And, once again, self-awareness/=memory; We've been through that. Do try to keep up. Yes, I am a father and would love to read about these "traces" of consciousness in newborns.  Hopefully, these "traces" will include small children that haven't forgot their moment of self-awareness. Next, Quote Please provide some. Other than intelligence, self awareness, capability of thought process and emotional responce- all the things our CNT and hormones are responsible for. (I can feel that strawman coming) How about a human zygote for starters? Quote By determining the features responsible for conciousness in humans, and seeing no trace of their existance  in the bunch of cells that is the early-stage embryo. Do you know of any other (scientific) way? (right this way, little "strawman"...) You must concede that the "features responsible for consciousness" were at least existing in a more fundamental and unrecognizable form within YOUR zygote.  The question then becomes whether these fundamental "features" provided a less recognizable degree of consciousness.  It seems reasonable to me that one's degree of consciousness develops over time at least within the early stages of develop following conception.  You as a newborn may have been more conscious than when you were a zygote, but you are definitely more conscious now than you were as a newborn. In fact, you are claiming a self-awareness (at or around either birth or a developed CNS) and then a loss of that self-awareness only to reclaim a self-awareness that you don't recall.  Whoa! When add to this that YOUR conception WAS REQUIRED for YOUR consciousness and you have no evidence of when YOUR consciousness began then it seems silly to assume that it began anywhere other than at conception. Lastly you say, Quote Now who's "interjecting his subjective values"? The subject you wish to have taught in schools (abnormality of homosexuality) does in NO way derive from the statistical fact you mentioned (homosexuals being a high risk group). Anyone can see that, even people from those "lower IQ" races you seem to think exist. Yes, homosexuals are a high-risk group for contracting AIDS. So are heterosexuals with multiple partners. and surgeons. and nurses. And those that work at rehab clinics. Should we teach that surgeons are freaks of nature, because they have a higher chance of getting AIDS than other people? No. We should teach how AIDS is transmitted, and what we must do to prevent it. Should we teach that gays are an abomination that can give you AIDS because they're, you know, gay? Only in the Sunday School of Fundie Bigots. And in your mind. I've said nothing of the wrong or rightness of homosexuality.  Science regularly determines normalcy and abnormality.  In fact, homosexuality was once consider abnormal by the AMA.  What scientific findings have allowed the AMA to change this designation? Homosexuality should be taught in it full scope like all other topics of importance.  That means the good, bad and ugly.  I'm simply astonished to hear these supposed rebuttals to the easily observable fact that practicing homosexuals present a very grave public health hazard that doesn't simply reside with AIDS, but all STDs. When you say we should teach how to "prevent it," in what way does this jive with teaching the normalcy of homosexuality?  All we should teach is that homosexuality is an abnormal (not normal) lifestyle that presents incredible risks to those that practice it including diminished life expectancy and death. Why are we teaching this statistically dangerous and deadly lifestyle to younger and younger children under the guise of a normal alternative lifestyle?

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,03:27    Thor, I'll be brief in my response because frankly, I think you already understand what I say pretty well, you're just trying to dodge and evade questions you know you can't answer. Quote So when I said that you said "life does not begin at the beginning," in what way is this different from you stating,"life (as in a living organism) does NOT begin at conception?" Because conception does not mark the beginning of life. The sperm and ovum were alive in the first place. Period. Quote And when I said that you said, "life comes from life except when it came from non-life," how is this different from you stating that "life comes from life" with the possible "exception" provided by the "theory of abiogenesis?" If that is what you meant, then you must explain why you thought it was a contradiction. Because abiogenesis describes the events that led to life on earth in the distant past. It has all to do with when life begun, but nothing to do with birth of an organism. Once again: Life does not begin at conception. It was there before that. Quote Actually, my conception equals the emergence of a independent organism.  Do you disagree? Of course I disagree. The zygote is not already independent, silly. It is unable to sustain itself and grow outside the womb, and won't be for the next six to seven months at least, when it's barely able to survive being born. However, nobody argues that ability for independent survival is what makes a fetus human; I'm just trying to explain to you what happens at conception.  But this has nothing to do with whether it's human or not. Quote And please inform me of an emerging nonliving entity. Huh? What on earth are you talking about? It's you that says there was no life before conception, not me.   Quote So only those things that are "alive" even have the potential to "emerge" (I assume you mean "emerge" to becoming self-aware). You assume wrong. I mean to become a new fully formed individual of the species. Self-awareness, when we're talking about humans, is a good part of that, but not all. And I hope you finally understand that, yes, only a living thing might have the potential to become a new organism, but that doesn't mean that everything that does not have that potential is not  alive. Well, a man can hope, right? Quote Now we can argue about which things that are "alive" that can actually "emerge," but there is no argument that you and I have "emerged" from our conception (beginning).  If you disagree and none of your individual living cells can "emerge" independently, when did you "emerge?" Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. Quote What's the evidence that it's not human?  I'll be intently waiting for this.  Both of us were zygotes and now we are humans. It has no brain, no heart, no blood, no glands or secretory or circulatory system whatsoever, it lacks any kind of specified tissue that we have as organisms for the first week, and the first traces of a CNS take many weeks to develop. It simply does not possess the means by which it might produce any of the traits attributed to humans. Now, I'm eagerly waiting for your evidence that it is human -although something tells me I need to get a seat.   Quote Are you aware of nonhuman to human transformations? Yes, pregnancy. Your point?   Quote The primary quality of a human zygote is that it represents the conception of a human being.  All those things you've listed that make a "human human" are meaningless without conception.  You're taking secondary traits (consciousness, intelligence, emotions) and claiming primacy while taking the primary trait (life) and making it secondary. Aaand here we go again... Nobody's making the concept of life "secondary". We just say it was there in the first place. If you yourself valued life in general above human life, you'd be in serious trouble: You wouldn't be able to eat anything. Like I said, if you know of another way of distinguishing humans from other life forms other than those I mentioned, feel free to share them. Quote A new born baby displays none of the traits you claim makes a "human human" and yet you wouldn't dare say a newborn wasn't human, would you? Yes it does display them, thor. If you are sincere and have actually kept a newborn in your arms, you just know this is true. The newborn displays emotions, shows curiosity and interacts actively with his enviroment. but the important thing is that, even if it didn't display them for some reason, it already posesses the means to display them. Quote You're only refuge is the existence of the alleged mechanisms for consciousness.  Yet, the mechanisms that created the mechanisms (CNS) had to be included somewhere within the zygote, no? Mechanisms of mechanisms... interesting. I wonder what else you'll think off. Of course the genetic information for creating a human brain is inside the zygote- but that does not mean it is also expressed there, and the zygote already posesses the equivalent of a brain! Tell me, is it safe to walk across a bridge that's not built yet, because the blueprint is already printed? Quote I think the zygote contains all the information needed to proceed through the human life cycle including that information required for consciousness.  I don't think current science allows it to be any other way. So? See my previous response. Oh, and that information came 50% from the sperm, and 50% from the ovum. Why do you attribute 0% importance to both? Unless you think that "something" happened when they merged, making the sum way, way, way more important than the parts... Hmm. Quote "Being something" may be different than "becoming something," but if that "becoming something" is ENTIRELY DEPENDANT on "being something" first then I would say that "being something" is very important indeed. Important? Yes. We wouldn't have a bridge without a blueprint first. Same thing? Heck no. Quote Yes, I am a father and would love to read about these "traces" of consciousness in newborns.  Hopefully, these "traces" will include small children that haven't forgot their moment of self-awareness. See above. Aaaand don't think I'll get tired of "reminding" you: Self-awareness/=memory. Quote How about a human zygote for starters? Um, no. Sorry. Again, see above. Or rather, see below: Quote You must concede that the "features responsible for consciousness" were at least existing in a more fundamental and unrecognizable form within YOUR zygote.  The question then becomes whether these fundamental "features" provided a less recognizable degree of consciousness.  It seems reasonable to me that one's degree of consciousness develops over time at least within the early stages of develop following conception.  You as a newborn may have been more conscious than when you were a zygote, but you are definitely more conscious now than you were as a newborn. 1) This "fundamental and unrecognizable form" is very well known; it's called genome. Gee thor, I wonder what else you might have been thinking of... 2) A gene provides no degree of its trait unless at the time it's expressed. Our brain does not exist in some platonic world of information archetypes, before being developed when the genes responsible start being expressed; it does not exist at all. Sorry to ruin your illusions. Quote In fact, you are claiming a self-awareness (at or around either birth or a developed CNS) and then a loss of that self-awareness only to reclaim a self-awareness that you don't recall.  Whoa! What? I claim no such thing. Please elaborate. Oh, and of course: Self-awareness/=memory. Quote When add to this that YOUR conception WAS REQUIRED for YOUR consciousness and you have no evidence of when YOUR consciousness began then it seems silly to assume that it began anywhere other than at conception. Well, I suppose that, since my conception was necessary for me to learn how to drive, I could already shift gear like a pro at the time, and do some amazing drifts round the fallopeian tubes. If only I had limbs, and a tiny Subaru Impreza... Quote I've said nothing of the wrong or rightness of homosexuality.  Science regularly determines normalcy and abnormality.  In fact, homosexuality was once consider abnormal by the AMA.  What scientific findings have allowed the AMA to change this designation? Moving the goalposts, are we? What does that have to do with your AIDS example? Quote Homosexuality should be taught in it full scope like all other topics of importance.  That means the good, bad and ugly.  I'm simply astonished to hear these supposed rebuttals to the easily observable fact that practicing homosexuals present a very grave public health hazard that doesn't simply reside with AIDS, but all STDs. And that is why what should be taught is how AIDS and all STDs are transmitted, and in what way one should stay safe, regardless of being a homosexual, a doctor or a regular teenager that bangs anything that moves. Do you know how AIDS is transmitted, thordaddy? Do you know the reason that makes homosexuals a high-risk group, and doctors another? Or do you think it's something impure in the homo blood that attracts it? Maybe you should look into this matter with a clear head.   Quote When you say we should teach how to "prevent it," in what way does this jive with teaching the normalcy of homosexuality?  All we should teach is that homosexuality is an abnormal (not normal) lifestyle that presents incredible risks to those that practice it including diminished life expectancy and death. We do not, because it does not. It is not homosexuality that is responcible for the incredible risk: it's the lack of safety measures. Once again: Are surgeons freaks, because they are also a high-risk group? Quote Why are we teaching this statistically dangerous and deadly lifestyle to younger and younger children under the guise of a normal alternative lifestyle? Please define what this "deadly lifestyle" is, and how science is teaching it. It's not up to science to say which lifestyle is or is not "normal". Science can only say how we can protect ourselves from STD's whether we are homosexual, heterosexual, drug addicts or medical personnel- the methods are pretty much the same, and the results equally adequate for gays and family men alike. Now, is there any more bigotry you'd like to share with us? Oh and about that other forgotten "example" of yours- you know that science denies that "races" even exist, right? PS. Did I say "brief"? Whoops. -------------- 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."

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,04:40    Quote Why are we teaching this statistically dangerous and deadly lifestyle to younger and younger children under the guise of a normal alternative lifestyle? Now, much as I suspect Thordaddy is an unhinged wing-nut, I can imagine a high-school curriculum that fails to communicate the dangers of unsafe behaviors. Never ran across one myself, but I can imagine such a thing. So, Thordaddy: can you give us any (and I'm sorry to sound like a broken record here) specific examples of what you're talking about? -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,05:40    Thordaddy opines: Quote My stance is very simple.  An innocent human being is not morally obligated to die in order to save another innocent human being even if it is one's child.  If a mother chose to die so that her child could live, I would consider that mother to be amongst the most noblest of people. You would kill a baby....how sick can you possibly be..... You would let a mother die...thats just morally outrageous.... How evil can one person be? get the point Quote Is this equivalent to saying we can not find these answers or is it simply saying science is not an ample tool to answer these questions? No...science is capable of finding answers to questions....the problem is that we have yet to define words such as "life" and "consciousness" when you can tell us exactly what those two words mean...in other words...give us definitive qualities for each of those terms...Im sure we can answer your question Quote This is too good.  Ideal science is value-free, but we don't have ideal science.  We have value-laden science.  We have science that teaches controversial subjects it wishes to propagate and science that plays coy when its findings butt up against political ideology. Really?  Then please give us some examples. I already explained to you that your ideas on AIDS and different IQs among races are not examples of science.... What controversial subjects does science teach? Controversial to who? Why are they controversial? Quote I don't see the philosophical argument for claiming YOUR life began at conception.  What is this argument, exactly? EVERY ARGUMENT YOU MADE FOR LIFE BEGINNING AT CONCEPTION WAS EITHER ARGUED PHILOSOPHICALLY OR JUST SIMPLY FROM A MISUNDERSTANDING OF DEFINITIONS

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,06:09    The whole subject of when a fetus becomes a human is at present unanswerable by science. Right now we are relying on a legal/ethical decision. Thordaddy loves this. He can opinionate away, dance around definitions and generally lay-down a smokescreen. He is a complete waste of peoples time. His ignorance has been amply displayed and you will give yourselves a headache trying to reason with him. Lots of you have made some very good points. Clear and easy to understand. Thordaddy has ignored every single one.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,06:13    [quote=thordaddy,Mar. 30 2006,02:33][/quote] A few more times and then I'm done with this. It's like banging my head against the wall. Will you stop misquoting me? No one is saying conception is "meaningless." What I've said over and over again is that the question of when life "begins" is meaningless in the context of the abortion debate. Start hearing what I'm saying, not what you think I'm saying. Quote But only you are trying to define it. You're the one trying to define a zygote as a conscious person deserving the same protection as a two-year-old child. I'm telling you that you cannot define personhood that way. Quote I know this first and foremost because the zygote is alive and life is required for consciousness. These are the kind of statement you make that make me realize how hopeless you are. You evidently think that because life is a requirement for consciousness, the fact that a zygote is alive must mean it's conscious. It really is pointless having a discussion with someone so logically challenged. Quote How can consciousness be more important than life itself? Just out of curiosity, Thordaddy: are you a vegetarian? Or a vegan? Because if not, you clearly value consciousness more than life. Do I need to explain why, or can you figure it out yourself? Quote I don't see any scientific evidence for drawing the line at birth. Clearly you're not even reading what I'm writing. Communication with you seems to be a one-way street. In which case, I don't think I'm going to bother with you anymore. Quote I don't see any evidence that a birthed baby is conscious. Hey, check this out! Thordaddy thinks a zygote is conscious, but he doesn't think a new-born is! Wow. That's certainly a new take on the science of consciousness… Quote At conception?  At birth?  Or, should we just leave it up in the air and let the abortions proceed unabated? Further evidence that Thordaddy is incapable of reading English. -------------- 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

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,06:20    Quote Hey, check this out! Thordaddy thinks a zygote is conscious, but he doesn't think a new-born is! Wow. That's certainly a new take on the science of consciousness… I'm not too surprised. Generally the religious right loses all interest in children the second they're born. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,06:31    ericmurphy, Some very good points. But this one has me scratching my head. Quote Thordaddy, How can consciousness be more important than life itself? Quote ericmurphy, Just out of curiosity, Thordaddy: are you a vegetarian? Or a vegan? Because if not, you clearly value consciousness more than life. Do I need to explain why, or can you figure it out yourself? Should that not read you don't value consciousness more than life?

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,06:41    Did Thordaddy ever take the test Wesley suggested earlier? Suppose you're in a fertility clinic when a fire breaks out. You've got seconds to decide: do you rescue the two-month old baby or the petri dish containing 5 blastulas? I'm not going to allow for the easy out that Wesley suggested, though: the fact that the blastulas are not likely to survive the rescue. I'm going to change the petri dish with 5 blastulas to a thermos containing 100 frozen embryos. All you have to do is get the thermos to a reliable source of liquid nitrogen and you've rescued 100 humans. Or, just the one.  Your choice. While I'm here, though, Stephen Elliott wrote: Quote The whole subject of when a fetus becomes a human is at present unanswerable by science. This reminds me of one of the reasons Ronald Reagan - the patron saint of American wing-nuts - gave for his opposition to abortion rights. He said something like "science can't yet say for sure, so the moral thing to do is err on the side of caution". But, of course, science never will answer that question. As has been pointed out here repeatedly, it's not a science question. It's a legal one. Clearly, a civilized society is going to draw some, necessarily arbitrary, lines around what is and is not a person. Nowadays, infanticide is universally beyond the pale. In earlier times, not so much. Is that because we've "learned" so much more about how human an infant is? Guess again. (By the way, I'm not trying to pick a fight with Stephen Elliott. I assume that was a slip of the keyboard, and not a restatement of the Reagan canard.) -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,06:46    Wow.... So apparently Thordaddy is a neo-con religious fundie? He may be obtuse He may be purposefully being confusing he may be manipulative But as long as he claims agnosticism on religion...Im going to avoid attaching any religious claims to him. I tried this, and he vehemently denied religious beliefs... BTW Arden... That comment about the religious-right was completely unwarranted

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,07:37    Russell, It was not a slip of the keyboard. Maybe it was a bad choice of word. My point is that neither a sperm or egg is a human. Nor do they become one at the point of conception. I will admit that I uncomfortable at the thought of abortion from 6 months on (aproximately), unless for medical neccesity. I believe that a "baby" becomes conscious before birth. But definately not at conception. Personally, I reckon abortion should be the pregnant womans choice till about 6 months. In the end, I am Damned if I know. Not exactly a black/white decision.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,07:53    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 30 2006,12:31) ericmurphy, Some very good points. But this one has me scratching my head. Quote Thordaddy, How can consciousness be more important than life itself? Quote ericmurphy, Just out of curiosity, Thordaddy: are you a vegetarian? Or a vegan? Because if not, you clearly value consciousness more than life. Do I need to explain why, or can you figure it out yourself? Should that not read you don't value consciousness more than life? No, I think I had it right. The point I was making is that, if you believe that "life" is what's important here, as opposed to "consciousness," then you must believe that taking of any life is wrong, not just life which is imbued with consciousness (which would make you some sort of radical uber-buddhist). If that's the case, even being a vegan is going to be a bit hypocritical. As my brother used to say, "I don't eat anything that casts a shadow." -------------- 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

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,08:00    So not being a vegeterian means you value consciousnes more than life? Surely a vegetarian/vegan values consciousness more than life. They only eat foods that never where conscious. But all foods are/where alive. Omnivors (like myself) eat almost anything. Maybe this is a missunderstanding due to too many negatives in the original post?

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,08:25    One more thing to chew on, Thordaddy: A significant fraction of fertilized ova don't result in a child, or even pregancy, due to numerous factors—failure to implant, failure of the developmental process to proceed normally, spontaneous abortion, etc. Now. You believe that a fertilized egg is a human being, with all the same rights, privileges, legal protections, etc. as any other human being, right? Well, if a fertilized eggs fails to implant properly, how should the authorities, legal and medical, deal with this eventuality (which again is extremely common)? Should a coroner issue a report, perhaps listing the cause of death as misadventure? Should there be an inquest? Maybe an investigation into possible malfeasance? Perhaps a funeral should be held? (Before you answer, keep in mind that in probably seven cases out of ten, no one, including the mother, even knows that there is a fertilized egg.) What do we do with the couple that's trying desperately to get preganant, ends up with a dozen fertilized eggs after a hundred attempts, none of which results in a preganancy? If they have reason to believe that most of their attempts are not going to lead to an actual pregancy, are they guilty of negligent homicide? Am I beginning maybe to make myself clear that life is not as black and white as you would have us believe? Doubtful. -------------- 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

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,08:50    Quote BTW Arden... That comment about the religious-right was completely unwarranted Perhaps you're right. They also seem to take a keen interest in what they're allowed to hear in school. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,10:11    Quote In the end, I am Damned if I know. Not exactly a black/white decision. My point, exactly. And no amount of science is going to change that. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,10:17    Quote As my brother used to say, "I don't eat anything that casts a shadow." A very effective weight-loss program, anyway. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,11:57    Quote (Russell @ Mar. 30 2006,16:17) Quote As my brother used to say, "I don't eat anything that casts a shadow." A very effective weight-loss program, anyway. That really did make me laugh out loud. Lucky I had swallowed my drink or I would still be cleaning it off my monitor.

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