RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Is Defining Human Life Within the Realm of Science< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,18:22   

I have been told repeatedly that science has no role in defining human life as it pertains to the abortion phenomenon.

Is this really the case?  This seems preposterous on its face.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,19:03   

Well....you apparently missed the whole conversation Thor.

What exactly do you want science to define as life?
Things living?
Ok....so when do humans start living?
Well they come from life(sperm and ovum)...so does human life start when life becomes human(ceases not being human) or when non-living things create living things?

What makes life human?

Does human life start when a living independent organism exists with human DNA?

When you say independent...do you mean self-sustaining or do you mean single-celled?

So...answer these questions...and only these questions...and i will help you out

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,19:05   

PuckSR,

You must first answer whether defining human life is within the realm of science.  Yes or no?

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,19:13   

two part question?

is defining life within the realm of science?  Possibly
is defining human within the realm of science? possibly

it really depends on how you are defining science...
Scinece analyzes empirical data.  We have empirical data for life, we have empirical data for humans...

So I imagine it is within the realm of science to define life and define human.

However you said
Quote
I have been told repeatedly that science has no role in defining human life as it pertains to the abortion phenomenon.


Which would seem to be asking if it is within the realm of science to define when life becomes human life.....in which case...I believe it is within the realm of philosophy.  Your asking science to assign a title to your "point of the start of human life"....

This is much like getting into a debate over when does a hand become a flipper.  Science can define a flipper, and it can define a hand....but it cannot tell you when a hand becomes a flipper, nor does it imply that a hand cannot be a flipper.  

Science has a difficult time with assigning particular definition.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,19:23   

PuckSR,

Then how can science call evolution a "fact?"

By saying that science has no say when "life becomes human life" then this must necessarily be held for ALL forms of life.  Then what is biology?  The supposed study of life?

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,19:29   

Quote
By saying that science has no say when "life becomes human life" then this must necessarily be held for ALL forms of life.  Then what is biology?  The supposed study of life?


Absolutely...but i think your confusing biology with taxonomy

You can study life without being able to define when life becomes a human.

When we look at early hominids....it becomes apparent rather quickly that its a tricky subject. Humans came from apes...but you cannot tell me where the ape ends and the human begins...and perhaps that is best...since we are still an ape(maybe)

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,19:43   

PuckSR,

If you can study life without knowing when it becomes human life then how do we know we are human life?

Oh, I see you said,

Quote
...and perhaps that is best...since we are still an ape(maybe)


Is this the "truth" of science?  Ambiguity?  This is another prejudice duly discarded.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,19:47   

LOL

you still didnt tell me when that boat becomes a new boat....

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,20:46   

PuckSR asks,

Quote
you still didnt tell me when that boat becomes a new boat....


According to your stance, never.  There is nothing to define it.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,06:08   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 06 2006,00<!--emo&:0)
PuckSR,

You must first answer whether defining human life is within the realm of science.  Yes or no?

As usual, Thordaddy, you're asking the wrong question. Can science define human life? Sure, as we've pointed out a million times already.

The question you should be asking is, "Can science define human life for me in a way I will find acceptable?"

The answer to that question is definitely no.

--------------
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: April 06 2006,06:12   

Good grief.

How many anti-abortion threads does Thordaddy want?

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,09:11   

The real question here is one of the validity of absolutism.

The naive human intuition insists that every object, every concept, must be an example of a specific "kind" of thing, must, in short, be amenable to definition.

That the universe doesn't care about our intuitions is a tough pill to swallow for those with an anti-scientific worldview.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,09:13   

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ April 06 2006,14:11)
The real question here is one of the validity of absolutism.

If there's one thing Thordaddy has made absolutely clear through all his posts, it's this: he simply cannot abide ambiguity.

Unfortunately for him, most of the universe is pretty ambiguous.

--------------
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: April 06 2006,11:37   

When will that boat become a new boat?

Quote
According to your stance, never.  There is nothing to define it.


Au contraire....

I already told you...it is a new boat when all of the parts are replaced, it is an old boat when none of the parts are replaced.  It becomes a new boat sometime between no new parts and all new parts....

C.J. O'Brien already gave you a very good explanation of your problems answering this question when you are dealing in absolutes.

I am telling you that there is no "point" where it becomes a new boat....only a "section of points".  You, however, realize the nature of this question and refuse to provide any answer...if you ever answer this question truthfully, you will already have your answer for the scientific view of abortion.

Let me propose another question...perhaps this one will get an answer?
What is your definition for life?(Your personal definition)

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,17:53   

PuckSR opines,

Quote
Au contraire....

I already told you...it is a new boat when all of the parts are replaced, it is an old boat when none of the parts are replaced.  It becomes a new boat sometime between no new parts and all new parts....


You gave to different answers for when it became a "new boat."  I've highlighted above.

Quote
C.J. O'Brien already gave you a very good explanation of your problems answering this question when you are dealing in absolutes.


But who are you..., undefinable entity that calls itself PuckSR?

How can you define anything when you remain undefined?  Only an intelligent human being can understand this conversation.

Quote
I am telling you that there is no "point" where it becomes a new boat....only a "section of points".  You, however, realize the nature of this question and refuse to provide any answer...if you ever answer this question truthfully, you will already have your answer for the scientific view of abortion.


The new boat becomes a new boat whenever someone decides it's a new boat?  This is your stance?  Forgive me if I don't see something very wrong with this ambiguity when it comes to "new human life."  And since science has reveled in this ambiguity, are we to leave it alone and stop requesting more advanced and rigorous science?

Quote
Let me propose another question...perhaps this one will get an answer?
What is your definition for life?(Your personal definition)


ME!  And I started at conception.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,18:54   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 06 2006,22:53)
PuckSR opines,

Quote
Au contraire....

I already told you...it is a new boat when all of the parts are replaced, it is an old boat when none of the parts are replaced.  It becomes a new boat sometime between no new parts and all new parts....


You gave to different answers for when it became a "new boat."  I've highlighted above.

No. Two different answers were not given. Once again you refuse to read what was written.

Try again!

It is the old boat before any parts are replaced.
It is a new boat when all parts are replaced.
It becomes the new boat somewhere in the process, but there is no exact point when that happens.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,04:09   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 06 2006,22:53)
Quote
Let me propose another question...perhaps this one will get an answer?
What is your definition for life?(Your personal definition)


ME!  And I started at conception.

Well, there we go. Life is defined as thordaddy, who began at conception.

By extension, it must therefore be completely moral and ethical to abort any other fetus at any time. It isn't thordaddy, so it's not life.

Similarly, there's nothing immoral about terminating the existence of babies, kids, or adults, as long as they aren't thordaddy. (I almost said there's nothing immoral about killing, but obviously that term doesn't apply to anything but thordaddy.)

That clears things up enormously. Plus, think of all the cash we can save after we reduce the police force, medical system, armed forces, etc. We only need enough to guard the human rights of thordaddy, right?

In case you miss the point of this sarcasm, thordaddy, (and judging from your posts, it wouldn't surprise me), it's really contemptible for you to bitch and whine that someone else's definition isn't acceptable to you, but refuse to give an honest definition of your own.

Grow up already.

(Also, look up the definitions of the verbs is and become. They don't mean the same thing. Once you figure that out, maybe you'll understand Stephen Elliott's analogy.)

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,06:05   

Quote
I have been told repeatedly that science has no role in defining human life as it pertains to the abortion phenomenon.

Never gets tired of the same lies, does he. He has been told endlessly that the legal declaration of a legal person with specific legal rights is not a scientific question. So far, thordaddy has seen the word "legal" about a hundred times, and has simply excised it every time he repeats the same misdirected question.

Perhaps others are muddying the waters here? Abortion is a LEGAL ISSUE. It has nothing to do with science. Nothing.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,06:48   

Quote (Flint @ April 07 2006,11:05)
Never gets tired of the same lies, does he.

To be fair, Thordaddy might not be actualy lying. It is possible that he is too stupid to realise his errors.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,07:06   

And now, having been told that science cannot necessarily decide a legal issue, Thordaddy has got it in his head that science has no definition for human life. Where he got that idea is anyone's guess.

It strikes me as faintly outrageous that anyone would have doubts as to the definition of a human being, but what do I know? I'm from San Francisco.

--------------
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: April 07 2006,07:26   

For the time being....let us leave abortion/human rights/ and all of that stuff that has cluttered the other threads out of this........

Quote

Let me propose another question...perhaps this one will get an answer?
What is your definition for life?(Your personal definition)


ME!  And I started at conception.

No...I want you to give me a definition of life.....
In other words....if i find something, I want you to give me a way to determine if that thing is alive or not alive.
It should be a fairly simple concept, it doesnt even need to be "scientific".  I just want you to tell me how I should decide if something is alive or not alive


Quote
Au contraire....

I already told you...it is a new boat when all of the parts are replaced, it is an old boat when none of the parts are replaced.  It becomes a new boat sometime between no new parts and all new parts....


Thordaddy....if you honestly believe that those two statements are contradictory....despite what everyone else has tried to explain to you...then I am fully convinced that you are an idiot.
Your basic misunderstanding of simple english sentences, and your complete inability to answer questions has me doubting either you sincerity or your intelligence.

Either you are purposefully attempting to twist and toy with everything everyone on this forum says....or you lack the ability to understand english...in which case, please tell us what language would be more appropriate, and we will try to assist you....

Im still waiting for your answers...since your last ones didnt exist

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,07:26   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 06 2006,23:54)
It is the old boat before any parts are replaced.
It is a new boat when all parts are replaced.
It becomes the new boat somewhere in the process, but there is no exact point when that happens.

Unless, of course, you define "new" as having more than 50% new parts.  Or 66%.  Or 75%.
In which case you can determine exactly when it becomes a "new" boat.
But that would only be because you've defined it as such.  which is why, as has been pointed out to td over and over, this is a question of semantics.

Once you define meaningful terms, science gives you the tools to evaluate.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,09:10   

I have only been in this argument about 2 years. Already my perception is under atack. It is almost impossible to distinguish irony/sarcasm/lies.

I wasn't even always on "this" side. Originaly I was an ID suporter. That is very embarasing.

I take my hat-off to people who have been doing this for 20+ years. It is already wearying me.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,10:05   

Mr. Elliot,
If it is making you tired, you are taking it too seriously.

My advise? Go play frisbee with a dog for a while. It always seems to help.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,10:05   

PuckSR stated,

Quote
...it is a new boat when all of the parts are replaced...,


Quote
It becomes a new boat sometime between no new parts and all new parts....


If this isn't stating 2 different (I didn't say contradictory)criteria for when a new boat becomes a new boat then please call me crazy because it would be meaningless.

You ask me a definition for life and then you don't accept it even though it IS MY ONLY DEFENITIVE EVIDENCE for human life.  But then again, why would it matter what my definition is because you've already stated human life is undefiable and doesn't start at conception?

  
jupiter



Posts: 97
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,10:05   

Jeez, how many threads is ThorDaddy going to start and then squat on? And why?

He'll never learn anything because he doesn't want to learn anything. I don't think he wants to bring people around to his point of view, either, since he just repeats the same dullardry over and over and over. He's not even a decent troll. GoP -- now, that's a troll. Every time one of his claims is smacked down, he comes up with another one that's even more manic and preposterous. A performance like that takes some effort, some skill, some... panache. Endless, unvarying repetition -- that's recess rhetoric.

Is it possible that ThorDaddy is a miserably unsuccessful Turing test, and the programmer just hasn't shut down the machine yet?

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,10:18   

I am simply amazed by this discussion.

Flint claims that abortion HAS NOTHING TO DO with science.  It's a purely legal issue.  Does this means that science plays no role in legal issues?  Especially those issues that should concern science, namely, legal questions pertaining to human life?  This is an evolutionary site and we are amongst biologists, no?

Improvius claims that we can define things as we choose but doesn't see that being ambiguous on the issue of human life/human being is a form of defining?  It's called the "I'm too ignorant to define" definition and so is science even though we defined "life" back to the OOL.  LOL!

ericmurphy says, "Of course we can define human life but we can't say when I began."  I always thought the most complete definition for the effect was the cause.  The closer we could define the cause the better we've defined the effect (human life).  You don't even know when you became a human life.  How do you know you are human life?  Consciousness...?  Dogs have that.  Are you a dog?  What defines you as human life?  I say your conception defines you?

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,10:21   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 07 2006,15:05)
PuckSR stated,

Quote
...it is a new boat when all of the parts are replaced...,


Quote
It becomes a new boat sometime between no new parts and all new parts....


If this isn't stating 2 different (I didn't say contradictory)criteria for when a new boat becomes a new boat then please call me crazy because it would be meaningless.

You aren't crazy, you're just having trouble understanding English.

Here's a hint: in the English language, "is" and "becomes" are two different words with different meanings.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,10:29   

Quote


He'll never learn anything because he doesn't want to learn anything. I don't think he wants to bring people around to his point of view, either, since he just repeats the same dullardry over and over and over. He's not even a decent troll. GoP -- now, that's a troll. Every time one of his claims is smacked down, he comes up with another one that's even more manic and preposterous. A performance like that takes some effort, some skill, some... panache. Endless, unvarying repetition -- that's recess rhetoric.


GoP can think in complicated ways. He can make careful distinctions. His mental ability isn't the problem, his problem lies in enslaving that ability to the religious conclusion. He's using acrobatics to try to get to jesus.

On the other hand, and this is why you never see me argue with him, Thordaddy can't think clearly. Can't make careful distinctions. He always confuses points with similar points.

for example:
Quote
Cogzoid said:
Organisms with "bad mutations" can still pass their genes on.   Evolution doesn't require that only "good mutations" get passed on.
Quote
Thordaddy said:
cogzoid,

So natural selection is really a meaningless term?  And a genetic basis for "gayness" does nothing to inhibit one from being heterosexual?  

Notice the confusion. Cogzoid basically says natural selection isn't selection of the perfect, and thordaddy turns that into natural selection doesn't exist. Then Thordaddy says  
Quote

So homosexuality may have a genetic component but it plays no part in sexual orientation?
Which is a self-contradictory question, as homosexuality is a sexual orientation. If it is influenced by a genetic component, the genetic component plays a part in it.
  So while GoP has a decent brain but is trying to prove something false, Thordaddy simply doesn't know how to make or evaluate logical statements. That's why it's foolish to think you can talk any sense into him. You might feel there's some other reason for arguing with him, but if you're trying to convince him you're wasting your breath.

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,10:46   

Nice try, Thordaddy.

Quote

ericmurphy says, "Of course we can define human life but we can't say when I began."


You have, as usual, completely misconstrued what I said. What I did say is that the question is meaningless in the context of the abortion debate. Saying that a human life begins at conception is just as arbitrary as saying it begins at birth, or at age 18, or age 21, or whenever you want to say it begins. Some people say life begins at 40, for crying out loud.

Here's another Thordaddy gem:

Quote
Flint claims that abortion HAS NOTHING TO DO with science.  It's a purely legal issue.  Does this means that science plays no role in legal issues?


Can you get any more vacuous? Thordaddy, I'm going to say this very slowly, and I want you to repeat it back to me when I'm done: "The Fact That Science Has No Bearing On Some Legal Issues Does Not Mean It Has No Bearing On Any Legal Issues."

Are we clear on this yet? Will we ever be clear on this?

I know I'm wasting my time trying to point things like this out to you, but I have to admit, I think it's kind of fun anyway.

--------------
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

  
  58 replies since April 05 2006,18:22 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]