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. 27 2006,13:40    ericmurphy, Although I agree that life begins at conception (self-evidently so), I merely asked (not stated) why the public school system did not teach this scientific fact.  Your argument is weak and is further weakened by your refusal to answer when new life does begin, scientifically-speaking. PS  I think you're along the lines of that Surely Not character, but the lack of rebuttals to your weak argument is again quite telling. Jay Ray opines, Quote This charge states that when scientists speak about the scientific method establishing a position of ethical neutrality, that they are being dishonest.  He is trying to say, "it ain't just the facts ma'am, its what you do with them."   Science can't establish a position of ethical neutrality.  Ethics is antithetical to science.  Science is ethically devoid. Next you say, Quote More specifically, in light of this alleged hyprocrisy, he finds it reprehensible that scientists should speak in favor of or against particular lessons in public schools.  If science itself is morally neutral, then scientists should keep out of politics.  This goes doubly for any instruction that he disagrees with on the basis his own political or ethical foundations. In short, scientists should shut up and keep their opinions to themselves.  Only religious people unaffiliated with science should have the right to decide public policy in general, and educational policy in particular. Actually, the question is why scientists are ONLY vocal on the ID versus evolution debate?  There are many contentious issues that are regularly dismissed in the public school system that are bolstered by strong scientific data. For instance, science has shown IQ difference between races.  Does this not have an important impact in public education?  Science has also shown AIDS to be a disease primarily contracted by homosexuals and intraveneous drug-users.  Does this not have an educational impact if we are lying to our children and claiming they can get AIDS as easily as others?  Science has strong evidence showing gender segregation to be beneficial to children's education and yet many liberals and feminists are wedded to the idea of gender integration.  Where are scientists and where is the debate?  What of biological difference between genders and races?  Again, where are all the scientists contending these silly one- size-fits all educational policies?   I think you can draw your own conclusion, but mine is that hypocrites calling others hypocrites is self-defeating. Stephen Elliot opines, Quote "There are several topics in the public school system that scientists are interfeering in. They are doing so for political reasons and not scientific. Therefore the whole scientific community is dishonest."   Quite the opposite as there is ONLY ONE topic that scientists are debating, namely, ID versus evolution.  On other topics like those explained above, scientists are invisible and virtually silent (except for those that research controversial subjects like race, IQ, gender, etc.).  And I certainly don't think the entire scientific community is dishonest, but rather, most scientists are very much in line with the politics of the public school system.  That's why there is only one debate and that debate has science and the public school system on the same side!  It's like hand and glove.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,14:12    Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 27 2006,19:40) ericmurphy, Although I agree that life begins at conception (self-evidently so), I merely asked (not stated) why the public school system did not teach this scientific fact.  Your argument is weak and is further weakened by your refusal to answer when new life does begin, scientifically-speaking. PS  I think you're along the lines of that Surely Not character, but the lack of rebuttals to your weak argument is again quite telling. Agree? Agree with whom? Certainly not me. Life does not "begin" with conception. Life doesn't have a beginning, other than some time several billion years ago. An unfertilized egg is just as "alive" as a fertilized one is. A human female is born carrying all the ova she will ever have. Merely framing the abortion debate in those terms demonstrates one's abysmal ignorance of biological fact. Life does not "begin" at conception. It "began" in the distant past. If schools are teaching that life begins at conception, they are teaching a falsehood. In what way am I "refusing" to answer your question of when life begins? Do you now see why the question and the answer are both entirely irrelevant to the issue of abortion rights? Or do I need to find yet another way of stating the same thing? My argument isn't weak; it's unassailable. Your argument, on the other hand, is unintelligible. -------------- 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. 27 2006,14:16    Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 27 2006,19:40) ericmurphy, Although I agree that life begins at conception (self-evidently so)... Life does not begin at conception. There you are wrong. Human consciousness begins sometime after conception. But sperm and egg cells are alive before conception. You do know that grass, trees, flowers and other things apart from mammals are alive right? You are aware that single cells are alive? Such as the amoeba and (da naaaa! flagelum.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,14:28    Quote Actually, the question is why scientists are ONLY vocal on the ID versus evolution debate?  There are many contentious issues that are regularly dismissed in the public school system that are bolstered by strong scientific data. You seem not to have contemplated the answer I gave to this last week. Quote For instance, science has shown IQ difference between races.  Does this not have an important impact in public education? What is your obsession with this all about???  What about my earlier answer did you find unsatisfactory? I repeat: evolution is central to biology - a core component of every high school education. Psychometrics (or whatever rubric IQ measurement falls under) is not. What do you think schools should be doing on this that they're not? And how in the world can you ascribe so much confidence to the "science" of the completely invented phenomenon of "IQ" when you so airily dismiss the much more solid science behind the facts that evolution deals with? Quote Science has also shown AIDS to be a disease primarily contracted by homosexuals and intraveneous drug-users.  Does this not have an educational impact if we are lying to our children and claiming they can get AIDS as easily as others? What does "primarily" mean? A disproportionate number? More than half? Nearly all? As I pointed out before, the logical place where this will come up in high school education is sex education. Do you think that sex education should give the impression that if you're thoroughly heterosexual, you don't have to worry about AIDS? And if you're really concerned about it, why are you worried about scientists and "liberals"? Why aren't you worried about the much more clear and present danger of right-wing wing-nuts who don't want any information about safer sexual practices discussed? -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,15:35    ericmurphy opines, Quote Agree? Agree with whom? Certainly not me. Life does not "begin" with conception. Life doesn't have a beginning, other than some time several billion years ago. An unfertilized egg is just as "alive" as a fertilized one is. A human female is born carrying all the ova she will ever have. So life does have a "beginning," but only one beginning?  Is this your stance?  So your life began, scientifically-speaking, a couple of billions of years ago?  Is this the claim? Then in contradiction, you say, Quote Merely framing the abortion debate in those terms demonstrates one's abysmal ignorance of biological fact. Life does not "begin" at conception. It "began" in the distant past. If schools are teaching that life begins at conception, they are teaching a falsehood. So you go from "[l]ife doesn't have a beginning" (your words) to life "'began' in the distant past."  Which is it? Lastly you say, Quote In what way am I "refusing" to answer your question of when life begins? Do you now see why the question and the answer are both entirely irrelevant to the issue of abortion rights? Or do I need to find yet another way of stating the same thing? My argument isn't weak; it's unassailable. Your argument, on the other hand, is unintelligible What I see is that you aren't sure whether life has a beginning or not and you might be billions of years old. LOL! Stephen Elliot opines, Quote Life does not begin at conception. There you are wrong. Human consciousness begins sometime after conception. But sperm and egg cells are alive before conception. You do know that grass, trees, flowers and other things apart from mammals are alive right? You are aware that single cells are alive? Such as the amoeba and (da naaaa! flagelum So when did your life begin?  Are you billions of years old like ericmurphy?     You say, "[h]uman consciousness begins sometime after conception."  Whoa, that's scientific!  But if that's a sign of life then are egg and sperm alive?  Are single cells, trees and flowers conscious?  They are alive, no?  So human life can't be predicated on consciousness alone, can it? When did you come alive IF NOT AT CONCEPTION?

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,15:46    Russell, You are necessarily getting bogged down in the details of my examples while leaving the bigger point dangling in cyberspace. Why are there NO debates between science and the public school system outside of the ID versus evolution which is really a debate between science and the school system versus IDists.  The public school system represents at its core something antithetical to science.  The public school system is a one-size-fits-all system.  Integration, equality, conformity and anti-discrimination are all attributes of the public school system and yet there are no scientific debates.  All these attributes necessarily eschews measurability?  How can conventional scientific wisdom stand silent in the face of a public school system that regularly denies realities of life and the science that bolsters that reality?

cogzoid Posts: 234 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,16:11    Let's break this down so we can understand.  Maybe a composition class is in order. Quote Why are there NO debates between science and the public school system outside of the ID versus evolution which is really a debate between science and the school system versus IDists. I know of no debates between science and public schools.  There are debates about how science should be taught in public schools, but that is a completely different thing. Quote The public school system represents at its core something antithetical to science.  The public school system is a one-size-fits-all system.  Why is a one-size-fits-all system "antithetical" to science?  When in fact, science is constantly looking for "one-size" theories that explain "all".  (By the way, your "one-size theory" of schools clearly doesn't reflect, the remedial, normal, honors, and gifted reality that is the public school I attended.) Quote Integration, equality, conformity and anti-discrimination are all attributes of the public school system and yet there are no scientific debates. How is this connected at all?  Kids in school don't understand science yet, how can they be ready for scientific debates? Quote All these attributes necessarily eschews measurability? Yes, vague terms posted by a troll on the internet eschew measurability.  What do you want to measure and why? Quote How can conventional scientific wisdom stand silent in the face of a public school system that regularly denies realities of life and the science that bolsters that reality? What realities of life are public schools denying?  Can you specifically show and explain these denials, because I simply don't see them. You're really going to have to slow down and spell your ideas out, when you go a mile a minute, you really make no sense at all.  You are not preaching to the choir here.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,17:05    Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 27 2006,21:35) So life does have a "beginning," but only one beginning?  Is this your stance?  So your life began, scientifically-speaking, a couple of billions of years ago?  Is this the claim? Life may have had many "beginnings." For all we know, life arose, and was wiped out (asteroid strike, solar flare, volcanism) multiple times, before finally becoming permanently (more or less) established on earth. But that happened billions of years ago, and yes, and I am at one end of  an unbroken chain of living organisms going back that far. That's reality. Deal. Quote Then in contradiction, you say, "Merely framing the abortion debate in those terms demonstrates one's abysmal ignorance of biological fact. "Life does not "begin" at conception. It "began" in the distant past. If schools are teaching that life begins at conception, they are teaching a falsehood." So you go from "[l]ife doesn't have a beginning" (your words) to life "'began' in the distant past."  Which is it? What I actually said was (this is the quote), "Life doesn't have a beginning, other than some time several billion years ago." Is there a contradiction there? If I say "There wasn't anyone in the car, other than the driver," am I contradicting myself? Are you a native speaker of the English language? Quote What I see is that you aren't sure whether life has a beginning or not and you might be billions of years old. LOL! No. What I see is that, like most anti-choice zealots, you cannot distinguish between "life" and "consciousness." When does consciousness begin is a valid question, and currently no one can honestly say for certain. But it's a solid hypothesis that consciousness requires a central nervous system, and a blastocyst sure doesn't have one of those. As more than one person has pointed out to you, a fertilized ovum is no more "alive" than a sperm cell, or a paramecium, or a bacterium. And it's unclear whether it's any more "conscious" than any of them, either. -------------- 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. 27 2006,17:26    Why are you guys debating with this guy? It's a total waste of time, he's completely unreachable. This sentence is completely incoherent, as in I-have-no-idea-what-the-fvck-it-means: Quote Why are there NO debates between science and the public school system outside of the ID versus evolution which is really a debate between science and the school system versus IDists. This makes me seriously wonder if TD is a second language speaker of English or whether he has some language disability, perhaps from advanced age. -------------- "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

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,17:29    oh come on...IDist to use words that are almost impossible to define... Intelligent= having the capacity for thought and reason?  An ant has intelligence to some degree...could an ant have designed the universe? life=you do realize that this is one of the most difficult terms in the our current lexicon right?  The point that all of the people are trying to make is that at conception there is no higher degree of life than can be found in a sperm.  Go further, you do not possess a greater degree of "life" than that a zygote.... Science explains that it cannot define any greater quality of life to any "living" organism...therefore some other criteria will have to be used to determine morality of ending life... Of course...thats why they brought in philosophy, and we get fairly creative solutions...like the catholic one

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,18:11    Quote Why are you guys debating with this guy? It's a total waste of time, he's completely unreachable. Well, yeah. I'm just doing my usual exercise of asking for specifics, whereupon blowhard arguments like Thordude's reveal themselves devoid of substance. (See the Avo thread, for instance.) Rarely do I get as gratifying a capitulation as this, though: Quote You are necessarily getting bogged down in the details of my examples while leaving the bigger point dangling in cyberspace. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,18:42    Quote (Russell @ Mar. 28 2006,00:11) Rarely do I get as gratifying a capitulation as this, though: Quote You are necessarily getting bogged down in the details of my examples while leaving the bigger point dangling in cyberspace. That is pretty good. I would translate it as "just because all my facts are wrong, that doesn't undermine my final conclusion in the slightest". Coming from someone who sees no difference between science and religion, we shouldn't be surprised. -------------- "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. 27 2006,22:48    Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 27 2006,21:35) Stephen Elliot opines, Quote Life does not begin at conception. There you are wrong. Human consciousness begins sometime after conception. But sperm and egg cells are alive before conception. You do know that grass, trees, flowers and other things apart from mammals are alive right? You are aware that single cells are alive? Such as the amoeba and (da naaaa! flagelum So when did your life begin?  Are you billions of years old like ericmurphy?     You say, "[h]uman consciousness begins sometime after conception."  Whoa, that's scientific!  But if that's a sign of life then are egg and sperm alive?  Are single cells, trees and flowers conscious?  They are alive, no?  So human life can't be predicated on consciousness alone, can it? When did you come alive IF NOT AT CONCEPTION? Now that is quite some question. The honest answer is, I don't know. However, you do seem to be getting confused between life and conscious. Why did you use the word predicated? It is confusing. "So human life can't be predicated (=stated as true) on consciousness alone, can it?" Well I would have thought consciousness was a requirement to be considered human. Wow, what a can of worms. In some ways I am billions of years old. Every single atom that constitutes me pre-dates the solar system. In another way I am 44 years old. That being the age I have reached. In another way I am just a few days/weeks old, in that the majority of atoms that make me have been captured in that time. Anyway. How would you define a human life? I doubt you consider a sperm as human (or being a wanker would make you a mass kiler). But a sperm is alive. Sorry for rambling, but it is difficult to answer vague statements without doing so. Although I am pretty sure Thordaddy will dismiss this as a non-answer.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,00:17    cogzoid opines, Quote I know of no debates between science and public schools.  There are debates about how science should be taught in public schools, but that is a completely different thing. Exactly... and I've stated as much.  The only two possible debates concerning science and public education is in the application of the scientific method and the dissemination of scientific "facts."  There is little dispute with the former and only a dispute with the latter in terms of evolution vs. IDT and not between science and the public school system itself.   Next you say, Quote Why is a one-size-fits-all system "antithetical" to science?  When in fact, science is constantly looking for "one-size" theories that explain "all".  (By the way, your "one-size theory" of schools clearly doesn't reflect, the remedial, normal, honors, and gifted reality that is the public school I attended.) And so you are readily admitting the cozy relationship between science and the public school system?  The question is who decides which "scientific facts" are unsuitable for public education?  The answer is clear, but I see little protest from the scientific community on censored "facts."   But more to the point, you are claiming that public education should aspire to be like a "one-size theory" for "all."  Yet, the facts say different. Then you ask, Quote How is this connected at all?  Kids in school don't understand science yet, how can they be ready for scientific debates? Segregation, inequality, nonconformity and discrimination are all "facts" of nature.  How can a system that abhors difference meld so easily with a world that exemplifies difference and is made apparent by the application of science? Lastly you demand, [QUOTE]What realities of life are public schools denying?  Can you specifically show and explain these denials, because I simply don't see them. I've given several examples of taboo topics in the public school system. If science shows a difference in IQs among the races or that homosexuals are the dominant carriers of AIDS does this then become relevant to a public education?   If the answer is NO then one wonders what other scientific facts are irrelevant.  If one studies hard enough he will see a pattern emerge in which irrelevant scientific facts correlate closely to a political ideology.  But who is conforming to whom, I wonder? If the answer is YES then why is it a taboo topic within public education and the scientific community itself?

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,00:32    ericmurphy, I've never seen as much flip-flopping and distortion in such rapid succession. Life had no beginning, life had one beginning and life may have had many beginnings. I say for the purpose of this argument it would be smart just to settle on the fact that YOU began at conception.  Since you don't know when you became conscious and human life, as far as I know, must first exist before there is consciousness then it stands to reason that conception is a very important matter, indeed.  Besides, you aren't really a couple billion years old. Then again, maybe some day your son will ask why that whip cream is on your face and what is the silver thing rubbing it off and you can say, "Son, I'm just performing an abortion."

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,00:41    Russell, There was no capitulation.  There was only you feigning ignorance to scientific data showing IQ differences in races, dominance of homosexuals as the carriers for the AIDS disease, the efficacy of classroom gender segregation or the disproportionate amount of violence among minorities, etc.   I could go on and on and all you are left to say is that these scientific "facts" are irrelevant to the public school system.   If you think otherwise then by goodness where are the debates between science and its "facts" and the public school system? That's a direct question that needs an answer?  Would you care to oblige?

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,01:29    Quote ... by goodness where are the debates between science and its "facts" and the public school system? That's a direct question that needs an answer?  Would you care to oblige? That's your idea of a "direct question"? ? ? How about this one: "what is the connection between ozone depletion and the color red?" No, a direct question would be something like: "what percentage of HIV infections (in actual numbers) occur in homosexual vs. heterosexual people? Please supply reference." or "what do you think public schools should be doing with IQ data that they're not?" You know, actual questions about specifics, for which actual, meaningful, specific answers are at least conceivable. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,07:31    Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 28 2006,06:32) ericmurphy, I've never seen as much flip-flopping and distortion in such rapid succession. Life had no beginning, life had one beginning and life may have had many beginnings. I say for the purpose of this argument it would be smart just to settle on the fact that YOU began at conception.  Since you don't know when you became conscious and human life, as far as I know, must first exist before there is consciousness then it stands to reason that conception is a very important matter, indeed.  Besides, you aren't really a couple billion years old. Get over yourself, Thordaddy. If you could read and comprehend what I'm writing, you'd realize that my point is that it doesn't matter when life begins. You're hallucinating if you think I, or anyone else in this discussion, is doing any "flip-flopping" on this point (gee, I wonder which way you voted in the last presidential election). On this utterly trivial and stupid point, my position has been unchanging: that life had a beginning (whether it happened more than once or not, and no one knows the answer to that question) billions of years in the past. Can you possibly understand that simple statement? For the purposes of the abortion debate, the question of when life "begins" is utterly meaningless. The only question that is of even remote applicability to the abortion debate that is grounded in biology (as opposed to ethics, religion, etc.) is when does an embryo become conscious. That's very much an open question, but as I said before, we can all be pretty comfortable in saying a group of a hundred cells (to say nothing of a single cell) is not conscious, any more than a fern, or a jellyfish, or a diatom is conscious. Your insistence that life "begins" at conception is at worst wrong and at best meaningless. -------------- 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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,07:55    ericmurphy, you might enjoy PZ's comments on the whole 'life begins at conception' nonsense. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/black_white.php

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,08:39    Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 28 2006,13:55) ericmurphy, you might enjoy PZ's comments on the whole 'life begins at conception' nonsense. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/black_white.php Hey Steve, Yes, a whole bunch of arguments I hadn't thought of as well, but I think it's really Thordaddy who needs to click on your link to give him an idea of how meaningless the entire question really is. But Thordaddy's mistaken notion of when life "begins" points out a major problem with a lot of right-wing thinking these days: the more general notion that most things in life are black/white, wrong/right, on/off. Life is vastly more complicated than that, and contrary to a lot of these right-wing notions, there are often many other choices. Abortion is only one issue (and, in a perfect world, a minor one at that) among many for which life simply refuses to boil down to a simple good/bad, right/wrong, living/non-living dualism. Of course, most of Thordaddy's other "facts" (the majority of HIV cases are gay? Not in Africa they're not; and who these days really believes that "intelligence" can be boiled down to a single dimensionless number?—to say nothing of the complexities of trying to control for cultural bias, socioeconomic status, individual genetic variation which is greater intra-race than between races, etc. ) are nothing of the sort. -------------- 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 2006,09:18    Conversing (and I use that term in the loosest way imaginable) with Thordaddy is like playing softball with waterballons.  What should be a base hit just goes splat! Everyone gets all wet and annoyed.   Once identified, the best way I know to maintain my sanity is to quit playing, but make comments as if from the first base bleachers.  Or from the announcer's booth. Richard, I don't know about you, but this newest pitcher for the Fundies just doesn't seem to be up to snuff in this league. I was thinking the same thing, Ted.  None of his throws ever land in the strike zone.  Wasn't he a bench warmer for Fundies' farm team up until last month? That's right, Dick.  Makes you wonder if the manager has been sampling a little too much oxycontin. Well, whatever the case, Ted, this manager does seem to have the same preference for screwballs as the pitcher. *fake laughter, cut to beer commercial*

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,09:38    Quote Hey Steve, Yes, a whole bunch of arguments I hadn't thought of as well, but I think it's really Thordaddy who needs to click on your link to give him an idea of how meaningless the entire question really is. Yeah, but i sent it to you because you'd appreciate it. Thordaddy can't tell sh1t from apple butter, as we say in the south.

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,09:57    Quote I say for the purpose of this argument it would be smart just to settle on the fact that YOU began at conception.  Since you don't know when you became conscious and human life, as far as I know, must first exist before there is consciousness then it stands to reason that conception is a very important matter, indeed. 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 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. 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

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,10:16    Avert website: Quote By December 2005 women accounted for 46% of all adults living with HIV worldwide, and for 57% in sub-Saharan Africa. Thordaddy: Quote dominance of homosexuals as the carriers for the AIDS disease Thordaddy, did you remember that "factoid" wrong or did you make that up? http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm Dude, learn to Google.  It took me 15 seconds flat to figure out you are lying. Heck, just LEARN. -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

Jay Ray Posts: 92 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,10:19    Hey guys, cut it out.  Quit using facts.  What are you, scientists or something?

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,10:47    Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 28 2006,15:38) Yeah, but i sent it to you because you'd appreciate it. Thordaddy can't tell sh1t from apple butter, as we say in the south. Good point. And the link does also make a good argument that, contrary to the assertions of the right wing, there is a difference between a zygote and a child, and calling a zygote a "child" is on its face preposterous. -------------- 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

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,12:29    Stephen Elliot opines, Quote Now that is quite some question. The honest answer is, I don't know. However, you do seem to be getting confused between life and conscious. Why did you use the word predicated? It is confusing. "So human life can't be predicated (=stated as true) on consciousness alone, can it?" Well I would have thought consciousness was a requirement to be considered human. Wow, what a can of worms. In some ways I am billions of years old. Every single atom that constitutes me pre-dates the solar system. In another way I am 44 years old. That being the age I have reached. In another way I am just a few days/weeks old, in that the majority of atoms that make me have been captured in that time. Anyway. How would you define a human life? I doubt you consider a sperm as human (or being a wanker would make you a mass kiler). But a sperm is alive. Sorry for rambling, but it is difficult to answer vague statements without doing so. Although I am pretty sure Thordaddy will dismiss this as a non-answer. So you don't know when your life began, but you know it was not at conception (the beginning) and you suspect it started with the emergence of your consciousness?  Which means you don't know when you became conscious other than it was not at conception (the beginning)? Is this your claim? You don't KNOW when you began, but you're sure it wasn't at the beginning (conception)? Then why look for this scientist for any answers? When you state that consciousness ALONE signifies human life you must necessarily negate that which is required for consciousness, namely, human life.   If a zygote does not represent human life then it stands to reason that a zygote cannot become conscious.  And if the zygote becomes conscious then it had to be human life, no? So human life is not predicated on consciousness alone.  Afterall, I'm aware of no evidence of adults being conscious at their births.  This in turn would suggest that birthed babies are not conscious.  Will you claim these babies to be mere flowers, sperm cells or bacteria?  They can't be human life because they are not conscious and consciouness ALONE signifies human life according to you. IS this your claim? Human babies are not human life?  Is this a scientific facts?  LOL!

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,12:59    ericmurphy opines, Quote Get over yourself, Thordaddy. If you could read and comprehend what I'm writing, you'd realize that my point is that it doesn't matter when life begins. You're hallucinating if you think I, or anyone else in this discussion, is doing any "flip-flopping" on this point (gee, I wonder which way you voted in the last presidential election). On this utterly trivial and stupid point, my position has been unchanging: that life had a beginning (whether it happened more than once or not, and no one knows the answer to that question) billions of years in the past. Can you possibly understand that simple statement? 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? 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. Quote For the purposes of the abortion debate, the question of when life "begins" is utterly meaningless. The only question that is of even remote applicability to the abortion debate that is grounded in biology (as opposed to ethics, religion, etc.) is when does an embryo become conscious. That's very much an open question, but as I said before, we can all be pretty comfortable in saying a group of a hundred cells (to say nothing of a single cell) is not conscious, any more than a fern, or a jellyfish, or a diatom is conscious. 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.  The question is whether this latter belief is merely a rationalization for abortion.  There is certainly no evidence as to when one becomes conscious and yet you are adamant that it DIDN'T begin at conception.  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. If a zygote is not human life then a zygote, much like a ovum, sperm, flower or bacteria cannot become conscious. 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.   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.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,13:05    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. BTW. I did not state that consciousnes alone describes human life. I am pretty sure a dog, cat or crocodile is conscious. 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.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,13:12    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? -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

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