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... > the post ID world

Pages: (13) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 >

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,12:23    Stephen and Faid, If the mother of my first daughter decided sometime between September of 98 to June of 99 to have an abortion, she would have killed our Cierra.  This is an unquestionable fact born out by her life. So Faid, if that embryo was Cierra and I let her die, how would I have not let my child die in deference to a stranger?

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,22:54    Quote (thordaddy @ April 08 2006,17:23) Stephen and Faid, If the mother of my first daughter decided sometime between September of 98 to June of 99 to have an abortion, she would have killed our Cierra.  This is an unquestionable fact born out by her life. So Faid, if that embryo was Cierra and I let her die, how would I have not let my child die in deference to a stranger? At last. Now this argument sounds much more honest. I think you are mistaken, but at least you do not seem as evasive. The bit that I disagree with is that an abortion would not have killed your daughter. Your daughter did not exist at that time. A zygote without limbs, nervous sytem or a brain was not Cierra. It became Cierra.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,23:58    So, is that what your defense would be in the scenario I proposed? Yeah, good luck with that, thor. -------------- 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: April 09 2006,01:08    Stephen Elliot, This is like saying Stephen Elliot at age 9 is not the Stephen Elliot NOW.   Stephen at 9 just became the Stephen Elliot of NOW.  And if Stephen Elliot would have died at age 9 then Stephen Elliot in the present would still exist.  Clearly this is PURE NONSENSE. Secondly, if Cierra didn't exist at conception then she certainly didn't exist before conception.  So you are claiming that she came into existence after conception?  This implies that somehow she could have come into existence even if she was killed at conception.  Is this your stance?  But then I ask?  Doesn't development of all things necessary begin at conception including CNS and consciousness?  Your arguments are full of gaping holes because you are existentially agnostic.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,01:59    Quote (thordaddy @ April 09 2006,06:08) Stephen Elliot, This is like saying Stephen Elliot at age 9 is not the Stephen Elliot NOW.   Stephen at 9 just became the Stephen Elliot of NOW.  And if Stephen Elliot would have died at age 9 then Stephen Elliot in the present would still exist.  Clearly this is PURE NONSENSE. Secondly, if Cierra didn't exist at conception then she certainly didn't exist before conception.  So you are claiming that she came into existence after conception?  This implies that somehow she could have come into existence even if she was killed at conception.  Is this your stance?  But then I ask?  Doesn't development of all things necessary begin at conception including CNS and consciousness?  Your arguments are full of gaping holes because you are existentially agnostic. thordaddy you either misrepresent or miread my argument. One more time. I am saying your daughter, as you know her did not exist at her conception. Had your wife had an abortion or miscariage your daughter, as you know her would not have come into existence. Similarly had something else happened such as your wife developing a disease or suffering malnutrition during early pregnancy, your daughter, as you know her would not exist. You might still have a healthy daughter. But at least a little different to the one you have now. You are arguing that people just "pop" into existence at conception. As for this: Quote This is like saying Stephen Elliot at age 9 is not the Stephen Elliot NOW.   Stephen at 9 just became the Stephen Elliot of NOW.  And if Stephen Elliot would have died at age 9 then Stephen Elliot in the present would still exist. Me at 9 was definately not me now. My 9 year old self became me. It could have turned out very different. But no, I am not arguing I would still exist if I had died at 9. Where did you get that idea? Conception is an important event. I am not arguing against that. But a zygotte is not=to a developed human.

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,08:07    Thordaddy you missed a point again.... You cannot argue that conception is important, because without it we would not exist...why? Well because there are several points in history that could have changed the outcome, that does not make them important. According to your logic, and just your logic, not your argument for anti-abortion. If the egg hadnt been in the tubes, if the sperm had gotten blocked by a condom, that would have ceased your daughter's existence....therefore condoms are equally evil, because the impede human life. If you choose to argue that conception is important because it determines and predates future existence, then your going to have to go with the catholic stance and say that condoms are an equally "evil" form of abortion. Please continue your argument, Im not trying to stop you.  Just try to realize that problem with your current logical positioning

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,11:34    Stephen Elliot, You can no more differentiate between Cierra as a zygote and Cierra NOW than you can differentiate between Stephen Elliot at 9 and Stephen Elliot right NOW...Scientifically-speaking. You are merely making a philosophical argument.  You are not Stephen at 9 because you are Stephen NOW.  You have changed, but not in any fundamental and scientific way.  That's your argument.  But, you would NOT BE Stephen NOW UNLESS your were THAT Stephen at 9. To abort Cierra as a zygote or to kill Stephen at 9 and poof, we would not be having this conversation. I want to know the science that allows you to create two entities out of one. PuckSR, Your argument is only important if you place greater value on the egg and sperm as individual "life" than the UNIQUE human life that is created at conception.  I don't place greater value on sperm and egg alone.  It's like tires and a car, worthless without each other.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,12:51    Quote (thordaddy @ April 09 2006,16:34) Stephen Elliot, You can no more differentiate between Cierra as a zygote and Cierra NOW than you can differentiate between Stephen Elliot at 9 and Stephen Elliot right NOW...Scientifically-speaking. "Scentifically-speaking": Quote 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.   What we said, that part about actually reading the answers to your "arguments"? You really should work on that. -------------- 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: April 09 2006,23:17    Faid, That sounds more like a DEFINITION than an answer. Are you actually bold enough to define human life?  Most of the rest of the "biologists" have found comfort in their state of ambiguity.  Imagine, a world in which we look to science for ambiguity?  Has #### froze over?

Jay Ray Posts: 92 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,23:35    Life, the world on which we live, in truth the entire universe, is ambiguous. Anything that big and complicated cannot be pinned down.  Just bits and pieces of it at best.  Sincere science recognizes that fact.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,12:29    ThorDaddy, If I have 2 dozen abortions, and kill a few tens of thousand Iraqi's many of them women and children, and privatise the water supply in Peru-leading to thousands of deaths by disease, and stand by and watch as Rwandans kill each other solely because they don't have enough land and resources to feed them all, and execute a few political dissidents in China and release tons of poisonous gas in India-killing tens of thousands of men, women and children, and shoot a few abortion doctors along the way, does that mean your daughter isn't the same? Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Personally, My vasectomy has collapsed the possibilities of my future children. Is this terrible? Sorry that you are hung up on religion, I understand the impediment that it causes but I can;t offer any help from inside the cloistered walls. Go outside, love your family, learn a few things about the world if you are determined to try to save it. But get the science right. That would start with understanding ecosystems to some degree. The Biology, chemistry, geography, and physics of the ecosystems would be a good place to start. But ... hmmm... Where did you go? Right in the middle of my first sentence, you turned around and walked away. -------------- 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 10 2006,12:49    BWE, That haughty tone gives your writings more entertainment value, but do little to project a sense of credibility. I can't have an abortion and believe me I make the most out of enjoying sunny San Diego with my children.   Although, I must venture here to converse with "scientists." You may revel in your assumption that anyone who questions science or scientists is religious or making religious arguments, but clearly this can't always be the case, can it?  If I wanted to make religious arguments, I would.  Why would I not use all the knowledge I have in these discussions including religion?  Is science a closed system?  I don't use religious arguments because they have had minimal influence in the context of my entire life.  I grew up in an America where science is lauded and religion is ridiculed.   Fortunately, I am learning rather quickly that things aren't always what they seem.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,13:06    [quote=thordaddy,April 10 2006,17:49][/quote] Quote I grew up in an America where science is lauded and religion is ridiculed.   This explains a lot. Obviously, Thordaddy is from another dimension. -------------- 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

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,13:47    Yeah, I love how IDers make both arguments: The public overwhelmingly believes in a creator, but come see our beleaguered minority getting oppressed. <cue "The Constitutional Peasant"> -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

UnMark Posts: 97 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,14:37    In sociology I remember the lesson on developmental models.  Most adults are either concrete operational or abstract.  Those of the latter can understand abstract topics while those of the former cannot.  For instance, a good definitional question would be, "what would life be like if there was only one gender?"  The AO's could launch into a long-winded discussion about such a world; the CO's would loudly proclaim, "that's stupid - that could never happen!" TD is unable to grasp abstract concepts - no amount of handholding will prevent the infinities of color from being reduced to a monochrome.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,16:43    It's like using a high powered rifle and night vision goggles to hunt cows. I could throw a bare hook in with no weight. I know it's easy but I can't help myself. Maybe I should take up knitting. -------------- 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

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,11:30    Quote (thordaddy @ April 10 2006,04:17) Faid, That sounds more like a DEFINITION than an answer. Are you actually bold enough to define human life?  Most of the rest of the "biologists" have found comfort in their state of ambiguity.  Imagine, a world in which we look to science for ambiguity?  Has #### froze over? Pathetic, thor, pathetic. You claim there's no way to differentiate a zygote from a human being, using science. I show you you're full of it. You have no answer, and you (quite unsucessfully) try to change the issue to some philosophical debate for defining human nature, to claim there's no indisputable definition and therefore you can say whatever you like. Save it for someone who buys it. -------------- 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: April 11 2006,11:42    Faid, There is NO way to differentiate between a specific zygote AND the person it becomes.  Yeah, you can claim all these things (brains, CNS, heart, etc.) that a person has that the zygote doesn't, but so what?  Is this a scientifically-based argument?  Most everyone knows that the human life develops over time. Stephen was trying to argue that aborting my daughter would not be the killing of my daughter, Cierra. His stance was that if Cierra would have been aborted then I would have never had the experience with her to make her the "Cierra" I now know. This may be true, but this misses the fundamental point.  Aborting Cierra is the killing of a Unique individual yearning for the world.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,13:21    God I love that word: yearning. I am yearning for you baby, Ohhhh Yeeah. As a zygote I was yearning for you baby, Ohhh Yeeah. Oh I know there is a schizm between the good guys and relativism And somebody out there knows the truth All lonely and aloof But no one will listen because its all just relativism I am yearning for you baby, Ohhhh Yeeah. As a zygote I was yearning for you baby, Ohhh Yeeah. Who wants credibility? -------------- 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

Tom Ames Posts: 238 Joined: Dec. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,16:21    The "the zygote becomes a unique human being therefore it IS a human being" argument is just plain fallacious. Here's why: 1. A zygote can split and become TWO individuals. 2. Twin zygotes can fuse into one mosaic individual. In the first case: did the unique identity of the first zygote fission along with the blastula as a whole to make two new unique identities? Or did some new unique identity descend upon it from on high? In the second case, what happened to the unique identity of the second twin? Was it absorbed into that of the first twin? Or do some people walk around with two unique identities? Finally, if God loves all embryos, why is the spontaneous abortion rate so high? And where do all those unique identities go? (Maybe they're recycled or something. I'd like to know.) -------------- -Tom Ames

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,16:24    Quote And where do all those unique identities go? (Maybe they're recycled or something. I'd like to know.) There have been a few science fiction short stories revolving around the notion that the supply of souls (or consciousnesses, or whatever) available at any given time is exceeded. Generally, the conceit is played for laughs.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,17:39    yeah, wasn't that part of the plot of the Seventh Sign?

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,17:51    Tom Ames opines, Quote 1. A zygote can split and become TWO individuals. 2. Twin zygotes can fuse into one mosaic individual. How is this fundamentally different than saying a zygote becomes a unique individual?  Or, in your case, a zygote become 2 unique individuals?  Or, 2 zygotes becomes 1 unique individual? There is no reason to inject God in this discussion.

UnMark Posts: 97 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,19:06    What did I say last night about abstract concepts?  <rolling eyes smiley> If the unique individual is created at conception, where does the second unique individual come from when a zygote splits to become identical twins?

Tom Ames Posts: 238 Joined: Dec. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,19:12    It's fundamentally different from saying a zygote is a unique individual because it is saying that a zygote is one or more, or fewer, individuals. The "Life Begins at Conception" claim is that some core ("unique") personhood adheres to the ovum at the point of fusion with a sperm. However, the reality is that one-half of a person, or two people, or quite frequently none, actually result from the event. Fertilization is therefore not necessarily the event that uniquely determines the identity of a new person. Rather, it's just another waypoint on the road to developing personhood. -------------- -Tom Ames

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,19:45    Tom Ames, There are about 6 billion pieces of emprical evidence to suggest that a zygote represents a unique human individual.  Everyone who is or ever was was once a SPECIFIC zygote.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,19:49    A zygote I once was Because my mommy had a buzz Thordaddy, you are inspiring me. Will you kiss me? Then engage in homosexual love with me? -------------- 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

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,19:52    I assume someone will now raise the issue of human clones?

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,20:02    I was cloned To a T You see my pal Looked just like me My mother was a bunson burner In an LA laboratory Soon there will be more! And they'll all look and act like me. Daamn. I'm on a roll. Thordaddy, I know you like it. Why not just go with it? -------------- 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

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,20:05    I wonder what sugardaddy thought of Rocky Horror?

Pages: (13) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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