Liberals Perverted Science

Watermark said:
I imagine we'll use self-replicating nucleic acids.
Click to expand...

so describe a lab experiment that could test the speculation that life comes from self-replicating nucleic acids.....is it sort of like the test we would use to confirm the speculation of an extraterrestrial source for life?.....sitting around and waiting for it to happen again?.......
 
Last edited:
They actually did that experiment, and used electical sparks to re-create lighting & the conditions of the primordial earth.

Cell-like structures were the end result, but they were not self-replicating. The only thing they can't re-create in the lab is the vast stretches of time that are required for such a random occurance...
 
Watermark said:
To be a human being, you have to be capable of having thinking, having desires, and having feelings. End of story.
Click to expand...

Those are all arbitrary definitions by you. There is no question that the child is human or that it is alive. Genetics proves that. End of story.

That said, the above does not mean that we have to afford the unborn child basic human rights protections. That is up for debate.
 
Onceler said:
They actually did that experiment, and used electical sparks to re-create lighting & the conditions of the primordial earth.

Cell-like structures were the end result, but they were not self-replicating. The only thing they can't re-create in the lab is the vast stretches of time that are required for such a random occurance...
Click to expand...

are you referring to Miller Udall?.....if so, "cell like structures" were not the result...
 
Superfreak said:
Those are all arbitrary definitions by you. There is no question that the child is human or that it is alive. Genetics proves that. End of story.

That said, the above does not mean that we have to afford the unborn child basic human rights protections. That is up for debate.
Click to expand...

No feelings. No desires. No thought process. No human.
 
Superfreak said:
Those are all arbitrary definitions by you. There is no question that the child is human or that it is alive. Genetics proves that. End of story.

That said, the above does not mean that we have to afford the unborn child basic human rights protections. That is up for debate.
Click to expand...

You must understand, this is why you are getting the silly and ridiculous blowback from them! This is why they continue to ignore science, dispute the biological facts, and try to redefine what things are!

They do not want the debate to be about the human rights of the unborn, because that argument is daunting. How do you justify denying human rights to the most innocent of all human life?

So they must maintain an anti-science agenda-based position on this, and refuse to acknowledge the unborn are human. They have to run around sounding like complete and total retards, claiming that we don't know when life begins. They have to try and drag everything off topic and nit pick something trivial, or change the subject, or invoke some absurd and pointless analogy... whatever it takes, because they can't admit the unborn are human.
 
Superfreak said:
again... these are all arbitrary decisions based on your OPINIONS. They are not based in fact. Not in the least.
Click to expand...

No morality is based on "fact". It's all mind-created and cannot be objective. To say that science is against abortion is to say that science has something to say about something that's not objective, which is contrary to the nature of science.
 
Superfreak said:
Actually, it starts about the third week after conception. Which is the fifth week of the pregnancy.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112
Click to expand...

And the primary thing that makes something a person is not the beating of a heart. It's the fact that it feels, the fact that it has desires. If something had no human DNA and was not alive and had these things, it would be more worthy of personhood than an embryo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top