Sure Ted Bundy. Glad you stopped by.
Liberals Perverted Science
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
You mean Jeffery Dahmer, don't you?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
There's no mystery to my knowledge. I went to this place called college and then I went to another place called graduate school. In these places we studied a subject called science. Now, I don't know what it was that you studied but it isn't science so now I'm in the predicament of someone wanting to debate a scientific topic when they dont' even know such basic fundamental scientific concepts as hypothesis and theory? How can I demonstrate to you that a hypothesis is testable when you don't know what a hypothesis is?
So we have to take this one step at a time. You go and study some 3rd grade science. When you've learned what a hypothesis is, then come back and we can resume this debate, until you do that, there's nothing really to discuss.
Thorn
Member
OK, at the request of the scientist cited above, I'm entering the fray here.
A hypothesis may be described as a sophisticated prediction about how something will respond to a stimulus, or be changed by that stimulus, under specific conditions. This prediction is based upon prior formal, empirical observations that are strictly defined using scientific criteria. For instance, one might hypothesize that a muscle cell might "twitch" in response to a mild, brief electrical current, parameters predefined. That being confirmed, one might further hypothesize that that twitch response might be modified if a certain substance, say a specific opioid peptide in a specific concentration, is added to the medium bathing the muscle. This again is tested using the knowledge attained from prior observations along with adding this new element, again according to strict scientific criteria. Random notions are not entertained at this phase. Conclusions must be based on the observations of each test and all conditions of the test must be considered in those conclusions.
Once several repeatable scientific observations have been made of this particular phenomenon, further study of other observations by many other researchers over time may lead to a formal general set of ideas about how systems that contain certain types of opioid receptors might work. The conditions under which these phenomena take place are again strictly defined, but this formal set of ideas is broader and more generalized than the many specific hypotheses upon which it has been based. Eventually, this formal set of ideas is codified and then may be described as a theory. The theory has arisen from many, many testable hypotheses that have been supported, by formal research conducted under very strict, predefined scientific criteria. Those hypotheses that were not supported by scientific testing are also considered in the negative.
Hope this helps.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
If conception took place, a living human organism is produced. Whether it contains the necessary stuff to eventually be born and function as a "normal" human being, remains to be seen, but the moment it is conceived, it becomes what it will always be until termination.
It's not the same thing at all. A human being at conception, already is a "built house" it is just not finished out. All the necessary stuff is there to complete the job, it only requires time. Furthermore, analogies comparing anything less than a human being, cheapen the meaning of a human being. You are comparing a pile of lumber to the remarkable creature known as the human being.
IF the cell aborted, it had to abort from something, correct???? Now think real hard with that limp noodle of yours! I know you can comprehend what the cell could have possibly "aborted" from! LIFE! DING!DING!DING!
If the "cell" (which is now actually multi-celled, after conception) aborts, it logically has to be in the process of something to abort. It aborts from the process began at conception, the life process. Thank you for making my point for me in such an excellent way!
Again, you are wrong. Human life begins at the moment of conception. We do not have to "consider" it, we know this to be a biological fact. YOU continue to assert that it must be "considered" a human life, but that is non-scientific and subjective. Once the female egg cell is fertilized, a radical transformation happens almost immediately, and the cell is no longer a single cell organism. You continue to falsely assert there is a "fertilized cell" and that is an oxymoron. There is what once was an unfertilized egg cell, but now it is a multi-cell living organism called a human being. Nothing further has to be concluded, nothing has to be determined, it already IS what it IS!
If the cells "do not make it" this can only mean they were living and died. Thanks once again for making my point that a "fertilized female egg" is a human life.
Because there is no other point in time where any other ingredients are obtained during the pregnancy. If the cell stopped growing, it was alive. If it was living, it must be some kind of living organism. If it is living inside a female human, and is the result of a conception between a male human sperm cell and female human egg cell, it is most likely a human organism, nothing in science leads us to believe any other alternative on that. If it is a human organism in the state of being, it is a human being.
Biology 101, Science 101. There is nothing absurd about my knowledge of facts.
*sigh* If it "didn't grow past that point" it had to be living before that point. Science has already determined what form of living organism it is at that point. Once it dies, it is no longer a living human organism.
It doesn't matter why something dies, that doesn't mean it wasn't ever alive. If the critter was alive at any point, it was a HUMAN LIFE, it can't be anything else, science doesn't support it being anything else. Either present some fucking evidence or stop trying to argue this absurd point. You have already admitted, in numerous places, that what you keep erroneously calling a "fertilized cell" is alive at some point, therefore, it MUST be some form of living organism. Despite what we KNOW from science and biology, you want to try to insist this living organism is NOT human! You can't define what it is, you just don't want to say it is human life. You want to argue that men have to "determine" it is human life, and that is ludicrous!
Until YOU can stop pretending that science hasn't determined when human life begins, we can't really have any debate on the issue of abortion. You have adopted an anti-science viewpoint regarding biological facts, and you refuse to acknowledge them, so there is no point in arguing further.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
Mott, having realized he has no chance of proving his claim that there are twenty scientific hypothesis explaining the origin of life, has thrown up the skirts of his graduation gown and fled for the hills.....unless anyone else would like to take up the challenge, it would appear we all agree that there are none.....
Last edited:
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I'm a 100% supporter of taking human life. Let's chomp them up and feed them to cattle.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Science itself, doesn't conclude. Men make conclusions based on science, and sometimes men make conclusions NOT based on science, as apple has done. Nothing I have said is inconsistent with that, and you've not demonstrated it. So why don't you go back to your Bob The Builder coloring book, and leave this topic for the grown ups to discuss?
I gave you 2 of your own quotes. You ignored them.
Your spin on it ain't working. The only reason science is indisputable on the abortion topic is because it's convenient for your lazy argument....
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You gave two of my quotes out of context and lied about what the intent was. Anyone can do that, I can do it with the very words you've typed in this thread, I bet! I can make you say "I love to suck great big donkey dicks!" Because all I have to do, is take bits and pieces of words you've typed, and present them out of context. This "context" thing, is something you should really try to focus on and learn. It is your main handicap in any discussion with competent people.
I haven't ignored anything, I addressed this 3 pages ago, and have posted four more times about it, to try and explain it to you in kindergarten language you can digest, but you continue to bring it back up, as if you have made some brilliant discovery. Science does not conclude things, MEN conclude things from science... or without science.
Now, do you have anything to say regarding the thread topic, or are you just going to continue to prop up your lies and distortions of what I've said, in an attempt to divert the conversation? Because, if it is the later, we're done talking.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The only reason science is indisputable on the abortion topic...
Show me where I said science was indisputable on the abortion topic?
All you fucking do is LIE!! Just, LIE LIE LIE, and top it off with more LIES!
You can't fucking type a sentence, without it being a LIE, can you?
Scientific evidence that human life begins at conception, is irrefutable.
Disagree with that, and you disagree with the scientific evidence.
Show me where I said science was indisputable on the abortion topic?
All you fucking do is LIE!! Just, LIE LIE LIE, and top it off with more LIES!
You can't fucking type a sentence, without it being a LIE, can you?
Scientific evidence that human life begins at conception, is irrefutable.
Disagree with that, and you disagree with the scientific evidence.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Seems Dixie is competing with Good Luck for the most absurd, convoluted neocon rant of the year.
Here's what Lord Monckton, the Queen's scientific advisor, had to say on the subject when questioned. To date, he has yet to respond to my follow-up questions and assertions:
Answers in bold face in the body of your email below. - M of B
----- Original Message -----
From: Taichiliberal
To: monckton@mail.com
Subject: questions on global warming
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:54:36 EST
Dear Lord Monckton,
A few decades ago in America, environmental scientist pointed out that a few hundred lakes in America were dying or dead due to acid rain......rain that was loaded with the chemical pollutants that can be found in the smoke stacks of manufacturing factories. To stop this, it was suggested that all industrial smokestacks be fitted with additional filtration systems that would greatly curtail the pollutants.
Rather than pay for the installation, many industries came up with this hair splitting defense, "If you can't prove that pollutants from my particular plant ended up in a particular lake that killed its wild life, then I'm not libel, and therefore I don't have to change".
In other words, the death by pollution of American lakes via acid rain wasn't exactly being denied....the buck was just being passed....and the corporations just kept making bucks regardless of the consequences.
Now I have consistently asked all those that deny global warming these specific questions, and to date have not gotten a straight answer. Maybe you could answer the following:
1 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing pollutants from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Pollution is damaging: but carbon dioxide, which is what the "global warming" theory is about, is not pollution. It is actually plant food and, in the past million years, concentrations have been at near-starvation levels for trees and plants. Carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere is entirely beneficial to the biosphere, and - once the numerous errors in the IPCC's method of calculation are corrected - causes only a very small and generally beneficial warming.
You are in effect saying that CO2 emissions from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts is beneficial to the environment….which is perplexing given that you have a market decrease in the very natural system of turning that into oxygen…trees. All one has to do is live in an urban environment with heavy vehicle traffic and nearby industrial plant’s smokestack and very little to no forest area, and you get the point. Add to this the other various chemical effluents contained in these emissions, and your assertion of benefits becomes questionable at best.
2 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing deforestation of rainforests have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Deforestation, too, is not caused by carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere. It is caused by greed, bribery and governmental incompetence.
But you leave out the fact that deforestation releases the very carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that you base your article on, since trees are about 50% carbon. But in fact between 25 and 30 percent of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year – 1.6 billion tonnes – is caused by deforestation. According to FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) figures, some 13 million ha of forests worldwide are lost every year, almost entirely in the tropics. Deforestation remains high in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, of which the by products are sold in Europe and North America. But this is old news.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/02/030214074147.htm
3 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing urbanization that have replaced fields, valleys and forests with concrete for housing, malls and high rises have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Urbanization is accompanied by increases in greenhouse-gas emissions and is, accordingly, relevant to the "global warming" debate, unlike your previous two questions. But the temperature globally would not rise very much even if we quadrupled the pre-industrial concentration of atmospheric CO2.
In order to quadruple urbanization, you would have to quadruple deforestation in various spots around the globe….less trees, grass, plants means a lot more CO2 without nature’s ability to convert it to oxygen. And that is not good for all air breathing. And as you know, it wouldn’t take much of a global temperature rise to drastically change the landscape our various societies now enjoy. Just look at what “unseasonable” weather in the form of heavy rains, longer droughts, hurricanes, etc., can do. My other two questions are most pertinent, being that it focuses on all parts of an environment that interacts with human society, and cannot be isolated and separated as you do.
4 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing dumping of industrial waste into our oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Again, this question has no relevance to the "global warming" question. In fact, the volume of the oceans is so large that pollution has had a rather small effect. That is not to say that pollution is a good thing: but one should keep matters in perspective. Most countries of the West now have reasonable and generally-effective systems to control pollution of the oceans.
How can you say that ocean pollution has no relevance to global warming, since the ocean is a critical part of replenishing oxygen and absorbing CO2 to our atmosphere? The more CO2 pumped into the air, the more of a burden on our oceans which can affect the acidic balance. Add to this destroying the various organisms, plant and animal life, and you restrain the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2 release oxygen into the air. And our pollution control methods for industrial nations has a long way to go before being seen as generally effective…..just look at the current 2 term American President’s environmental record.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070919175542.htm
5 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing trawl nets on the oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Over-fishing, particularly in consequence of the Communist Fisheries Policy of the EU, is most certainly a problem. But, again, this question has little or no bearing on the "global warming" issue, which was the subject of my article.
If you damage the ocean’s ecology, you affect its ability to convert CO2 to oxygen. Acid rain has been confirmed to destroy lakes in America….and all one has to do is a quick recent historical review of the pollution of shorelines for many cities to know this is no small problem (slimy waters, dead fish, and terrible odors). The Green Peace folk have been most accurate in documenting the effects of trawling and who is doing it.
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/deepsea/archives/press/releases/
Here's what Lord Monckton, the Queen's scientific advisor, had to say on the subject when questioned. To date, he has yet to respond to my follow-up questions and assertions:
Answers in bold face in the body of your email below. - M of B
----- Original Message -----
From: Taichiliberal
To: monckton@mail.com
Subject: questions on global warming
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:54:36 EST
Dear Lord Monckton,
A few decades ago in America, environmental scientist pointed out that a few hundred lakes in America were dying or dead due to acid rain......rain that was loaded with the chemical pollutants that can be found in the smoke stacks of manufacturing factories. To stop this, it was suggested that all industrial smokestacks be fitted with additional filtration systems that would greatly curtail the pollutants.
Rather than pay for the installation, many industries came up with this hair splitting defense, "If you can't prove that pollutants from my particular plant ended up in a particular lake that killed its wild life, then I'm not libel, and therefore I don't have to change".
In other words, the death by pollution of American lakes via acid rain wasn't exactly being denied....the buck was just being passed....and the corporations just kept making bucks regardless of the consequences.
Now I have consistently asked all those that deny global warming these specific questions, and to date have not gotten a straight answer. Maybe you could answer the following:
1 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing pollutants from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Pollution is damaging: but carbon dioxide, which is what the "global warming" theory is about, is not pollution. It is actually plant food and, in the past million years, concentrations have been at near-starvation levels for trees and plants. Carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere is entirely beneficial to the biosphere, and - once the numerous errors in the IPCC's method of calculation are corrected - causes only a very small and generally beneficial warming.
You are in effect saying that CO2 emissions from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts is beneficial to the environment….which is perplexing given that you have a market decrease in the very natural system of turning that into oxygen…trees. All one has to do is live in an urban environment with heavy vehicle traffic and nearby industrial plant’s smokestack and very little to no forest area, and you get the point. Add to this the other various chemical effluents contained in these emissions, and your assertion of benefits becomes questionable at best.
2 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing deforestation of rainforests have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Deforestation, too, is not caused by carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere. It is caused by greed, bribery and governmental incompetence.
But you leave out the fact that deforestation releases the very carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that you base your article on, since trees are about 50% carbon. But in fact between 25 and 30 percent of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year – 1.6 billion tonnes – is caused by deforestation. According to FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) figures, some 13 million ha of forests worldwide are lost every year, almost entirely in the tropics. Deforestation remains high in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, of which the by products are sold in Europe and North America. But this is old news.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/02/030214074147.htm
3 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing urbanization that have replaced fields, valleys and forests with concrete for housing, malls and high rises have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Urbanization is accompanied by increases in greenhouse-gas emissions and is, accordingly, relevant to the "global warming" debate, unlike your previous two questions. But the temperature globally would not rise very much even if we quadrupled the pre-industrial concentration of atmospheric CO2.
In order to quadruple urbanization, you would have to quadruple deforestation in various spots around the globe….less trees, grass, plants means a lot more CO2 without nature’s ability to convert it to oxygen. And that is not good for all air breathing. And as you know, it wouldn’t take much of a global temperature rise to drastically change the landscape our various societies now enjoy. Just look at what “unseasonable” weather in the form of heavy rains, longer droughts, hurricanes, etc., can do. My other two questions are most pertinent, being that it focuses on all parts of an environment that interacts with human society, and cannot be isolated and separated as you do.
4 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing dumping of industrial waste into our oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Again, this question has no relevance to the "global warming" question. In fact, the volume of the oceans is so large that pollution has had a rather small effect. That is not to say that pollution is a good thing: but one should keep matters in perspective. Most countries of the West now have reasonable and generally-effective systems to control pollution of the oceans.
How can you say that ocean pollution has no relevance to global warming, since the ocean is a critical part of replenishing oxygen and absorbing CO2 to our atmosphere? The more CO2 pumped into the air, the more of a burden on our oceans which can affect the acidic balance. Add to this destroying the various organisms, plant and animal life, and you restrain the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2 release oxygen into the air. And our pollution control methods for industrial nations has a long way to go before being seen as generally effective…..just look at the current 2 term American President’s environmental record.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070919175542.htm
5 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing trawl nets on the oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Over-fishing, particularly in consequence of the Communist Fisheries Policy of the EU, is most certainly a problem. But, again, this question has little or no bearing on the "global warming" issue, which was the subject of my article.
If you damage the ocean’s ecology, you affect its ability to convert CO2 to oxygen. Acid rain has been confirmed to destroy lakes in America….and all one has to do is a quick recent historical review of the pollution of shorelines for many cities to know this is no small problem (slimy waters, dead fish, and terrible odors). The Green Peace folk have been most accurate in documenting the effects of trawling and who is doing it.
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/deepsea/archives/press/releases/
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Sorry, no you did not, because I had to explain the context to you three pages back, and you have consistently ignored me. Nothing I have said is contradictory regarding science. In the current topic, or in the old topic, science does not conclude or determine, that is something MEN do, not science. If you can show me where I have said anything contrary to that, put it up there, because that is not a position I have ever held. If you think you've found where I have made such a statement, it is certainly taken out of context, and I would be the supreme judge on what context I intended.
I hope this resolves the matter forthwith, and we can end this pathetic and childish diversion of the thread topic. I have really gotten bored with educating the retarded today, so this is my final post regarding this matter in any event.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
There you go again, you've just demonstrated again what I was stating. that you don't understand the difference between theory and hypothesis. Did you not read my posts? Did you not read Thorns post? Did you not read the very definition you posted of a hypothesis?
A hypothesis is a formal, testable prediction based on empirical observation. It explains nothing. It concludes nothing. It merely test a prediction or guess about an empirical observation and determines if the predicted results occurs or not. A scientific explanation for the origins of life would be a theory, not a hypothesis. Why is this concept so difficult for you to grasp?
Nah - I looked at the old topic. There was nothing about it being MEN, not science. You were trashing science.
The MEN thing is your spin in this thread, because you realized that you really stepped in it on that one...
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
READ CAREFULLY FROM MY LAST POST:
so this is my final post regarding this matter in any event.