Liberals Perverted Science

Dixie said:
Yes, I do understand what you are saying! It doesn't comport with science, it doesn't conform to reality! You keep repeating a falsehood, and insisting you are right and I don't know what I am talking about. Go pick up a 7th grade science book, seriously, it's in there! Life does very well begin at conception, and conception always begins every human life! They are interchangeable and you've offered NO EVIDENCE to the contrary. Either put up or shut up!
Click to expand...

It is you who has offered no evidence. Show me a report, article, web page, a note book, a scrap of paper, anything documenting where a reputable individual has examined an egg which spontaneously aborted AND stating the known cause. Just one.

Again, if the "fertilized cells" (which are no longer single cells) abort, they must be in the process of something to abort. If they aborted the process of life, they were already living organisms, if they were from a human sperm and egg, they were a living human organism. When they died, they stopped being a living organism of any kind. They don't have to meet a criteria to be "classified" they become unique living organisms with multiple cells the moment of conception, when the male sperm cell permeates the female egg cell... You are smart enough to know that 1+1=2... 1 Female Egg + 1 Sperm = 2 CELLS! NOT ONE! There is no such thing as a "fertilized egg cell" because once the "fertilization" happens, it is no longer a single egg cell, it is a multi-cell living organism. Can you at least start using the proper terminology, instead of insisting to be ignorant and calling it a "fertilized cell" (which is an oxymoron.)
Click to expand...

For the umpteenth time, regarding cells that spontaneously abort or are absorbed, we don't know if any processes took place other than the sperm entered the egg. It may have immediately died. It may have died a while later. That does not mean it was an organism. It could have, and probably did, miss vital parts required for it to be considered an organism.

Why do you have such difficulty understanding something so basic?

An organism is defined as being able to carry on life processes. You nor I nor science know if those aborted cells had the ability to do that.

What part of that are you having problems with?
 
apple0154 said:
Why do I feel like this is a trick question? :lol:

280 days or 40 weeks counting from the last menstrual period. So sayeth Google.
Click to expand...

"Pregnancy is the carrying of one or more offspring"

"Human offspring (descendants) are referred to as children (without reference to age, thus one can refer to a parent's "minor children" or "adult children"); male children are sons and female children are daughters."

"A child (plural: children) is a human between the stages of birth and puberty."

"The word fetus is from the Latin fetus, meaning offspring."
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it isn't difficult at all, I agree with that wholeheartedly.....but your speculations regarding the origins of life aren't proven scientific explanations (theories).....they haven't been successfully tested.....they are not hypothesis, because they are not testable.....they are merely speculations.....

you realize that, you know you can't demonstrate them to be hypothesis....that is why you are afraid to actually engage in the debate.....
Click to expand...
Then why did you say something completely rediculous, from a scientific standpoint as "Mott, having realized he has no chance of proving his claim that there are twenty scientific hypothesis explaining the origin of life" in which you confuse theory with hypothesis?

If you agree with what I've stated are the definitions of theory and hypothesis why do you keep confusing the two and using them interchangebly in a completely inappropriate fashion?

As for the rest of your argument, your arguing in circles as if rhetoric of such a nature was worth one cent in a scientific discussion. It's not, it's worthless. So lets go back full circle since you like doing that.

You stated there were no testable hypothesis on the origins of life. I listed around 20 hypothesis, all of them testable. You claimed they are not testable, the burden of proof is yours (in other words I'm not going to do your work for you). So far you tried to explain that the extraterrestrial hypothesis was not testable, I easily shot that down and demonstrated that it was testable. So 1 to nothing against you.

You want to go one at time go ahead. Choose the another hypothesis I listed and show me how it's not testable and I'll be glad to shoot you down. Next?

Or are you going to run away from your own challenge? LOL
 
apple0154 said:
It is you who has offered no evidence. Show me a report, article, web page, a note book, a scrap of paper, anything documenting where a reputable individual has examined an egg which spontaneously aborted AND stating the known cause. Just one.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter WHY they aborted the process of life! What is the matter with you on this? Can you not comprehend that in order for something to DIE, it MUST be ALIVE FIRST? Does that logical fact elude you? It appears to, because you continue to make the same ridiculous argument over and over! If the fucking cell has been fertilized, it is no longer a single egg cell, it becomes (instantly) a living organism, and if dies in 1 second, 1 minute, 1 hour, 1 day, 1 year, or 100 years, it will ALWAYS be a living organism until that point. I don't need to post "proof" of that, it's common fucking sense!

For the umpteenth time, regarding cells that spontaneously abort or are absorbed, we don't know if any processes took place other than the sperm entered the egg. It may have immediately died. It may have died a while later. That does not mean it was an organism. It could have, and probably did, miss vital parts required for it to be considered an organism.
Click to expand...

Yes, you fucking moron, we DO have an understanding of the process! If the egg cell is fertilized by the sperm and conception takes place, a living organism is the result. How long it survives is irrelevant to the fact that it is living. The mere fact that it died, should be enough logic to tell you, it MUST have been living, otherwise, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to DIE!

Why do you have such difficulty understanding something so basic?
Click to expand...

I am having difficulty accepting the impossible and agreeing on the ridiculous. I don't have a bit of problem understanding science and the process of life. I also don't have a problem with logic, which you certainly seem to have. You can't point to something that has died, and claim that proves it never lived! It's just absurd and ignorant.

An organism is defined as being able to carry on life processes. You nor I nor science know if those aborted cells had the ability to do that.

What part of that are you having problems with?
Click to expand...

Let's go over this very slowly one more time... Once the organism DIES it is no longer a LIVING organism! I agree with you on that, is that your point? If the conception of egg and sperm results in an organism that dies, it ceases to be a living human organism. POINT MADE!

If you die... does it mean you weren't ever alive? Does it mean you were never a human being? This seems to be your argument! You continue to point to a pile of "fertilized eggs" that "didn't make it" and "sponteneously aborted" and claim this is proof they were never living! Logic dictates, if they died, they had to be living first. Something can't die (or "not make it") if it isn't living already, it's impossible.
 
Last edited:
If anyone had any doubts about my assertions that liberals pervert science, apple's posts are the best evidence one could imagine. Here, we have a liberal who has "determined" that something can be alive and living, and abort the process, and never have been a living organism. There is no scientific basis for this belief, it's simply what the liberal has concluded in his mind. Because some human organisms died, it means they never lived.

When science gets in the way of their ideology, science is cast aside, it doesn't matter how illogical their positions are, or how contradicting of science they become, they will continue to throw out absurd analogies and examples which do not apply, and pretend that science is inconclusive.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Then why did you say something completely rediculous, from a scientific standpoint as "Mott, having realized he has no chance of proving his claim that there are twenty scientific hypothesis explaining the origin of life" in which you confuse theory with hypothesis?
Click to expand...
because that's the only rational explanation for your refusal to debate, since I had demonstrated no confusion over the meaning....it was obviously only an attempt at diversion on your part to avoid the real issue....


You stated there were no testable hypothesis on the origins of life. I listed around 20 hypothesis, all of them testable.
Click to expand...
then prove your claim.....you know as well as I and as well as everyone else here that it's your assertion and it's your burden.....
 
Last edited:
So far you tried to explain that the extraterrestrial hypothesis was not testable, I easily shot that down and demonstrated that it was testable.
Click to expand...
not yet you haven't.....are you claiming that by visiting every asteroid and meteor in the universe you have shown 'testability'?.....if that is your criteria, then creation is also testable, since we merely have to wait until God returns to have evidence......that would be faster than waiting until science has explored every corner of the universe......how is the speculation regarding extraterrestrial origin falsifiable......and what about the issue of the origin of extraterrestrial life?.....you still have failed to answer either of those questions.......
 
Last edited:
Southern Man said:
Liberals hate God and love death.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as god so we can translate:

Liberals hate nothing and love death.

What makes you think that what you call liberals (people who support freedom) should love death. Surely all people are pretty well resigned to it, aren't they? Or does it not apply to you and yours?
 
Lowaicue said:
There is no such thing as god so we can translate:

Liberals hate nothing and love death.

What makes you think that what you call liberals (people who support freedom) should love death. Surely all people are pretty well resigned to it, aren't they? Or does it not apply to you and yours?
Click to expand...

Liberals don't support freedom, they oppose freedom at every opportunity.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
Man, ain't that the truth. :(
Click to expand...

Here's proof:
photo_1257045975371-1-1.jpg


No, that's no photoshop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top