Liberals Perverted Science

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

My goodness. You are one dense soul. You accuse me of talking down to you, yet, you fail to understand the most logic.

Back to square one. Organism: An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.

Over 50% of conceptions, fertilized cells, die. Not human beings. Human tissue. Try to understand it was tissue that lived and died, not an organism.

They did not carry on the processes of life.

*SIGH* ....Every form of living organism will ultimately not carry on the process of life! What in the fuck is your point? Once something is DEAD it is no longer ALIVE, but that does not mean that it was never alive! If conception took place, living human tissue became a living human organism, plain and simple. This is a biological fact, and is well-documented, and you can deny it and attempt to refute it for the next week, month, year... I don't give a shit!

It doesn't make sense to say every conception is a human being, an organism, when over 50% of them can not carry on the processes of life.

You wrote, "....EVERY fucking living organism ever known to man, will eventually not be able to carry on the life process!"

Yes, eventually. The point is every organism did carry on the processes of life for a period of time. We do not know if the conceptions/fertilized cells ever carried on the processes of life.

Yes we do, otherwise they couldn't have DIED! You just said, they died! "when over 50% of them can not carry on the processes of life"

No one, not one single scientist, doctor or other qualified individual has established those conceptions ever carried on the processes of life.

Yes they have, every educated person who has ever opened a science book, understands when the life process begins. You admitted it yourself earlier. Are you now claiming that science doesn't know that conception of a sperm cell and female egg causes a living organism to be produced? This is getting more absurd and anti-science by the second, you nitwit!

The most likely scenario is the sperm enters the egg and both start dying resulting in their death within minutes or hours. No organism. No human being. That would be the logical conclusion until further data is received.

If the sperm cell enters the egg, an immediate transformation happens, and they become one, a living growing multi-cell human organism. Perhaps the organism lives 1/2 second, perhaps it lives 113 years, it will never be any less or more human. You continue to try and draw silly parameters which something has to meet to be considered a living organism, and that is ludicrous. You posted the definition of organism, and once conception takes place, that is precisely what you have, a living human organism. If it dies one nanosecond later, it was still a living human organism, when it dies has no bearing on what it was!

Just go back and read your long and exasperating explanations, see how many times you completely contradict your own argument by admitting the conception produced something living, a living organism, and "something happened" or "it didn't make it" or "it spontaneously aborted" or "50% perished" ...All indicating that you know and understand there was a life process going on, and for whatever reason, it stopped. Still, you ignorantly attempt to claim there was never a life process going on, based on the fact it perished! Apparently, nothing can be defined as a living organism, because everything living will ultimately not be able to sustain the process of life. That is the absurd corner you've backed this argument into, and it defies logic and common sense.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

*SIGH* ....Every form of living organism will ultimately not carry on the process of life! What in the fuck is your point? Once something is DEAD it is no longer ALIVE, but that does not mean that it was never alive! If conception took place, living human tissue became a living human organism, plain and simple. This is a biological fact, and is well-documented, and you can deny it and attempt to refute it for the next week, month, year... I don't give a shit!



Yes we do, otherwise they couldn't have DIED! You just said, they died! "when over 50% of them can not carry on the processes of life"




Yes they have, every educated person who has ever opened a science book, understands when the life process begins. You admitted it yourself earlier. Are you now claiming that science doesn't know that conception of a sperm cell and female egg causes a living organism to be produced? This is getting more absurd and anti-science by the second, you nitwit!



If the sperm cell enters the egg, an immediate transformation happens, and they become one, a living growing multi-cell human organism. Perhaps the organism lives 1/2 second, perhaps it lives 113 years, it will never be any less or more human. You continue to try and draw silly parameters which something has to meet to be considered a living organism, and that is ludicrous. You posted the definition of organism, and once conception takes place, that is precisely what you have, a living human organism. If it dies one nanosecond later, it was still a living human organism, when it dies has no bearing on what it was!

Just go back and read your long and exasperating explanations, see how many times you completely contradict your own argument by admitting the conception produced something living, a living organism, and "something happened" or "it didn't make it" or "it spontaneously aborted" or "50% perished" ...All indicating that you know and understand there was a life process going on, and for whatever reason, it stopped. Still, you ignorantly attempt to claim there was never a life process going on, based on the fact it perished! Apparently, nothing can be defined as a living organism, because everything living will ultimately not be able to sustain the process of life. That is the absurd corner you've backed this argument into, and it defies logic and common sense.

ZZZZZZ... onovrf

 

[apple0154]

If the sperm cell enters the egg, an immediate transformation happens, and they become one, a living growing multi-cell human organism.

We don't know that because the cells that spontaneously aborted were never analyzed. We have no idea if they were, in fact, organisms and logic tells us if over 50 % die within minutes/hours they probably were not organisms.

Obviously they didn't have the necessary parts to carry on the processes of life and that's one of the things that determines an organism.

Perhaps the organism lives 1/2 second, perhaps it lives 113 years, it will never be any less or more human. You continue to try and draw silly parameters which something has to meet to be considered a living organism, and that is ludicrous. You posted the definition of organism, and once conception takes place, that is precisely what you have, a living human organism. If it dies one nanosecond later, it was still a living human organism, when it dies has no bearing on what it was!

Once, again, you miss the point. You're assuming that once the sperm entered the egg the resultant mass did carry on the processes of life for a specific length if time. That has never been established regarding the self-aborted masses.

Just go back and read your long and exasperating explanations, see how many times you completely contradict your own argument by admitting the conception produced something living, a living organism, and "something happened" or "it didn't make it" or "it spontaneously aborted" or "50% perished" ...All indicating that you know and understand there was a life process going on, and for whatever reason, it stopped. Still, you ignorantly attempt to claim there was never a life process going on, based on the fact it perished! Apparently, nothing can be defined as a living organism, because everything living will ultimately not be able to sustain the process of life. That is the absurd corner you've backed this argument into, and it defies logic and common sense.

Human tissue was living. That does not mean an organism was living. Are you unable to understand the difference?

It's not about something ultimately dying. It's about an organism never coming into existence. When over 50% die within minutes/hours the logical conclusion is those masses were unable to carry on the processes of life considering human beings usually carry on the processes of life for well over half a century unless interrupted by external forces.

Yes, some human beings contract illnesses and die prematurely. However, to assume over 50% of conceptions are organisms and some unknown illness strikes resulting in their demise is ludicrous.

It is your argument which defies logic and common sense.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

We don't know that because the cells that spontaneously aborted were never analyzed. We have no idea if they were, in fact, organisms and logic tells us if over 50 % die within minutes/hours they probably were not organisms.

doesn't that ignore the fact that EVERY one which does survive those minutes/hours IS an organism?.....

would not science use that to develop a probability regarding those which cannot be analyzed?............

 

[apple0154]

doesn't that ignore the fact that EVERY one which does survive those minutes/hours IS an organism?.....

would not science use that to develop a probability regarding those which cannot be analyzed?............

The ones which do not develop can be analyzed if scientists/doctors put their mind to it. If they know over 50% do not survive then they must have access to them. At least the ones which spontaneously abort and that leads to the unsettling question, "If the general scientific/medical community believed those cells were human beings why are they not actively pursuing answers?

Again, we come back to the cheapening of human life or the cheapening of what it means to be a human being. Do we just accept that over 50% of human beings die within hours of coming into existence and do nothing about it?

What message would we be sending by classifying those cells as human beings and then continue the practice of not actively, vigorously, trying to determine if they are, in fact, human beings, let alone why they perished.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The ones which do not develop can be analyzed if scientists/doctors put their mind to it. If they know over 50% do not survive then they must have access to them. At least the ones which spontaneously abort and that leads to the unsettling question, "If the general scientific/medical community believed those cells were human beings why are they not actively pursuing answers?

Again, we come back to the cheapening of human life or the cheapening of what it means to be a human being. Do we just accept that over 50% of human beings die within hours of coming into existence and do nothing about it?

What message would we be sending by classifying those cells as human beings and then continue the practice of not actively, vigorously, trying to determine if they are, in fact, human beings, let alone why they perished.

Apple, if something dies, I agree, it is no longer a living human organism and I don't care what happens to it after it dies. Once the living human organism has died, it is no longer a living human organism, it is dead. How many times are you going to make this ridiculous point? I am not arguing that dead organisms are organisms or living. They are dead tissue at that point, and nothing more. If they do not die, they remain living human organisms, and will always be that until they do die. This happens when the sperm cell enters the egg, and is called conception. A living organism is produced in the process of chemical reactions which begin immediately, when the sperm cell fuses with the egg cell. The life process begins here, nowhere else. If it expires one second later, it doesn't change the fact that it WAS living.

You can make any number of arguments for what condition the living human organism is in, what stage it has reached in development, whether it feels pain, if it has cognition, if it has a functional heart or brain... all sorts of things can be argued for the condition of the living human organism, but it is indeed human life in the state of being. A human being.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It's not about something ultimately dying. It's about an organism never coming into existence. When over 50% die within minutes/hours the logical conclusion is those masses were unable to carry on the processes of life considering human beings usually carry on the processes of life for well over half a century unless interrupted by external forces.

If it DIES it had to be LIVING first! Before they died, they were able to carry on the process of life and were a living human organism, THEN they died. It doesn't matter how long humans usually live, they don't always live more than a nanosecond. There is no criteria you can logically set with regard to how long a human has to survive as an organism to determine it is an organism, and to assert this is beyond stupid. It becomes a unique living human organism (not tissue) at the point of conception, when the sperm cell enters and fuses with the egg cell. This is when HUMAN LIFE begins, it is totally irrelevant when it ends!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

the same things I questioned you about the first time you said it. Isn't it true that when the first extraterrestrial object comes up showing no sign of life that we need to keep looking?

To validate the hypotheis yes. To test the hypothesis, no. If you go to space and collect an extraterrestrial object and examine it for life, regardless of whether you find evidence of life or not, you have tested the hypothesis.

....doesn't it require looking at every extra-terrestrial object in the universe?....How is it falsifiable

No. A hypothesis only needs to be falsifiable, in principle. It need not be falsified literally. If it's falsified "literally" it is no longer a scientifically valid hypothesis. It will have been refuted, but it would still be a testable hypothesis. Think about it. If all hypothesis had to be falsified literally then the scientific method would not work, ever.

.....and, even then, how does it deal with the origin of that extra-terrestrial life?.......

Although a very inetersting question it's not a relevent one. Were discussing whether the hypothesis is testable or not. This question has nothing to do with that issue.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Human tissue was living. That does not mean an organism was living. Are you unable to understand the difference? .

You're moronic.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The ones which do not develop can be analyzed if scientists/doctors put their mind to it. If they know over 50% do not survive then they must have access to them. At least the ones which spontaneously abort and that leads to the unsettling question, "If the general scientific/medical community believed those cells were human beings why are they not actively pursuing answers?

Again, we come back to the cheapening of human life or the cheapening of what it means to be a human being. Do we just accept that over 50% of human beings die within hours of coming into existence and do nothing about it?

What message would we be sending by classifying those cells as human beings and then continue the practice of not actively, vigorously, trying to determine if they are, in fact, human beings, let alone why they perished.

I love the way that as soon as someone shows you are wrong with your "50% aren't organisms" claim you jump right back to your "human beings" claim....why not stop to admit you were wrong about "organisms" first?.......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

No. A hypothesis only needs to be falsifiable, in principle. It need not be falsified literally. If it's falsified "literally" it is no longer a scientifically valid hypothesis. It will have been refuted, but it would still be a testable hypothesis. Think about it. If all hypothesis had to be falsified literally then the scientific method would not work, ever.

that's my point....it cannot be falsified in principle......one need only say "you haven't looked at the right meteorite yet"......it isn't physically possible to look at every meteorite in the universe.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Although a very inetersting question it's not a relevent one. Were discussing whether the hypothesis is testable or not. This question has nothing to do with that issue.

apparently you have forgotten that it must be an hypothesis for the origin of life...."it came from someplace else" isn't an explanation for origin.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

To validate the hypotheis yes. To test the hypothesis, no. If you go to space and collect an extraterrestrial object and examine it for life, regardless of whether you find evidence of life or not, you have tested the hypothesis.

what is 'testability'...

Testability, a property applying to an empirical hypothesis, involves two components: (1) the logical property that is variously described as contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability, which means that counterexamples to the hypothesis are logically possible, and (2) the practical feasibility of observing a reproducible series of such counterexamples if they do exist. In short, a hypothesis is testable if there is some real hope of deciding whether it is true or false of real experience. Upon this property of its constituent hypotheses rests the ability to decide whether a theory can be supported or falsified by the data of actual experience. If hypotheses are tested, initial results may also be labeled inconclusive.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testability[/ame]

 

[PostmodernProphet]

A study done in 1996 (looking at the number of meteorites found in deserts over time) calculated that for objects in the 10 gram to 1 kilogram size range, 2900-7300 kilograms per year hit Earth. However, unlike the number above this does not include the small dust particles. They also estimate between 36 and 166 meteorites larger than 10 grams fall to Earth per million square kilometers per year. Over the whole surface area of Earth, that translates to 18,000 to 84,000 meteorites bigger than 10 grams per year. But most meteorites are too small to actually fall all the way to the surface. (This study was led by P. A. Bland and was published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.)

what direction does the argument take when you consider that no life has ever been discovered in any meteorite fragment ever examined?.......

 

[egordon0315]

Here we go again with the "unbuilt house" nonsense. It does matter whether or not it contains the necessary chromosomes/genes/whatever and we don't know that, at that stage, when it's currently inside a woman.

It's like looking at a pile of lumber and saying there's an unbuilt house. We don't know that. Maybe the beams that support the house are missing so a house will never be built with just the current material.



Sure nature causes it to be something other than a human life. In many cases nature causes the defective, fertilized cell to abort.



Human life can only be determined by examining the fertilized cell. Does it have the necessary material to be considered a human life? It is reasonable to conclude that in some cases it does not. If all fertilized cells were human life all fertilized cells in the laboratory would grow but they do not. Why?



We're back to square one. Just because all human life begins with a fertilized cell that does not mean all fertilized cells are human life. As for evidence a preponderance of the facts support my position. Over 50% of fertilized cells do not make it past that stage.

What evidence do you have that every fertilized cell has the necessary ingredients to become a human being? Do you have any? Can you direct me to a site where one fertilized cell that stopped growing at that point was examined and the reason determined?

Give me something to support your absurd beliefs.

Let's just skip to the end of your post and save time. You wrote,

Science has not determined that every fertilized cell is a human being because science has not examined every fertilized cell that never grew past that point.

If six cells are extracted from a woman and fertilized in the lab and two do not grow past that stage, why is that? All six have been subjected to the same procedure. All six were living under the same conditions. Why do two cease to grow?

Until science can determine the cause it's reasonable to conclude the problem might rest with the cell. Might rest with the cell. Maybe, maybe not. However, until it it can be determined for sure it cheapens all human beings to say every fertilized cell is a human being. It's nothing short of an outrage to have the lives of human beings, in any way, interfered with by what the consequences of designating something a human being, which is not a human being, will result in.

Apple, i love ya, cher, but life begins at conception. The joining of 23 + 23 chromosomes when a sperm cell injects itself into an egg cell. Granted, sometimes the numbers are skewed.

I appreciate your enlightened approach to pro-choice, but it needs to be more enlightened. A woman has every right to terminate a pregnancy. Even a healthy one. Your reasons about defective embryos is useless and undermines the premise that a woman has final control over what happens with her body. Your premise determines that the adorable Downs Syndrome boy next door is not human.

Am I pro-choice? Of course I am! But not for the reasons you put forward.

I am disappointed in you.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Topspin
there is also nothing dumber than cons arguing against abortion.
WE ARE NOT GOING BACK TO WOMAN NOT HAVING A CHOICE.
You and other hard core conservatives are ruining the republican party.
keep it far right, religious and ultra conservative and your losses will explode on you.

What is really dumb is nitwit pinhead who apparently can't read and comprehend things. I've stated numerous times in this thread, this debate is NOT about the issue of abortion. We can't have that debate until we are all on the same page on what we are talking about. As long a ignorant pinheads repudiate science and refuse to accept when life begins, the debate on abortion is futile. You view this as a "womans right" but that is based on your anti-science assumption that life begins some time after conception. We don't delegate ANYONE with the right to kill other innocent human beings, why should we bestow such a right to women?

As for your political predictions, you really should be more concerned with how you're going to keep the Liberal Locomotive on the tracks, because America is waking up to your fraud, and she is pissed.

First you claim the argument isn't about abortion, then you jump right into the usual rhetoric used by anti-abortionist.

Bottom line: if you were so adamant about perserving life, you would a virulent pacifist.

You are anything but, and I dare say neither are the majority of genuflecting, myopic science spouting anti-abortionist.

Also, with all the medical scientific devices that are easily mass produced and available....there should NEVER be another abortion in America based on an unwanted pregnancy (unless rape based or a threat to the life of the mother). But thanks to the congenital mental defect of puritanism and religious dogma...our children grow up virtually ignorant about sex and ways to prevent pregnancy and the spread of STD's.

The old argument that sex education promotes teen sex and pregnancy is a tired old joke. WITHOUT sex education in the schools, the aforementioned increased over the years...which elicited the reaction to do something about it.

If sex education were given the same treatment as indoctrinating our kids about sports and car ownership, the need for abortions would plummet (IMHO).

But since the anti-abortionist are dead set against such changes, abortions will continue to exists.

Deal with it.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

our children grow up virtually ignorant about sex and ways to prevent pregnancy and the spread of STD's.

really?....I bet you would have a hard time finding someone over the age of 8 that couldn't explain it to you.....

 

[Mott the Hoople]

that's my point....it cannot be falsified in principle......one need only say "you haven't looked at the right meteorite yet"......it isn't physically possible to look at every meteorite in the universe.....

You're just flat out wrong. In principle it's easily falsifiable. The fact that in practice it's very difficult is not relevant. For example, in principle gravity is easily falsifiable but in practice it is almost impossible to determine all the combinations and permutations of experiments and observations that can be used to test gravity (which is true of virtually any hypothesis or theory) but, in principle, if I drop a hammer and it accelerates at a tangent away from the center of the earth I will have falsified the theory of gravity.

Think about this, if in practice all hypothesis were easily falsifiable, they wouldn't have much value, would they?

The fact is, there are many "testable" hypothesis for a natural origin to life. Some have a greater degree of validity than others but they are all testable or they would not be scientific hypothesis by definition.

There are all sorts of testable hypothesis for abiogensis, as I listed, the problem with abiogensis is does the evidence gained from testing these hypothesis allow us to construct an acceptable theory? How can one construct a model about the origins of life when the conditions which may have caused the origin of life are not known and cannot be adequately explained? Do the present hypothesis of abiogenesis demonstrate through repeated testing a model that accurately explains a natural origin of life in which useful predictions can be made and repeated which have a very high probability of being correct? No. Abiogenesis does not yet meet this theoretical standard and as such abiogenesis is not a generally accepted theory. It has not been disproven or refuted as a theory to date, but it is not a generally accepted scientific theory either. Much more needs to be learned before the theory of abiogenesis can either be accepted or refuted.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

You're just flat out wrong. In principle it's easily falsifiable.

how? we've noted that observation of thousands of meteorites per year has shown not a single evidence of life....yet, I'm sure you aren't prepared to concede the speculation to be proven false on that basis alone.......what in principle will falsify it?

There are all sorts of testable hypothesis for abiogensis, as I listed

and you'll get a chance to try to prove that.....I gave you opportunity for first choice but you passed.....thus, we're doing extraterrestrial source first

How can one construct a model about the origins of life when the conditions which may have caused the origin of life are not known and cannot be adequately explained? Do the present hypothesis of abiogenesis demonstrate through repeated testing a model that accurately explains a natural origin of life in which useful predictions can be made and repeated which have a very high probability of being correct? No.

agreed....in fact, the impossibility of repeated experimentation is precisely what prevents ALL of the speculations regarding abiogenesis to fail as hypothesis......

if you're prepared to concede failure with this example, I'll let you choose the next one to champion......

 

[Taichiliberal]

Taichiliberal wrote: our children grow up virtually ignorant about sex and ways to prevent pregnancy and the spread of STD's.

really?....I bet you would have a hard time finding someone over the age of 8 that couldn't explain it to you.....

If what you imply here were true in every sense, then the rate of abortions, STD's and single female parents in America would be a mere fraction of what it is now. Clearly, that is not the case...hence my analysis.