Page 48 of 61 FirstFirst ... 3844454647484950515258 ... LastLast
Results 706 to 720 of 910

Thread: A great first step to ending Abortion!

  1. #706 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Des Moines
    Posts
    9,223
    Thanks
    2,352
    Thanked 1,780 Times in 1,484 Posts
    Groans
    520
    Groaned 639 Times in 611 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    It is the very best way to prevent it.


    It never fails.


    Yes, they will. That is not practicing abstinence.


    Once you have sex, you are no longer practicing abstinence.


    Correct. Many decide to have sex. They typically don't think about the consequences nor responsibilities until "whoopie, I'm pregnant"...
    Which is why abstinence, as a policy, doesn't work.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    RINO is the term for that rare Republican who puts country above party.

    Right wing = lie, lie, and lie some more.


    "When I am president I'm going to be working for you. I'm not going to have time to play golf" Donald J. Trump, world class snake oil salesman and compulsive golfer August 2016

    The definition of "racist" as "anyone who is white" is itself racist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Powell
    It’s now ‘me the president’ instead of ‘we the people’

  2. #707 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Des Moines
    Posts
    9,223
    Thanks
    2,352
    Thanked 1,780 Times in 1,484 Posts
    Groans
    520
    Groaned 639 Times in 611 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    Again, I did NOT say theism... I said religion... Theism is only a small sect of what religion entails...


    You've proven this? Or is this your belief?
    When is the last time that any god spoke to you, outside of your delusions. There's no evidence that any god exists. If there really was an omnipotent Being, it would be simplicity itself for Him to demonstrate His existence. Yet He's never done so. All we've ever seen are desperate attempts by believers to make us think that He's done so.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    RINO is the term for that rare Republican who puts country above party.

    Right wing = lie, lie, and lie some more.


    "When I am president I'm going to be working for you. I'm not going to have time to play golf" Donald J. Trump, world class snake oil salesman and compulsive golfer August 2016

    The definition of "racist" as "anyone who is white" is itself racist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Powell
    It’s now ‘me the president’ instead of ‘we the people’

  3. #708 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Des Moines
    Posts
    9,223
    Thanks
    2,352
    Thanked 1,780 Times in 1,484 Posts
    Groans
    520
    Groaned 639 Times in 611 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    Okay... Let's start with yours, then... Is that alright?


    It does.


    Quote a passage which does this.


    Quote a passage which does this.
    You appear to be deliberately ignorant. I am a real person, with rights. A fetus is not a person, and has no rights.
    Then there's Exodus 21:22 and Numbers 5.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    RINO is the term for that rare Republican who puts country above party.

    Right wing = lie, lie, and lie some more.


    "When I am president I'm going to be working for you. I'm not going to have time to play golf" Donald J. Trump, world class snake oil salesman and compulsive golfer August 2016

    The definition of "racist" as "anyone who is white" is itself racist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Powell
    It’s now ‘me the president’ instead of ‘we the people’

  4. #709 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Des Moines
    Posts
    9,223
    Thanks
    2,352
    Thanked 1,780 Times in 1,484 Posts
    Groans
    520
    Groaned 639 Times in 611 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    Inversion Fallacy. That's what YOU are doing, not me.

    I have provided the text and explained it...
    You didn't "explain it". You gave your biased misinterpretation of it. "Judicial power" means that they have the power to interpret.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    RINO is the term for that rare Republican who puts country above party.

    Right wing = lie, lie, and lie some more.


    "When I am president I'm going to be working for you. I'm not going to have time to play golf" Donald J. Trump, world class snake oil salesman and compulsive golfer August 2016

    The definition of "racist" as "anyone who is white" is itself racist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Powell
    It’s now ‘me the president’ instead of ‘we the people’

  5. #710 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,859
    Thanks
    13,250
    Thanked 40,795 Times in 32,158 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    No. Look up the passage I cited. The Bible is a fairly important book, and you should at least begin to familiarize yourself with it.
    the passages I referred to are more relevant to the argument....

  6. #711 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,859
    Thanks
    13,250
    Thanked 40,795 Times in 32,158 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    he'd just done something that Jesus said put him in danger of the fire of hell.
    I take it you are unfamiliar with the role of prophets in the scriptures.....we are specifically charged with the responsibility of calling out the cunts of society.....

  7. #712 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,844
    Thanks
    6,488
    Thanked 3,781 Times in 3,068 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Incorrect.
    It is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    You're using that wrong. Read up on it.
    No, I'm not. An Inversion Fallacy is, in other words, projection. It stems from the contextomy fallacy. It attempts to take context from one person and incorrectly shift it onto another as if it was their own.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Incorrect.
    No, it was correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    If you can think of a more authoritative source than a dictionary for a word definition, you're welcome to provide it.
    People. People are who define words; not dictionaries. Some words are defined by philosophy, others by science, others by engineering, others by logic, etc. etc...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    But you won't get very far merely bleating about someone else pointing to a dictionary to support the way she used a word.
    It's fine to make use of a dictionary definition, so long as it is a sound definition. I might suggest a more sound definition, however, depending upon the word in question... On the other hand, it is not fine to appeal to a dictionary definition as if it is the ultimate authority of a word definition. That is a prime example of the Appeal to False Authority Fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Yet, as you know, you've failed to find any error in logic in what I've written.
    I've found numerous. I've mentioned a few of them, and not mentioned a few others...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Instead, you've just been venting your emotions because I made points you can't think of a way to refute.
    I've directly responded to everything you've said line by line, which is in line with my style of responding...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Obviously not.
    Yes, it IS the same exact life. Once conception begins, that "lump of cells" or whatever you prefer to call it at that point (barring any natural events such as miscarriages) ALWAYS results in a human baby being born after approx. 9 months... 100% of the time...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Every life is different.
    Yup, even between you and me.. We are all unique creatures...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    If you want to argue that whatever it is that gives a quality to Life A also gives it to Life B, then you need to actually argue it, rather than just nakedly asserting they're the same.
    Even among the same species, such as humans, qualities differ by individuals. Nobody is the same. But, as humans, we all have the natural and inherent right to self defense (survival). We all have the natural and inherent right to life. That right was not given to us by any form of Earthly government; it is natural and inherent. I believe God is the source of that right to life, as I believe that he is the one who provided it to begin with, but others who don't believe in God could instead view it as nature or Mother Earth or something else...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Yes, and stages can make a big difference. If I want to argue that caterpillars can fly, it's not enough to point out that they're just an earlier life stage of the same species as butterflies, which can fly. Similarly, if I want to argue that human fetuses have a right to life, it's not enough to point out they're the same species as born humans that have a right to life.
    I'd say that a right is much different than a physical trait or an ability, though... The debate is at what moment does a person become a person. I say that it happens at the very moment of conception, while you seem to think that it doesn't happen until birth. So, you're arguing that a fully formed baby (or fetus, or whatever word you wanna use) is NOT a person until it is born. You are arguing that the location of the child affects its person-hood... There's much more to a person being a person than their location...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Is this the point where I'm supposed to engage in some limp-dicked whining about the "loaded language" of calling it "murder," and to pretend that's a "logical fallacy." I suppose so. But I'll decline diving into that sewer with you. I'll instead just point out that it isn't murder if the thing doesn't have a right to life, which is the whole point we're debating.
    It's murder, though... Not by the legal definition of it, but it is still the wrongful termination of life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Why not?
    Because we are all God's children. He carefully gave us life, so we should carefully be fruitful with that life. We shouldn't be creating it and then aborting it at will. We should value it as we do our own.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Part of that process involves sperm and egg. Are we really going to do the "every sperm is sacred" song and dance?
    Nope. Not every sperm is sacred... Only the one which wins the race and initiates conception...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Or will you admit that merely being part of a process that results in a sacred thing does not make something sacred in itself?
    That's true... one can't automatically deduce that a part of a whole is sacred from the truth that the whole is sacred...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Because they have a mind -- a capacity for structured thought and self awareness.
    Fetuses have a mind, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Now, why do you think the unborn have a right to life (or at least whatever species of unborn you're willing to attribute that right to)?
    It gets attributed to humanity because humanity was created in the image of God. The unborn have a right to life because they also have minds... They have them since conception.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    I'm not fixated on any particular definition for it. If you'd like to set the definition to 8 weeks, that's fine.
    Okay, I'm fine with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    It works perfectly well.
    No, it doesn't. Circular definitions are meaningless. In order for a definition to hold meaning, it must reference something outside of itself. Defining a "cell phone" as "a phone that is cellular" is useless... it doesn't provide any additional information outside of itself. Instead, defining it as "a phone without a physical connection to a network" works, because it makes reference to something outside of itself, aka the physical connection to a network. It distinguishes it from landline phones, which do have physical connections to networks.

    To define global warming as "warming of a globe", it makes no reference outside of itself. It is useless to someone trying to understand what it is that you are talking about. It has the same problem that defining "cell phone" as "phone that is cellular" has, especially to someone who is unfamiliar with cell phones.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    If you're struggling with the word "global" or the word "warming," I'd be happy to break those down for you, too. I'm not clear what your first language is, but I can attempt translations, since we clearly can't get far in English if you don't have that rudimentary vocabulary under your belt.
    If you are asserting that the Earth as a whole is increasing in temperature, I understand what you are asserting. However, it is impossible to measure the absolute temperature of the Earth as a whole. Both science and statistical mathematics tell us this...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    As you now see, they are, for the reasons I explained in detail.
    No, they aren't. Science isn't "ideas"... It is a set of falsifiable theories...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    The accumulation of evidence is the basis for forming theories.
    I don't need any evidence to form a theory. I will form one right now without any evidence. Cardinals will always chirp four times after two high pitched calls whenever they are next to a female cardinal. BAM, there you go. Theory formed... A null hypothesis could be that my theory would be falsified if one chirps in any different pattern while next to a female.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    And the theories in this case are falsifiable, as I explained.
    No, they are not, as I have explained.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Incorrect. Look, I get it: you have zero scientific training,
    You have no clue what my training is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    and it wasn't really your subject back in grade school.
    I got straight A's in it... It was probably my 2nd best subject, right behind mathematics and probably barely ahead of history.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    But go and talk to a real live scientist.
    True Scotsman Fallacy. Appeal to False Authority Fallacy. A scientist is not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    You'll learn that supporting evidence is a crucial tool in the formation of hypotheses.
    No, it's not. None is necessary. Supporting evidence is used in religion, not science. Potential CONFLICTING evidence is what is important. A null hypothesis is attempting to falsify the theory in question. It is looking to destroy the theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    As I've told you before, I could come up with any old bullshit assertion, but that doesn't make it a scientific hypothesis, much less a theory.
    A theory is not a "sanctified hypothesis"... A theory is an explanatory argument. That's all a theory is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    For example, I could assert there is a magma civilization deep in the Earth's core, and that their factories are what cause the Earth's gravitational field to migrate.
    Yes, you could.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    But that's not a scientific hypothesis,
    Correct. What you have provided is, instead, a theory. See how easy it was to come up with a theory, and see how it didn't even require any supporting evidence to formulate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    even though it's at least conceivably falsifiable.
    How would you attempt to falsify that theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    It's just a flight of fancy. There's no evidence to support it at all.
    Argument From Ignorance Fallacy.

    Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... evidence is not a proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    By comparison, the theory of plate tectonics is scientific, because it's not just blind speculation.
    It is only part of science if it is falsifiable, and continues to survive null hypothesis testing...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    It is a way to explain a lot of accumulated evidence (interlocking shapes of continents, similar formations and fossils separated by oceans, etc.)
    That would be how one strengthens one's religious belief in the theory of plate tectonics... That has nothing to do with science... That is the same way that I piece evidences together to strengthen my religious belief in Christianity (that Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is).

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    You misunderstood. Try rereading.
    No, I didn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    It doesn't. Evolution is a theory designed to explain a bunch of evidence.
    Redundant. A theory is an explanatory argument. Evolution attempts to explain the state of current life forms (that they evolved from lesser life forms over millions of years). It is unfalsifiable. It is a religious belief. Supporting evidence is used in RELIGION, not in science...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    And it's a theory that is conceivably falsifiable by way of discovering new evidence that fundamentally conflicts with the theory.
    That's not falsifying, though... That's merely replacing one religious belief with another religious belief due to your newfound acceptance of different evidence. The best you can determine by doing that is that the two religious beliefs contradict each other, so you then know that if one is true, the other is false. In other words, you would not be rejecting your original belief because it has been falsified, but rather you'd be rejecting it because it contradicts your new religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    For example, if, upon the discovery of DNA, we'd found that DNA patterns aren't consistent with the patterns we thought we saw for evolution, that would have blown up the theory (e.g., if there weren't signs of a progression of DNA changes in proto-humans over time, and signs of close similarities of DNA among primates). Instead, the evidence was consistent with the theory, boosting confidence that the theory is right.
    Supporting evidence doesn't further legitimize any theory of science. Science only concerns itself with conflicting evidence...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Nothing can ever ultimately be proven true.
    False. Any closed functional system, such as logic and mathematics, makes use of proofs. 2+2=4 is PROVEN to be true. It is an extension of the foundational axioms of mathematics. It is definitely true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    For all you know, you're a brain in a jar being fed false information by a supercomputer, and every bit of evidence to the contrary is just part of the grand deception.
    Yup, I could be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    How would you ever prove you aren't that brain in a jar? It can't be done.
    Correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Similarly, we can never prove any scientific theory.
    Correct. Science does not make use of proofs, as it is an open functional system, as opposed to logic and mathematics, which are closed functional systems (operating under foundational axioms).

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    But, there are plenty of conceivable pieces of emerging evidence that could convince scientists that the Big Bang Theory, or the theory of evolution by natural selection were wrong.
    Correct. They could change their beliefs regarding those things, due to different evidence or different views of the same evidence. BUT those theories can't be falsified (except for natural selection, which already has been falsified)...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    They're falsifiable.
    Nope. Only natural selection is falsifiable, and has been falsified.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    The more evidence that accumulates that's consistent with those theories, without anything being found to falsify them, the more confident scientists become in the theories.
    Incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    That's how science works.
    Nope, that's how RELIGION works... Also, you can't falsify unfalsifiable theories. You can only make use of supporting evidence in those cases...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    In the case of those two particular theories, the religious know-nothings
    Bigotry. I am not interested in your hateful bigotry, Oneuli...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    find them very troubling,
    I don't find those theories to be troubling at all... In fact, I, as a Christian, accept the theory of evolution as true. I am agnostic with regard to the Big Bang Theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    since they conflict with lies their preachers told them.
    Theistic people who rejects those theories for that reasoning are fundamentalists of their Theistic religions... They are committing numerous fallacies by rejecting those theories by that particular reasoning...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    And so they want to apply an entirely different and impossible-to-achieve standard to them -- one they'd never apply to other areas of science.
    The same standard applies to them... Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all science is. Those theories (outside of natural selection) are not falsifiable, therefore they are not science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Global Warming is similar, though in that case it's less about it conflicting with religion, and more about it conflicting with the Religion of conservative American politics.
    Global Warming rejects logic, science, and statistical mathematics. I could go through each one in detail if you would like...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Since laissez faire economics has no good answers for anthropogenic global warming,
    We don't even know if it is happening... We have no way of accurately measuring absolute global temperature...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    and laissez faire economics is the deepest faith of the American right, therefore AGW must be dismissed as a matter of faith.
    AGW is ACCEPTED as a matter of faith... It is rejected on the basis of it rejecting logic, science, and statistical mathematics...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Nice try, but you won't slip that past me. The point isn't that the science is BASED on past unobserved events. It's based on present observed events -- for example, the present unearthing of an ancient fossil from the ground, the present comparison of sequenced DNA from various species, the present comparison of changes in species under natural selection pressure, the present distribution of species globally, and so on. Those present observed events are consistent with a theory that gives us an educated view about what past unobserved events were. And a huge amount of science takes that form. We didn't watch a mountain form, or even a particular tumor. Those are past unobserved events, about which we have educated theories.... theories that are falsifiable, if they're wrong. That's science.
    Science is not religion. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    No. They absolutely don't. In fact, they revel in the capacity for their adherents to believe in the absence of supporting evidence. It's called faith.
    Argument From Ignorance Fallacy.

    Faith is circular reasoning. That's all faith is. Faith has nothing to do with the presence or absence of evidence...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    You don't need a time machine to falsify such theories. There are all sorts of false theories about the past that have been falsified through new evidence, scientifically. For example, before radioactivity was understood, there was a theory that the Earth was much younger than it is, based on the idea that it couldn't be older than a certain age without having cooled completely. Then new evidence came in about the heat given off by radioactive elements as they decay over very long timelines, and it falsified the prior theory.
    Already refuted this type of reasoning. See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Incorrect. My theories are falsifiable, which is what sets them apart from the mental error of religious thinking.
    Already refuted... See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    I've already pointed out your error here repeatedly, and you've yet to address that argument at all.
    I've directly addressed it multiple times, yet you keep repeating your same mantra that is does make use of it somehow. I have shown you how and why you are actually describing religion as opposed to science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    You just go back to nakedly asserting the same thing.
    Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one doing this...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Try grappling with the question of what distinguishes an actual scientific hypothesis from a flight of fancy.
    I already have...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    As you know, it hasn't.
    Yes, it has been falsified.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    It definitely doesn't.
    Yes, it does. I can go through each one if you'd like...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Incorrect. There's a reason that virtually all experts are convinced as to the basics of the theory, and that there's a strong correlation between the level of expertise and the likelihood that someone is convinced. Global warming denialism is most common among those with only a high school education, because they simply haven't got the tools to grapple with the evidence.
    Evidence is not a proof. We've been through this. Again, I can go through each reason specifically as to why AGW is a load of garbage...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Do you imagine someone said it does?
    That's what YOU'VE been arguing THIS WHOLE TIME... Now you're denying your own argumentation... You said that "new" supporting evidence can falsify "old" supporting evidence (not those exact words, but I'm not going to look up exactly how you phrased it).

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    It's nothing remotely of the sort. I favor scientific thinking.
    No, you don't. You keep describing religion as if it was science...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    You favor religion and so you want to drag science down to its level.
    I am a strong supporter of both of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    But science is about evidence
    No, it isn't. It is about falsifiable theories.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    and religion is about faith.
    Yes... it is about unfalsifiable theories. All religious are based upon an initial circular argument, and circular reasoning is just another way of saying faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    They're polar opposites.
    Correct. In a general sense, one deals with the falsifiable and the other deals with the unfalsifiable...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    And, as you now see, it is.
    No, it isn't.

  8. #713 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Des Moines
    Posts
    9,223
    Thanks
    2,352
    Thanked 1,780 Times in 1,484 Posts
    Groans
    520
    Groaned 639 Times in 611 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    It is.


    No, I'm not. An Inversion Fallacy is, in other words, projection. It stems from the contextomy fallacy. It attempts to take context from one person and incorrectly shift it onto another as if it was their own.


    No, it was correct.


    People. People are who define words; not dictionaries. Some words are defined by philosophy, others by science, others by engineering, others by logic, etc. etc...


    It's fine to make use of a dictionary definition, so long as it is a sound definition. I might suggest a more sound definition, however, depending upon the word in question... On the other hand, it is not fine to appeal to a dictionary definition as if it is the ultimate authority of a word definition. That is a prime example of the Appeal to False Authority Fallacy.


    I've found numerous. I've mentioned a few of them, and not mentioned a few others...


    I've directly responded to everything you've said line by line, which is in line with my style of responding...


    Yes, it IS the same exact life. Once conception begins, that "lump of cells" or whatever you prefer to call it at that point (barring any natural events such as miscarriages) ALWAYS results in a human baby being born after approx. 9 months... 100% of the time...


    Yup, even between you and me.. We are all unique creatures...


    Even among the same species, such as humans, qualities differ by individuals. Nobody is the same. But, as humans, we all have the natural and inherent right to self defense (survival). We all have the natural and inherent right to life. That right was not given to us by any form of Earthly government; it is natural and inherent. I believe God is the source of that right to life, as I believe that he is the one who provided it to begin with, but others who don't believe in God could instead view it as nature or Mother Earth or something else...


    I'd say that a right is much different than a physical trait or an ability, though... The debate is at what moment does a person become a person. I say that it happens at the very moment of conception, while you seem to think that it doesn't happen until birth. So, you're arguing that a fully formed baby (or fetus, or whatever word you wanna use) is NOT a person until it is born. You are arguing that the location of the child affects its person-hood... There's much more to a person being a person than their location...


    It's murder, though... Not by the legal definition of it, but it is still the wrongful termination of life.


    Because we are all God's children. He carefully gave us life, so we should carefully be fruitful with that life. We shouldn't be creating it and then aborting it at will. We should value it as we do our own.


    Nope. Not every sperm is sacred... Only the one which wins the race and initiates conception...


    That's true... one can't automatically deduce that a part of a whole is sacred from the truth that the whole is sacred...


    Fetuses have a mind, too.


    It gets attributed to humanity because humanity was created in the image of God. The unborn have a right to life because they also have minds... They have them since conception.


    Okay, I'm fine with that.


    No, it doesn't. Circular definitions are meaningless. In order for a definition to hold meaning, it must reference something outside of itself. Defining a "cell phone" as "a phone that is cellular" is useless... it doesn't provide any additional information outside of itself. Instead, defining it as "a phone without a physical connection to a network" works, because it makes reference to something outside of itself, aka the physical connection to a network. It distinguishes it from landline phones, which do have physical connections to networks.

    To define global warming as "warming of a globe", it makes no reference outside of itself. It is useless to someone trying to understand what it is that you are talking about. It has the same problem that defining "cell phone" as "phone that is cellular" has, especially to someone who is unfamiliar with cell phones.


    If you are asserting that the Earth as a whole is increasing in temperature, I understand what you are asserting. However, it is impossible to measure the absolute temperature of the Earth as a whole. Both science and statistical mathematics tell us this...


    No, they aren't. Science isn't "ideas"... It is a set of falsifiable theories...


    I don't need any evidence to form a theory. I will form one right now without any evidence. Cardinals will always chirp four times after two high pitched calls whenever they are next to a female cardinal. BAM, there you go. Theory formed... A null hypothesis could be that my theory would be falsified if one chirps in any different pattern while next to a female.


    No, they are not, as I have explained.


    You have no clue what my training is.


    I got straight A's in it... It was probably my 2nd best subject, right behind mathematics and probably barely ahead of history.


    True Scotsman Fallacy. Appeal to False Authority Fallacy. A scientist is not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


    No, it's not. None is necessary. Supporting evidence is used in religion, not science. Potential CONFLICTING evidence is what is important. A null hypothesis is attempting to falsify the theory in question. It is looking to destroy the theory.


    A theory is not a "sanctified hypothesis"... A theory is an explanatory argument. That's all a theory is.


    Yes, you could.


    Correct. What you have provided is, instead, a theory. See how easy it was to come up with a theory, and see how it didn't even require any supporting evidence to formulate?


    How would you attempt to falsify that theory?


    Argument From Ignorance Fallacy.

    Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... evidence is not a proof.


    It is only part of science if it is falsifiable, and continues to survive null hypothesis testing...


    That would be how one strengthens one's religious belief in the theory of plate tectonics... That has nothing to do with science... That is the same way that I piece evidences together to strengthen my religious belief in Christianity (that Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is).


    No, I didn't.


    Redundant. A theory is an explanatory argument. Evolution attempts to explain the state of current life forms (that they evolved from lesser life forms over millions of years). It is unfalsifiable. It is a religious belief. Supporting evidence is used in RELIGION, not in science...


    That's not falsifying, though... That's merely replacing one religious belief with another religious belief due to your newfound acceptance of different evidence. The best you can determine by doing that is that the two religious beliefs contradict each other, so you then know that if one is true, the other is false. In other words, you would not be rejecting your original belief because it has been falsified, but rather you'd be rejecting it because it contradicts your new religion.


    Supporting evidence doesn't further legitimize any theory of science. Science only concerns itself with conflicting evidence...


    False. Any closed functional system, such as logic and mathematics, makes use of proofs. 2+2=4 is PROVEN to be true. It is an extension of the foundational axioms of mathematics. It is definitely true.


    Yup, I could be.


    Correct.


    Correct. Science does not make use of proofs, as it is an open functional system, as opposed to logic and mathematics, which are closed functional systems (operating under foundational axioms).


    Correct. They could change their beliefs regarding those things, due to different evidence or different views of the same evidence. BUT those theories can't be falsified (except for natural selection, which already has been falsified)...


    Nope. Only natural selection is falsifiable, and has been falsified.


    Incorrect.


    Nope, that's how RELIGION works... Also, you can't falsify unfalsifiable theories. You can only make use of supporting evidence in those cases...


    Bigotry. I am not interested in your hateful bigotry, Oneuli...


    I don't find those theories to be troubling at all... In fact, I, as a Christian, accept the theory of evolution as true. I am agnostic with regard to the Big Bang Theory.


    Theistic people who rejects those theories for that reasoning are fundamentalists of their Theistic religions... They are committing numerous fallacies by rejecting those theories by that particular reasoning...


    The same standard applies to them... Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all science is. Those theories (outside of natural selection) are not falsifiable, therefore they are not science.


    Global Warming rejects logic, science, and statistical mathematics. I could go through each one in detail if you would like...


    We don't even know if it is happening... We have no way of accurately measuring absolute global temperature...


    AGW is ACCEPTED as a matter of faith... It is rejected on the basis of it rejecting logic, science, and statistical mathematics...


    Science is not religion. It is a set of falsifiable theories.


    Argument From Ignorance Fallacy.

    Faith is circular reasoning. That's all faith is. Faith has nothing to do with the presence or absence of evidence...


    Already refuted this type of reasoning. See above.


    Already refuted... See above.


    I've directly addressed it multiple times, yet you keep repeating your same mantra that is does make use of it somehow. I have shown you how and why you are actually describing religion as opposed to science.


    Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one doing this...


    I already have...


    Yes, it has been falsified.


    Yes, it does. I can go through each one if you'd like...


    Evidence is not a proof. We've been through this. Again, I can go through each reason specifically as to why AGW is a load of garbage...


    That's what YOU'VE been arguing THIS WHOLE TIME... Now you're denying your own argumentation... You said that "new" supporting evidence can falsify "old" supporting evidence (not those exact words, but I'm not going to look up exactly how you phrased it).


    No, you don't. You keep describing religion as if it was science...


    I am a strong supporter of both of them.


    No, it isn't. It is about falsifiable theories.


    Yes... it is about unfalsifiable theories. All religious are based upon an initial circular argument, and circular reasoning is just another way of saying faith.


    Correct. In a general sense, one deals with the falsifiable and the other deals with the unfalsifiable...


    No, it isn't.
    Despite your claims to the contrary, a fundamental characteristic of religion is that it pays no attention to facts or evidence. It depends entirely on mindless faith.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    RINO is the term for that rare Republican who puts country above party.

    Right wing = lie, lie, and lie some more.


    "When I am president I'm going to be working for you. I'm not going to have time to play golf" Donald J. Trump, world class snake oil salesman and compulsive golfer August 2016

    The definition of "racist" as "anyone who is white" is itself racist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Powell
    It’s now ‘me the president’ instead of ‘we the people’

  9. #714 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,543
    Thanks
    441
    Thanked 1,874 Times in 1,170 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 202 Times in 195 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    the passages I referred to are more relevant to the argument....
    The passage I cited was directly relevant to your statement. It couldn't have been more of an explicit response to what you said. Have you looked it up yet?

  10. #715 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,543
    Thanks
    441
    Thanked 1,874 Times in 1,170 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 202 Times in 195 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    I take it you are unfamiliar with the role of prophets in the scriptures
    You take it incorrectly. The issue here is your complete lack of knowledge of the Bible. Look up the passage I provided. What are you doing to repent for your sin? Or do you think Jesus was wrong about the hell fire you're risking?

  11. #716 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,859
    Thanks
    13,250
    Thanked 40,795 Times in 32,158 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    You take it incorrectly. The issue here is your complete lack of knowledge of the Bible. Look up the passage I provided. What are you doing to repent for your sin? Or do you think Jesus was wrong about the hell fire you're risking?
    I don't think Jesus is wrong.......but I know you are.......

  12. #717 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Fund planned parenthood

  13. #718 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    NC originally from NYC
    Posts
    34,861
    Thanks
    139,677
    Thanked 23,549 Times in 14,032 Posts
    Groans
    58
    Groaned 1,451 Times in 1,370 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    I take it you are unfamiliar with the role of prophets in the scriptures.....we are specifically charged with the responsibility of calling out the cunts of society.....
    The Torah and tanakh has nothing to do with you goyim
    “If we have to have a choice between being dead and pitied, and being alive with a bad image, we’d rather be alive and have the bad image.”

    — Golda Meir

    Zionism is the movement for the self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel.







    ברוך השם

  14. #719 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,859
    Thanks
    13,250
    Thanked 40,795 Times in 32,158 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by guno View Post
    The Torah and tanakh has nothing to do with you goyim
    he says you are wrong.....
    Jeremiah 32:26 Then the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: 27 “I am the Lord, the God of all mankind.

  15. #720 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    88,327
    Thanks
    145,761
    Thanked 82,560 Times in 52,766 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 4,657 Times in 4,376 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by guno View Post
    The Torah and tanakh has nothing to do with you goyim
    Don't you think it's amusing though how some Xtians use that verse in Leviticus to condemn homosexuality -- and the ppl who are gay -- yet disregard all the other prohibitions in that chapter?

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to ThatOwlWoman For This Post:

    Guno צְבִי (04-24-2019)

Similar Threads

  1. Obama Wiretapped Trump: Step by Step
    By tsuke in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 04-16-2019, 12:58 AM
  2. Nothing unites our political class like the threat of ending our never-ending war
    By Niche Political Commentor in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 12-23-2018, 10:32 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-19-2018, 07:29 PM
  4. Obama Wiretapped Trump: Step by Step
    By tsuke in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-14-2017, 06:33 PM
  5. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-06-2016, 07:47 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •