Liberals Perverted Science

I will give you a head start....I told you that if you left it up to me we would begin with primitive extraterrestrial life...

You haven't specifically stated your proposal, but I found this....
"Primitive" extraterrestrial life

An alternative to Earthly abiogenesis is the hypothesis that primitive life may have originally formed extraterrestrially (note that exogenesis is related to, but is not the same as the notion of panspermia). Organic compounds are relatively common in space, especially in the outer solar system where volatiles are not evaporated by solar heating. Comets are encrusted by outer layers of dark material, thought to be a tar-like substance composed of complex organic material formed from simple carbon compounds after reactions initiated mostly by irradiation by ultraviolet light. It is supposed that a rain of cometary material on the early Earth could have brought significant quantities of complex organic molecules, and that it is possible that primitive life itself may have formed in space was brought to the surface along with it. A related hypothesis holds that life may have formed first on early Mars, and been transported to Earth when crustal material was blasted off of Mars by asteroid and comet impacts to later fall to Earth's surface. Both of these hypotheses are even more difficult to find evidence for, and may have to wait for samples to be taken from comets and Mars for study.
Click to expand...

http://www.bio-medicine.org/Biology-Definition/Origin_of_life/#.22Primitive.22_extraterrestrial_life

does that adequately describe what you believe is a testable scientific hypothesis or do you have something different in mind?...

First, let me ask you....does this speculation (not hypothesis) explain the origin of life or merely defer the question to an earlier origin?......at best it is an explanation of the source of life on Earth, agreed?.....

Second in terms of the criteria of testability......how?.....
 
Mott the Hoople said:
It's Miller-Urey and the experiment synthesized organic amino acids from inorganic precursors.
Click to expand...
the hazards of working from memory.....do you agree that no "cell like structures" resulted?.....apart from the already acknowledged problems of not accurately recreating the primordial "goop".........
 
Superfreak said:
Actually, it starts about the third week after conception. Which is the fifth week of the pregnancy.

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

You're not quite correct there SF. The heart begins developing in the third week. That includes the development of contractile myocardiac tissue but the fetal heart does not form and begin beating till the 8th week of fetal development.

http://www.meddean.luc.edu/lumen/MedEd/GrossAnatomy/thorax0/heartdev/main_fra.html
 
PostmodernProphet said:
why?....because you don't want to look at the science?.....can you identify an event in the life cycle of a human being, starting at conception and ending at the cutting of the umbilical cord that would qualify as a triggering event for "human being"-ness?......
Click to expand...
Well first you have to define what a "human being" is. Is it the same as human life or a living human?
 
RStringfield said:
Politically charged, I mean you only really care about the political ramifications. As an example, while many/most scientists, in relevant fields, will acknowledge global warming and human causes does not imply they all support cap and trade, or that I should I care if they did. There are lots of other issues involved that are not within the fields of hard science in both abortion and global warming.
Click to expand...
Excellent argument RS. I think you win this point.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
not sure what you are getting at. I grew up on a farm and I can assure you that even forty years ago, almost all domestic animal breeding is done by artificial insemination.....
Click to expand...
Yup, dats true, sept chickens. I grew up on a farm too and AI was being used extensively back in the 60's for livestock development. I could be wrong about chickens. The ones we raised were for personall consumption. We didn't raise them for market. We only raised steers and hogs. Thank GOD above we didn't do dairy cows.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
yet scientifically accurate....and I think a good example of what Dixie was talking about in the opening post....

you think science won't solve the issue of abortion.....I disagree....I believe science will gradually progress to the point that liberals will no longer be able to persuade themselves that the unborn aren't living human beings......

will there still be a majority of pro-"choicers" if they have to admit they are killing children?......I doubt it....

this is a classic example of a situation where liberals MUST ignore science in order to maintain their beliefs.....
Click to expand...
You're, again, showing your misunderstanding of science. Science may convince people to your point of view (or it may not) but on this topic science and scientist will have nothing to say. It's a subject outside the scope of science.
 
Topspin said:
YAAAWNN
We are not going back to blacks on the back of the bus or woman not being able to choose.

Please keep focusing on abortion neodumbasses, and watch your ratings in the teens get to single digits.
Click to expand...
You know what's interesting Topper. When I first registered to vote in 1979, the rural area in Ohio I was living in was DOMINANTELY union Democrats. They were prosperous, economically diverse with a well developed industrial base supplemented by agriculture and a thriving profesional and service industry. The most important issues were the rights, working conditions and wages for working people and continued economic development.

It was about this time that those priorities began to fade and the political paradigm in rural areas began to change to guns, gays and abortion. Now most of the small towns in that area have lost most of their factories, the service industry has declined to McD's and Arbies, young people have left in droves for greener economic pastures (pun intended), the populations have declined, the standard of living has dropped substantially and economic politics have become perochial to an extreme where mostly landed Farmers and their extended families call the shots, in their interest, for the rest of the populations of those communities. And yet, guns, gays and abortion are still the primary political paradigm.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the hazards of working from memory.....do you agree that no "cell like structures" resulted?.....apart from the already acknowledged problems of not accurately recreating the primordial "goop".........
Click to expand...
Yes, but that was never part of the Miller-Urey hypthesis. SF or String (whomever it was) made an incorrect statement. That doesn't either invalidate Miller-Urey as a hypothesis or mean that it's not testable, which of course, it is.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
isn't the burden of proof yours?.....you have claimed they are testable.....begin.....though personally, I think the debate would be easier to follow if we did them one at a time.....
Click to expand...
No, your the one who stated that there were no testable hypothesis for the beginnings of life. I listed a large number of testable hypothesis. If you wish to demonstrate to me that they are not testable, have at it and I'll be more than happy to shoot you down.
 
Onceler said:
Baby killers!

What a broken record. Science probably will catch up, because it will find a way to extract embyros and implant them into all of those volunteers who I'm sure will be clamoring for them on the pro-life side.

Grow up...
Click to expand...
I prefer having morality catch up.
 
Southern Man said:
Israel is a Jewish society, and the Vatican is a Catholic society.
Click to expand...

sm, as stringfield said, religion != society. also, israel, while not being completely jewish in the first place, has only been around for half a century, give or take. and the vatican can hardly be considered a society. its the headquarters of the catholic religion. nothing more.

the main point is that nowhere on earth can you find a nation/society of people that has any sort of influence/relations on the nations/societies around it that is even remotely close to what it was 4000, 2000, 1000 or even just 150 years ago.
 
Religious idiots think souls are in zygotes and pro-choicers (who are otherwise intelligent people) will stare blankly at you with an empty head and 100% seriously state that we don't know when human life begins (and other such bullshit).
Click to expand...

What some people can't understand is just because human life begins at conception that does not mean every conception is a human life.

Honestly , has no one gone to school? Understanding that all "A's" are "Bs" is not the same as saying all "Bs" are "As". If I recall that was taught in grade 4? Or 5? Math class? Learning-how-to-think class?



///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Exoendo said:
What's the difference between a baby at 8.5 months in the womb and a baby just born? The brain and skull are still developing. The baby doesn't have any wants or needs or goals in life other than basic primal urges to shit cry and eat. It can't even walk and early on a baby can barely crawl, it's essentially a vegetable. Yet we can't kill live born babies now can we?

I can't even ninja kick you in the uterus if you are pregnant.
Scott peterson is on death row for two murders, while at the same time we don't recognize a fetus as a human being.

I am mostly pro-choice, that is to say, I am pro-aborting fetuses.

But no time in american history has both sides of the debate on an issue used such moronic arguments. Religious idiots think souls are in zygotes and pro-choicers (who are otherwise intelligent people) will stare blankly at you with an empty head and 100% seriously state that we don't know when human life begins (and other such bullshit)... it's cognitive dissonance by women because they don't want to consider the prospect that they might have made baby soup.

I want to be clear to everyone my current rants are not so much a support of either view, but rather a condemnation of idiocy.
Click to expand...
 
apple0154 said:
What some people can't understand is just because human life begins at conception that does not mean every conception is a human life.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. It means exactly that. You're moronic to believe otherwise.

Zygotes are human, zygotes are living. ergo human life.

that's bio 101. It has nothing to do with religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top