Liberals Perverted Science

PostmodernProphet said:
from the opening post by WM


my response


your entry


you need to demonstrate that one or all (your choice) meet the scientific definition of an hypothesis for the origin of life.....it is your burden of proof....

I believe the required criteria for a scientific hypothesis has been established as


begin.....or at least respond to post #201, oh Ringer of Featherweight Balls.......
Click to expand...
OH no, your not wiggling out like that. You laid down the challenge you do the work. I'll be more than happy to follow up.
 
apple0154 said:
Fine. The next time a woman requires an abortion let the objectors prove it is a human being. Science does not know if the fertilized cell inside a given woman has the necessary components/genes/ material to become a human being. One fact they do know is that over 50% of fertilized cells do not become human beings.
Click to expand...

Science does tell us that a fertilized female egg is a human being. The 50% of fertilized eggs were indeed human beings, there is no other living form of organism they could have been, science tells us this very clearly. You admit yourself, they "died" and "aborted", which illustrates they must have been living and in the process of something to abort. Again, science tells us they couldn't have been any other form of living organism, and the process aborted was life.

It does cheapen human life to declare something a human being when it is not proven. The fact is we do not know if every fertilized cell is a human being.
Click to expand...

But it is proven. How many times do we have to go through this? Did you fail Biology? We do know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that a fertilized egg is human life. This takes place at the moment of conception. You have offered no contradicting science, you've not even offered a theory here, you just keep repeating that something we know to be a biological fact is something we don't know. You are an idiot, a textbook definition of one!

We do know nature makes mistakes. We do know over 50% of fertilized cells either abort or are absorbed. Are we to bestow the designation of "human being" on something that has less than a 50/50 chance of passing the development of a one celled "organism" assuming it is an organism and not some mishap of nature?
Click to expand...

We don't "bestow" a designation on anything! THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO! Science and biology tell us exactly when human life begins! WE didn't decide that! WE didn't determine that arbitrarily! Again, that is what YOU are trying to do! Regardless of whether a human being aborts the process of life or not, doesn't change what it is! It doesn't matter if it only has a .0001% chance of living, it doesn't change what it is! Can you try and get that through your thick skull? You continue to try and draw parameters of definition which simply do not apply.

Can we possibly further cheapen what it means to be a human being?
Click to expand...

Well you continue to make this point, and I don't see the basis. It doesn't "cheapen" anything to acknowledge biological facts. Do you think it cheapens sex to admit that sexual intercourse is how women become pregnant?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Again, your showing the limits of your knowledge of science. A hypothesis test an idea, guess or observation. It does not explain interlated phenomena. You are confusing theory with hypothesis.
Click to expand...
I have provided the definition of a scientific hypothesis and given my source....

Certainly this is a testable hypothesis. It's easily testable (in principle) and it's easily falsifiable (again, in principle). Go out to space, find an asteroid or a comet, examine it for prebiotic chemicals (amino acids, phospholipids, etc), self replicating organic compounds (RNA, DNA), subcellular organisms (e.g. viruses) or simple single cell organisms (prokaryotes). You will have tested the hypothesis.
Click to expand...

first, all except the prokaryotes are irrelevant to the debate, since they are not "life"....even accepting prokaryotes is stretching the definition to it's absolute limit.......if you wish to present a separate debate on whether there are hypothesis for the origin of organic molecules we can handle that at another time....

second, your proposed test....I presume that if we travel to said asteroid and test for said prokaryotes (or more advanced life forms) and find nothing, this will not be conclusive as to the question of whether life in some form exists extraterrestrially?......

in other words, it may be on a different asteroid......how then is the "hypothesis" falsifiable?.....
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
I have provided the definition of a scientific hypothesis and given my source....
Click to expand...
and apparently you don't understand the very definition you posted.



first, all except the prokaryotes are irrelevant to the debate, since they are not "life"....even accepting prokaryotes is stretching the definition to it's absolute limit.......if you wish to present a separate debate on whether there are hypothesis for the origin of organic molecules we can handle that at another time....
Click to expand...
Prokaryotes are not life? Dude you are way out of your league. LOL You not only don't know the difference between hypothesis and theory, you're trying to discuss the origins of life and you don't consider a prokaryotic cell a life form?

Please explain to me, how in the world would a prokaryote not be considered life?


http://library.thinkquest.org/C004535/prokaryotic_cells.html[/quote]


second, your proposed test....I presume that if we travel to said asteroid and test for said prokaryotes (or more advanced life forms) and find nothing, this will not be conclusive as to the question of whether life in some form exists extraterrestrially?......

in other words, it may be on a different asteroid......how then is the "hypothesis" falsifiable?.....
Click to expand...


It doesn't have to be conclusive to be a hypothesis, it only needs to be testable. Nor does it have to be literally falsified. It only needs to be falsifiable in principle. If you test all the asteroids and comets in the universe and found no evidence of life then you've falsified the hypothesis (and refuted it, though you don't necessarily have to go to that extreme to refute a hypothesis) but it is still a hypothesis so, again, you don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

Dude you're wasting my time.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Prokaryotes are not life?
Click to expand...

do you deny that as recently as twenty years ago scientists did not consider some prokaryotes to qualify as "life"?....
The prokaryotes are divided into two domains: the bacteria and the archaea. Archaea were recognized as a domain of life in 1990.
Click to expand...
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote[/ame]

as I stated, they are on the threshold of that which we can consider life....


You not only don't know the difference between hypothesis and theory
Click to expand...
I have demonstrated my understanding of an hypothesis, and provided authority....if you are not yet sure what it means, I will give you time to catch up.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
do you deny that as recently as twenty years ago scientists did not consider some prokaryotes to qualify as "life"?....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote

as I stated, they are on the threshold of that which we can consider life....



I have demonstrated my understanding of an hypothesis, and provided authority....if you are not yet sure what it means, I will give you time to catch up.....
Click to expand...
So you discount all the other forms of prokaryotes which have always been considered "living organisms" because scientist were unsure of archaea until 20 years ago (which they now consider living organisms.)? It's not only an irrelevent point but your trying to sweep under the carpet that bacteria (i.e. prokaryotes) have always been considered life forms by biologist.

Again, your trying to use a hypothesis to explain a collection of interelated phenomena. That is scientifically inapropriate as you are confusing hypothesis with theory.
 
Dixie said:
Plants are a little different than humans, but technically speaking, once an acorn is planted and germinates, it is becomes a living organism known as a tree.
Click to expand...

With that metaphor a fertilized egg is not a human being until it implants.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
So you discount all the other forms of prokaryotes which have always been considered "living organisms" because scientist were unsure of archaea until 20 years ago (which they now consider living organisms.)? It's not only an irrelevent point but your trying to sweep under the carpet that bacteria (i.e. prokaryotes) have always been considered life forms by biologist.
Click to expand...
stop displaying your confusion.....if you read my post you will see that I did NOT reject prokaryotes as life, I said they were at the threshold of life....I have had debates such as this with people who have tried to claim that virus were life and even some organic molecules....I was just setting the boundaries for the debate....

Again, your trying to use a hypothesis to explain a collection of interelated phenomena. That is scientifically inapropriate as you are confusing hypothesis with theory.
Click to expand...
my definition of hypothesis is a simple sentence....it has nothing to do with "interrelated phenomena"....stop trying to blather and debate....the parameters are in place.....
 
Dixie said:
Science does tell us that a fertilized female egg is a human being. The 50% of fertilized eggs were indeed human beings, there is no other living form of organism they could have been, science tells us this very clearly. You admit yourself, they "died" and "aborted", which illustrates they must have been living and in the process of something to abort. Again, science tells us they couldn't have been any other form of living organism, and the process aborted was life.
Click to expand...

I'll try one more time. The fertilization may have been successful but sufficient "qualities" were missing resulting in the fertilized egg not continuing to grow.

This is not all that difficult to understand. Unless you believe nature never makes a mistake there is always the possibility a fertilized cell is not a human being. We know children have been born with no arms or no brain so is it not possible there are fertilized cells that, if continued to grow, would produce children with no head or no chest or no abdomen?

The point is we do no know but logic dictates it is very possible because we have witnessed babies born who were missing parts.

But it is proven. How many times do we have to go through this? Did you fail Biology? We do know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that a fertilized egg is human life. This takes place at the moment of conception. You have offered no contradicting science, you've not even offered a theory here, you just keep repeating that something we know to be a biological fact is something we don't know. You are an idiot, a textbook definition of one!
Click to expand...

Again, we do not know. All we know is that every human being had to start life by a cell being fertilized. That does not mean every fertilized cell is a human being.

Every human being who is decapitated dies. That does not mean everyone who died was decapitated. Try to understand the difference. Educate yourself. A 10 year old can comprehend the difference.

We don't "bestow" a designation on anything! THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO! Science and biology tell us exactly when human life begins! WE didn't decide that! WE didn't determine that arbitrarily! Again, that is what YOU are trying to do! Regardless of whether a human being aborts the process of life or not, doesn't change what it is! It doesn't matter if it only has a .0001% chance of living, it doesn't change what it is! Can you try and get that through your thick skull? You continue to try and draw parameters of definition which simply do not apply.
Click to expand...

We don't know what it is. We will know when it is born.

Whether one wants to look at the Bible and the "breath of life" or refer to the old expression "don't count your chickens before they're hatched" or simply stroll through a graveyard or look at any official document the birth of an individual is considered the start of their life.

Well you continue to make this point, and I don't see the basis. It doesn't "cheapen" anything to acknowledge biological facts. Do you think it cheapens sex to admit that sexual intercourse is how women become pregnant?
Click to expand...

It cheapens what it means to be a human being because we can not test the newly fertilized cell to determine if it has the necessary "ingredients" to consider it a human being. And we know many fertilized cells are missing "ingredients".

Some missing ingredients don't make a big difference. Some do make a big difference. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude there are others that make such a huge difference as to disqualify them as human beings.

Is that really so difficult to understand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top