|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 03/13/2006 : 08:38:22 [Permalink]
|
To flense this nonsense to the bone, Bill's argument is again in favor of our species being the result of a special creation, and therefore the least of our cells are sacred. And of course, neither he nor anyone can provide any empirical evidence either in support or refutation of it, thus the whole thread has turned into little more than mental masturbation.
If there is no "creator," and that seems to be the most likely scenario, families could have lots of babies to provide a substitute for turkey in holiday dinners, and that would be just fine as long as they didn't get caught by the secular law at it. And if it should be that a Biblical monster of a "creator" exists, well, it certainly seems to have gone senile, hasn't it? It should probably step aside and let something younger take over the gig. It seems odd to me that this deity would not intervene in some way, if abortion piss' it off so. The Bible tells us that it did little else but intervene back in the days it is reputed to have been written.
I don't think that SD's law is going to fly. Another might, but not this one. It's far too arcane and supported by far too many obvious, religious dingbats that are as repulsive to most believers as they are to all non-believers.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 08:49:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
And just because you refer to human in their most infant stages a blob makes it no less a human.
The "blob" is human but it is not a human.
Do you see the difference?quote:
It is the offspring of sexual relations between man/women just as the deity or NS had indented. What do think it is? A parasitic tick growing inside the women? *sigh*
This is semantics but,
In biology a parasite is:
An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
So a fetus could be called a parasite, especially if the mother is an unwilling carrier.
A tick is an arachnid of the order Acarina. It can never develop into an other species so ticks has nothing to do with this subject.
quote:
So a fetus could be called a parasite, especially if the mother is an unwilling carrier.
(bill) "could" is the key word here. 99% of the humans I have encountered in my life do not. The 1% or less that do usually come from the lips of website forums such as this.
quote:
A tick is an arachnid of the order Acarina. It can never develop into an other species...
(bill) I agree, just as a monkey can not turn into a man, nor do wolves turn into whales, nor do reptiles beget birds
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 03/13/2006 14:08:22 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 09:14:30 [Permalink]
|
Some birds are raptors.
Bill, you really should stay away from natural history and the Theory of Evolution. You know nothing about either and seem unable, or worse, unwilling to learn. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 03/13/2006 09:15:58 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 09:27:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
In the face of such rudeness and otherwise unchristian behaviour on your part, I think I'll remain enigmatic for the moment.
Why am I not surprised, Dave? This is part of the nonsense Dave likes to play. After chiding everyone in the forum who opposes abortion Dave will then play little games where Dave declares he will not share his position because Bill was rude.
When and where did I chide everyone in the forum who opposes abortion? Besides which, my position on abortion is actually irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It shouldn't make a difference to the question of whether human life begins at conception or not, or whether or not abortion should be legal or not. Why would it make such a difference that you feel you need to know or otherwise the discussion isn't fair?quote:
Shoot, if no one declared anything based on rudeness then Dude alone could bring this forum to the ground. Give me a break, Dave. But yet Dave thinks everybody else is obligated to answer his question because he is Dave.
Another lie.quote:
Let me give you just a few examples, in just the past 2 pages, of Dave just plain ignoring questions posed to him while insisting everyone else address him and his questions in the utmost fashion:
* (bill) So a human parasite in the mothers whom is to be impaled to death for the crime of being conceived against her/his will, while a tick parasite is to be cared for with respect and sustained as a distant relative and one who man shares his DNA with even if a remote small % of DNA at that?
I didn't answer this because it should have been obvious that it's a ridiculous position to take, and I never advanced it.quote:
*(bill) Uh huh, so what % of people walking the face of this planet do you think were not a result of man/women sex, where the mother (host) carried the baby (parasite) in her whom to the point of it's birth?
That question was completely irrelevant to the point being made. Yes, the vast majority of people alive today are the result of normal everyday sex. That has nothing to do with the fact that the majority of fertilized human ova do not become live human beings walking the planet.quote:
*(bill) So what percent of mums DNA does the baby have to have before you no longer consider it a parasite, Dave?
I never said that I considered a zygote to be a parasite.quote:
*(bill) My 4 month old daughter is breast feeding from my wife and is dependent on this for her very existence. Is my 4 month old still a parasite, Dave?
This question was posed in response to a question I'd asked of you at least twice by then, which you still haven't answered.quote:
* (bill) Why do we have laws that forbid us to kill another man, but allow us to shoot pesky varmints such as coyotes or such?
This question was posed in response to a question I'd asked of you, which you still haven't answered.quote:
* (bill) Do you agree that is wrong to kill a man while it is ok to kill pesky varmint or do think there is no difference in shooting another man then in shooting a coyote, Dave?
This question was posed in response to a question I'd asked of you, which you still haven't answered.quote:
*(Bill) Natural Selection also gives you the capacity to commit murder, rape, rob, and pillage, so now are you going to go act out all those capabilities as well?
Since I never said that because natural selection gave us the capability to abort we should use it, the question is irrelevant.quote:
*(bill) But yet the human parasite has 50% of her/his mothers DNA, much much more then distant relative of a tick. So why do you give respect to the tick parasite but you kill the human parasite?
Since I never claimed to believe such a ridiculous idea, the question deserved to be ignored.quote:
*(bill) Let me ask you why you think we should not? In other words, do you see no difference in the value of life lost when a man is shot to death vs. a billy goat being shot to death?
This question was posed in response to a question I'd asked of you, which you still haven't answered.quote:
* (bill) If you had to swim 25 yards out to save a drowning dog, or 30 yards out to save a drowning man, you would have no problem explaining to the people on shore, who just lost their loved one, that you saved the dog because he was closer and you saw no difference in the value of the dog vs. the value of the drowned grand dad, dad, brother, or whatever who was out 5 yards further, but you could only save one?
This question was posed in response to a question I'd asked of you, which you still haven't answered.quote:
I, for one, see Dave establishing a pattern here.
The pattern is yours, of asking questions based upon irrelevancies and mistakes, and asking lots of questions instead of answering one (or two).quote:
quote:
how is it that you know that the deity |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 09:33:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
To flense this nonsense to the bone, Bill's argument is again in favor of our species being the result of a special creation, and therefore the least of our cells are sacred. And of course, neither he nor anyone can provide any empirical evidence either in support or refutation of it, thus the whole thread has turned into little more than mental masturbation.
If there is no "creator," and that seems to be the most likely scenario, families could have lots of babies to provide a substitute for turkey in holiday dinners, and that would be just fine as long as they didn't get caught by the secular law at it. And if it should be that a Biblical monster of a "creator" exists, well, it certainly seems to have gone senile, hasn't it? It should probably step aside and let something younger take over the gig. It seems odd to me that this deity would not intervene in some way, if abortion piss' it off so. The Bible tells us that it did little else but intervene back in the days it is reputed to have been written.
I don't think that SD's law is going to fly. Another might, but not this one. It's far too arcane and supported by far too many obvious, religious dingbats that are as repulsive to most believers as they are to all non-believers.
quote:
If there is no "creator," and that seems to be the most likely scenario,
(bill) So filthy constructs his whole worldview on a foundation based on his hope that no creator exists. Not only does he build his worldview on this hope, but he uses this hope to refute other opposing WV's. So if there is a creator Fility's worldview is fundamentally wrong and therefore worth very little. Dave W. has already officially placed the odds at 50/50 for God/no God, so filthy has placed all of his eggs, and his entire WV, on his 50% hope that no god created reality.
quote:
families could have lots of babies to provide a substitute for turkey in holiday dinners, and that would be just fine as long as they didn't get caught by the secular law at it.
(bill) My whole point on the atheistic existence. With no God then all morals and laws are completely arbitrary, subjective and will be nothing more then each individuals opinion. Sentencing a man to jail for murder is just forcing arbitrary beliefs on the murderer as he might have no problem with murder in his personal moral code in the atheistic universe. Why do you distinguish between abortion and murder and rape? Natural Selection gave the ability to perform all 3 actions, so in light of Dave's logic, why have you singled out abortion as legal if NS also gives you the capability to murder, rape, and pillage as well?
Even if the "polls" show in favor of abortion being legal this is irrelevant as we all know the law is not a popularity contest. Just ask the gay marriage sympathizers...
quote:
I don't think that SD's law is going to fly. Another might, but not this one. It's far too arcane and supported by far too many obvious, religious dingbats that are as repulsive to most believers as they are to all non-believers.
(bill) I agree with your point, if it is true that "religious girls" will some how be exempt to anti-abortion law, that this is will offend believers as well as non-believers.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 09:46:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
With no God then all morals and laws are completely arbitrary, subjective and will be nothing more then each individuals opinion.
Incorrect.
1) Individual humans live in social groups and form a Social Contract (the US was founded in part based on this philosophy). They formed these groups for several reasons, mainly because there is safety in numbers. In order to live in groups together, the indiviuals have to agree to a standard of rules. This provides harmony, and allows the group to prosper. Those who break said rules are excluded from the group. This is morality. This is also not a human-only characteristic.
For example, the seemingly universal moral of "no murder" makes complete sense. If a group existed that actually condonded the murder of other members of the group, how long do you think that group would last? (and I'm not referencing abortion here). Of course, groups tend to allow murder of other competeting groups for various reasons. Murder of someone in the group is illegal, but if you are at war with another group and murder one of their members, then that is considered justified.
2) Even with a god, morals and laws are still open for interpretation and are arbitrary, since each group's concept of god is different, and each group's (and indviduals's for that matter) interpretation of how their god wants them to live varies. One only has to look at any major religion's various sects to see how interpretation is not standard. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 03/13/2006 09:47:32 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 09:47:50 [Permalink]
|
verso wrote: quote:
It is unclear to me when personhood begins. This is actually an issue my wife and I have come up to recently, in choosing birth control. I have always felt it was at conception - then I came upon the "twinning" argument in my research, and that has caused me to re-evaluate my position.
However - until this is clarified in my mind beyond any doubt, I will assume it is at conception, because I would hate to be guilty of quashing another human's right to life. And if it is not at conception, then at the moment I believe I will default to implantation, because at that point, in my fundamental-but-growing knowledge on the subject, that is when the embryo becomes what it will be for the rest of it's life.
I hope this hasn't been already covered, but how do you define "personhood?" You talk about it here as if it is some specific thing, because you thought you could call it at conception and then re-evaluated your position based on science.
I studied human growth and development in college and on my own time too because as a sexually active young woman, I was interested in the ethics of abortion. I went from a "pro-choice legally but I wouldn't have one myself for personal ethical reasons" to "pro-choice legally and I wouldn't blink an eye at having an abortion in the first trimester."
I talk to my cats. I recognize their unique personality traits, and I do not doubt that those traits are real, though perhaps not exactly the way I perceive and anthropomorphize them. I've read a great deal about the compexities of animal intelligence and ability to feel. And yet, I eat meat. I do draw a line at veal, and prefer to go free range, but I have no ethical qualms with eating meat. What's more, even if I did go vegetarian, I would not try to push my ethics on other people. It would take too long to go into all the subtle reasons why the human right to eat animals trumps the animal's right to live.
The point is, we can't avoid hierarchies when it comes to abortion because we are faced with one organism's right being pitted against another organism's right. You say, "I would hate to be guilty of quashing another human's right to life." But does it bother you in the least that by banning all abortion we would definately be quashing another human's right over her own body? That's a pretty important right too. And the simple difference is this: The embryo/fetus's personhood is very debatable. The mother's is not. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/13/2006 09:50:20 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 09:58:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Dave W. has already officially placed the odds at 50/50 for God/no God...
I never said that the odds for a god existing now (filthy used the present tense) were 50/50. Your definition of 'god' might require that to be so, but I have never agreed with your definition, and I've made that absolutely clear. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 10:16:45 [Permalink]
|
(bill) So filthy constructs his whole worldview on a foundation based on his hope that no creator exists. Not only does he build his worldview on this hope, but he uses this hope to refute other opposing WV's. So if there is a creator Fility's worldview is fundamentally wrong and therefore worth very little. Dave W. has already officially placed the odds at 50/50 for God/no God, so filthy has placed all of his eggs, and his entire WV, on his 50% hope that no god created reality.
quote:
families could have lots of babies to provide a substitute for turkey in holiday dinners, and that would be just fine as long as they didn't get caught by the secular law at it.
(bill) My whole point on the atheistic existence. With no God then all morals and laws are completely arbitrary, subjective and will be nothing more then each individuals opinion. Sentencing a man to jail for murder is just forcing arbitrary beliefs on the murderer as he might have no problem with murder in his personal moral code in the atheistic universe. Why do you distinguish between abortion and murder and rape? Natural Selection gave the ability to perform all 3 actions, so in light of Dave's logic, why have you singled out abortion as legal if NS also gives you the capability to murder, rape, and pillage as well?
Even if the "polls" show in favor of abortion being legal this is irrelevant as we all know the law is not a popularity contest. Just ask the gay marriage sympathizers...
quote:
I don't think that SD's law is going to fly. Another might, but not this one. It's far too arcane and supported by far too many obvious, religious dingbats that are as repulsive to most believers as they are to all non-believers.
quote:
(bill) I agree with your point, if it is true that "religious girls" will some how be exempt to anti-abortion law, that this is will offend believers as well as non-believers.
Do you really believe that you know my mind so well? Or anyone's? If so, you are a fool.
I do not hope there is no deity. Why should I? No, I will come right out and state that, until proper proofs are given clearly demonstrating otherwise, there is no deity and nothing is sacred.
You asked a question a few posts back, something to the effect of killing vermin and humans, and choice. I would say that it depends upon your definition of vermin. I know of a number of people I'd happily shoot, given the right opportunity. Coyotes are more valuable than they because the help control rodent populations and by extention, plague and hanta virus. The people I have in mind are worth far less.
Did you know that the word 'varmit' is a bastardization of'vermin,' which comes from 'vermiform,' which in turn, describes worms? Interesting, no?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 11:42:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by trogdor
quote:
Bill
quote:
That's not clear at all, since all the evidence points to the "intent" of whatever to be that only 35% of fertilized human eggs are carried through to a live birth, and most acts of sexual relations don't result in a fertilized egg in the first place.
(bill) Uh huh, so what % of people walking the face of this planet do you think were not a result of man/women sex, where the mother (host) carried the baby (parasite) in her whom to the point of it's birth? I would be willing to go out on a limb and put it at about 99.99 % or more of the people walking the earth today are here because of man/women sex where the mother carries the offspring to term. Just as the deity or the results of NS intended.
well Bill,
as a test tube baby I can say that I am not the result "of man/woman sex"
Am I against the intent of some deity or natural selection?
Hate to break it to you, but yes. You are. According to Bill's long winded diatribe against homosexuality, artificial insemination is "unnatural" and against the intent of the "Creator/NS"(tm).
I'm sure the opinion of someone of Bill's obvious intellect and reason is crushing to you. (snicker)
quote:
Hate to break it to you, but yes. You are. According to Bill's long winded diatribe against homosexuality, artificial insemination is "unnatural" and against the intent of the "Creator/NS"(tm).
(bill) To quote a founding father here, Dave: "liar"
"By your standard a doctor performing an artificial pregnancy is natural. " -- Bill Scott
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5570&whichpage=5
So, who's the liar?
quote:
quote:
I'm sure the opinion of someone of Bill's obvious intellect and reason is crushing to you. (snicker)
(bill) Is that supposed to be some sort of insult as it sounds like it might? I don't care if it is but I am just surprised to here insults coming from you Val after your lecture and chiding of Dude for that very action.
Because I felt Dude had degenerated from offering any refuting evidence and going strictly for the insult. I felt that it was taking away from his effectiveness in writing.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 12:26:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
In the face of such rudeness and otherwise unchristian behaviour on your part, I think I'll remain enigmatic for the moment.
Why am I not surprised, Dave? This is part of the nonsense Dave likes to play. After chiding everyone in the forum who opposes abortion Dave will then play little games where Dave declares he will not share his position because Bill was rude.
When and where did I chide everyone in the forum who opposes abortion? Besides which, my position on abortion is actually irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It shouldn't make a difference to the question of whether human life begins at conception or not, or whether or not abortion should be legal or not. Why would it make such a difference that you feel you need to know or otherwise the discussion isn't fair?quote:
Shoot, if no one declared anything based on rudeness then Dude alone could bring this forum to the ground. Give me a break, Dave. But yet Dave thinks everybody else is obligated to answer his question because he is Dave.
Another lie.quote:
Let me give you just a few examples, in just the past 2 pages, of Dave just plain ignoring questions posed to him while insisting everyone else address him and his questions in the utmost fashion:
* (bill) So a human parasite in the mothers whom is to be impaled to death for the crime of being conceived against her/his will, while a tick parasite is to be cared for with respect and sustained as a distant relative and one who man shares his DNA with even if a remote small % of DNA at that?
I didn't answer this because it should have been obvious that it's a ridiculous position to take, and I never advanced it.quote:
*(bill) Uh huh, so what % of people walking the face of this planet do you think were not a result of man/women sex, where the mother (host) carried the baby (parasite) in her whom to the point of it's birth?
That question was completely irrelevant to the point being made. Yes, the vast majority of people alive today are the result of normal everyday sex. That has nothing to do with the fact that the majority of fertilized human ova do not become live human beings walking the planet.quote:
*(bill) So what percent of mums DNA does the baby have to have before you no longer consider it a parasite, Dave?
I never said that I considered a zygote to be a parasite.quote:
*(bill) My 4 month old daughter is breast feeding from my wife and is dependent on this for her very existence. Is my 4 month old still a parasite, Dave?
This question was posed in response to a question I'd asked of you at least twice by then, which you still haven't answered.quote:
* (bill) Why do we have laws that forbid us to kill another man, but allow us to shoot pesky varmints such as coyotes or such?
This question was posed in response to a question I'd asked of you, which you still haven't answered.quote:
* (bill) Do you agree that is wrong to kill a man while it is ok to kill pesky varmint or do think there is no difference in shooting another man then in shooting a coyote, Dave?
This question was posed in response to a question I'd asked of you, which you still haven't answered.quote:
*(Bill) Natural Selection also gives you the capacity to commit murder, rape, rob, and pillage, so now are you going to go act out all those capabilities as well?
Since I never said that because natural selection gave us the capability to abort we should use it, the question is irrelevant.quote:
*(bill) But yet the human parasite has 50% of her/his mothers DNA, much much more then distant relative of a tick. So why do you give respect to the tick parasite but you kill the human parasite?
Since I never claimed to believe such a ridiculous idea, the question deserved to be ignored.quote:
*(bill) Let me ask you why you think we should not? In other words, do you see no difference in the value of life lost when a man is shot to death vs. a billy goat being shot to death?
This question was posed in response to a question I'd asked of you, which you still haven't answered.quote:
* (bill) If you had to swim 25 yards out to save a drowning dog, or 30 yards out to save a drowning man, you would have no problem explaining to the people on shore, who just lost their loved one, that you saved the dog because he was closer and you saw no difference in the value of the dog vs. the value of the drowned grand dad, dad, brother, or whatever who was out 5 yards further, but you could only save one?
This question was posed in response to a question I'd asked of you, which you still haven't answered.quote:
I, for one, see Dave establishing a pattern here.
The pattern is yours, of asking questions based upon irrelevancies and mistakes, and asking lots of questions instead of answering one (or two).quote:
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 12:29:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Dave W. has already officially placed the odds at 50/50 for God/no God...
I never said that the odds for a god existing now (filthy used the present tense) were 50/50. Your definition of 'god' might require that to be so, but I have never agreed with your definition, and I've made that absolutely clear.
sorry 50/50 for god/no god |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 12:45:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by trogdor
quote:
Bill
quote:
That's not clear at all, since all the evidence points to the "intent" of whatever to be that only 35% of fertilized human eggs are carried through to a live birth, and most acts of sexual relations don't result in a fertilized egg in the first place.
(bill) Uh huh, so what % of people walking the face of this planet do you think were not a result of man/women sex, where the mother (host) carried the baby (parasite) in her whom to the point of it's birth? I would be willing to go out on a limb and put it at about 99.99 % or more of the people walking the earth today are here because of man/women sex where the mother carries the offspring to term. Just as the deity or the results of NS intended.
well Bill,
as a test tube baby I can say that I am not the result "of man/woman sex"
Am I against the intent of some deity or natural selection?
Hate to break it to you, but yes. You are. According to Bill's long winded diatribe against homosexuality, artificial insemination is "unnatural" and against the intent of the "Creator/NS"(tm).
I'm sure the opinion of someone of Bill's obvious intellect and reason is crushing to you. (snicker)
quote:
Hate to break it to you, but yes. You are. According to Bill's long winded diatribe against homosexuality, artificial insemination is "unnatural" and against the intent of the "Creator/NS"(tm).
(bill) To quote a founding father here, Dave: "liar"
"By your standard a doctor performing an artificial pregnancy is natural. " -- Bill Scott
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5570&whichpage=5
So, who's the liar?
quote:
quote:
I'm sure the opinion of someone of Bill's obvious intellect and reason is crushing to you. (snicker)
(bill) Is that supposed to be some sort of insult as it sounds like it might? I don't care if it is but I am just surprised to here insults coming from you Val after your lecture and chiding of Dude for that very action.
Because I felt Dude had degenerated from offering any refuting evidence and going strictly for the insult. I felt that it was taking away from his effectiveness in writing.
(bill) I still can not find that quote. I would say while the conception mechanism is not "natural", the fact that male sperm and female egg come togather still make it a "natural" human being that is worth every bit as much as a human who went through "natural" conception.
quote:
Because I felt Dude had degenerated from offering any refuting evidence and going strictly for the insult. I felt that it was taking away from his effectiveness in writing.
(bill) Of course all bets are off when your the one insulting people.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
trogdor
Skeptic Friend
198 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 12:49:05 [Permalink]
|
As I understand it, Bill the whole situation with the mother and the tick and all the crap that fallowed was based on a argument of reducto ad absurdum. that means that the entire situation is supposed to be crazy. Dave was pointing out what the logical consequences of your thoughts were. and they were insane. no one would save a tick. therefore your thoughts were insane as well.(not to call you insane)
But hey, I could be wrong? And I'm an abomination against god, so you don't need to listen to me.
edited for spelling |
all eyes were on Ford Prefect. some of them were on stalks.
-Douglas Adams |
| Edited by - trogdor on 03/13/2006 16:11:03 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 13:02:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
(bill) I still can not find that quote. I would say while the conception mechanism is not "natural", the fact that male sperm and female egg come togather still make it a "natural" human being that is worth every bit as much as a human who went through "natural" conception.
Why does that not surprise me. Yet you use the same "unnatural" argument to devine intent when talking about homosexuality. Holy double standard, Batman!
quote:
quote:
Because I felt Dude had degenerated from offering any refuting evidence and going strictly for the insult. I felt that it was taking away from his effectiveness in writing.
(bill) Of course all bets are off when your the one insulting people.
As I actually attempted to refute your position, you are comparing apples and oranges. Need more nails for your cross, Bill? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
