Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by P@triot, Dec 23, 2016.
Biology deniers and balogne dealers share a lot in common.
Nice twisting of words. You should be a lawyer.
Twisting? Humans aren't defined as unicellular life in any biology book I know of. The dictionary defines "being" as literally, in the state of being or existing. What are you seeing as twisting?
Look, DW... this is the CDZ, if you don't have some valid evidence to support arguments and refute what is presented, you need to sit this one out. All you've been doing is throwing your emotive opinions at me and demanding I accept them as facts.
You know are as all knowing about CDZ rules as you know about biology..
Since you want me to "sit this one out", I'll do so. It's your call. Have a nice day, sir.
USMB Rules and Guidelines
Hey, you're the one who suggested I consult a biology book after having offered nothing in any biology book as your argument. I think that is a great time to point out which forum you're in because these emotive and opinion-based arguments often lead to name calling and insulting.
If I put you down by suggesting we wrap your head in Saran Wrap, allow me to apologize and amend my argument. Let's wrap some idiot's head who believes biology determines if a living species exists by it's ability to survive outside of normal expected conditions. Better?
I do know everything in the biology book. Sorry if that sounds like bragging. I'm 57 and I've been intrigued by biology since I was a young boy. It's my favorite science subject. I am quite comfortable in any debate rooted in biology.
So ... just how do 'illiterates' go about writing books, again? Fascinating claim here ... the authors of the new testament and old testament 'books' were in fact very educated and intelligent, by the standards of any era in history, including the current modern era. Only the unsophisticated and ignorant would claim otherwise, usually 'new atheists' who have little education and reasoning skills and are easily influenced by fads and cult mantras re 'religion n stuff'.
Already posted a link to a book that goes into all that, and as for the newest study, the claims it makes, like all the other 'studies', fall far short of the claims being made for it as well.
On That New “Gay Gene” Study
In other words, this appears to be a theory in search of facts; that is, some folks start with the theory that SSA is genetic and work backwards. Women who mate with SSA men, it is suggested, are more fecund: they pump out more babies. What we have is a balancing act. Is it because the women who “go for” SSA men are more fertile, or is it the male gametes from SSA men are causing greater fecundity? And how much more fertile must these women be (by whatever cause) to match the rate of baby making seen in women who mate with non-SSA men?
That would seem to be (to reuse the apt word) considerable, especially these days when SSA behavior is seen as socially acceptable. SSA men aren’t making many babies. True, many SSA men in the past days were encouraged to take a wife and reproduce. Not so now. Yet SSA is on the rise. Another paradox—but only if you insist the heritability theory is (somehow) correct. There is no paradox if the diseugenic SSA trait is caused by environmental stressors. I have some colleagues who suspect SSA is caused by a yet-to-be-discovered virus. I doubt this strongly, because it seems that genetic non-immunity to this virus would also die out of the population (the virus could mutate, of course).
... and of course the link in my post also discusses the same 'study' in the appropriate chapter. There is zero evidence for any genetic 'gayness'; it's just a fetish, and one strongly linked to mental disorders to boot.
Sounds much more like rationalization than science here. It''s immediately obvious where human life begins, that's why it's called 'conception' in the first place. Since 'viability' is apparently key to your rationalizations, do you agree with these 'medical ethicists' that parents be allowed to kill babies up to the age of two years old? What's the difference between a mere 'zygote' and a 1 year old? I mean, if some notion or other merely requires 'sciencey lingo' to justify, then why not just legalize all killing?
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? | Journal of Medical Ethics
Yes, this is the correct view; and that impact was a very positive effect long term, certainly compared with the pagan and hedonistic/nihilistic alternatives. The idea that mere con artists would go to so much trouble just to run a scam is a ridiculous claim. There was no 'payday' for the players, and in fact their most likely fates were being killed, not getting rich.
The left-wing science denying continues...
Feminists to CDC on Drinking While Pregnant: Screw You
Separate names with a comma.