CDZ Biology Deniers

[P@triot]

Testimonies don't mean anything.

Courts of law all across the globe vehemently disagree with you.

Great job evading the general challenge. You still haven't given us a source that is outside the bible.

This is what is known as "projecting". You made an outrageous comment (God doesn't exist). I challenged you to back that up with science and/or fact. You responded "I don't have to prove what I say doesn't exist - you have to prove what you say does exist" and gave an absurd tea pot theory.

Despite the fact that you were the one making the outrageous accusations, I stepped up and provided the "burden of proof" in the form of historical testimonies which are documented. I then challenged to you prove I was wrong since you made the accusation and I provided concrete, indisputable evidence. You once again balked and refused to provide evidence.

Only one person here has evaded every challenge and the readers can see that it is you. Since this is a CDZ, it's time for you to put up or shut up. If you can't support your position (and.....clearly....you can't), you need to walk away and accept defeat.

 

[P@triot]

Great job evading the general challenge. You still haven't given us a source that is outside the bible.

Except for Josephus Flavius, why would the Romans give a fuck about a carpenter rabbi?

That fact remains, whatever happened had a lasting impact on a lot of people. A movement that grew. Do you really believe was completely fabricated?

He has to blindly believe that on faith (ironic - isn't it?). If he were to accept that God exists and Jesus was real, he would have to reject his entire left-wing ideology. The two are mutually exclusive.

 

[P@triot]

O.K., what first hand verifiable witness had personal knowledge of the virginity of Jesus' mother?

Mary. Joseph. Both documented in the Bible. If you're going to accuse eye witness accounts of being liars then the burden of proof falls on you to prove your accusations. We're waiting.

What we're waiting for is a response from someone who understands the difference between a person who is referenced as a witness and someone who is a direct witness. "I know a gut who says he saw the accident" is not quite the same as "I saw the accident." The police only want to talk to the second person.

The police spoke to that "second person". They then had that "second person" fill out a police report and sign it. Now you are on the jury and you want to reject the signed police report. That is irrational. It is irresponsible. And it flat out rejects reality in favor of a preferred ideology.

This is the CDZ. Let us know when you are serious about having a clean debate and not making false narratives about "I know a guy". Nobody presented that scenario. The Bible is filled with first-hand testimonial accounts of events (just like a written statement in a police report) that you choose to ignore because it doesn't fit the narrative you wish to create.

 

[bt404]

So your proof is from second hand accounts recorded in a book written by illiterate peasants from thousands of years ago?

Ah yes....the smug, dismissive tactic of the modern day leftist. Plato. Aristotle. Socrates. All existed before the Bible was written. All illustrated an exponentially more advanced capacity to think than the left does today.

Incidentally, if all of those people were so inferior to you and so "illiterate" - how is it they were able to document their experiences in writing?

What does Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates have to do with the bible? They're indeed brilliant figures, which is more than I can say for whoever wrote the bible. It's a shame more people on the right don't actually read Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato. In fact, if Aristotle were alive today, he'd probably have a lot of disdain for Christianity and other religions.

Aristotle:
"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side."
"Men create the gods after their own images."

 

[bt404]

O.K., what first hand verifiable witness had personal knowledge of the virginity of Jesus' mother?

Mary. Joseph. Both documented in the Bible. If you're going to accuse eye witness accounts of being liars then the burden of proof falls on you to prove your accusations. We're waiting.

What we're waiting for is a response from someone who understands the difference between a person who is referenced as a witness and someone who is a direct witness. "I know a gut who says he saw the accident" is not quite the same as "I saw the accident." The police only want to talk to the second person.

The police spoke to that "second person". They then had that "second person" fill out a police report and sign it. Now you are on the jury and you want to reject the signed police report. That is irrational. It is irresponsible. And it flat out rejects reality in favor of a preferred ideology.

This is the CDZ. Let us know when you are serious about having a clean debate and not making false narratives about "I know a guy". Nobody presented that scenario. The Bible is filled with first-hand testimonial accounts of events (just like a written statement in a police report) that you choose to ignore because it doesn't fit the narrative you wish to create.

Again, you keep pointing back to the bible as an actual source. But have provided no evidence that it was written by "god." I'm sorry, it's not good enough to say "the bible says so" or 'because it's in the bible." You have to first take steps to provide evidence that the bible is actually the word of "god."

 

[Divine Wind]

Testimonies don't mean anything.

Courts of law all across the globe vehemently disagree with you.

Great job evading the general challenge. You still haven't given us a source that is outside the bible.

This is what is known as "projecting". You made an outrageous comment (God doesn't exist). I challenged you to back that up with science and/or fact. You responded "I don't have to prove what I say doesn't exist - you have to prove what you say does exist" and gave an absurd tea pot theory.

Despite the fact that you were the one making the outrageous accusations, I stepped up and provided the "burden of proof" in the form of historical testimonies which are documented. I then challenged to you prove I was wrong since you made the accusation and I provided concrete, indisputable evidence. You once again balked and refused to provide evidence.

Only one person here has evaded every challenge and the readers can see that it is you. Since this is a CDZ, it's time for you to put up or shut up. If you can't support your position (and.....clearly....you can't), you need to walk away and accept defeat.

Atheism is as much a religion as Christianity since they take it on faith that nothing exists outside the Universe. Obviously they have no facts to back up their beliefs.

The only truly logical position is to be an Agnostic; who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

 

[bt404]

Great job evading the general challenge. You still haven't given us a source that is outside the bible.

Except for Josephus Flavius, why would the Romans give a fuck about a carpenter rabbi?

That fact remains, whatever happened had a lasting impact on a lot of people. A movement that grew. Do you really believe was completely fabricated?

Testimonies don't mean anything.

Courts of law all across the globe vehemently disagree with you.

Great job evading the general challenge. You still haven't given us a source that is outside the bible.

This is what is known as "projecting". You made an outrageous comment (God doesn't exist). I challenged you to back that up with science and/or fact. You responded "I don't have to prove what I say doesn't exist - you have to prove what you say does exist" and gave an absurd tea pot theory.

Oh the irony. You claim that I made the outrageous claim that god doesn't exist. I made no such comment so it is actually you who is projecting. I made the claim that the bible is manmade, that Jesus's word is not divine, and that ultimately it doesn't matter if there is a god or not. And if there was a god, there is no evidence that suggests that such a being intervenes in our daily affairs, much less had a son in human form....

How is the tea pot theory absurd? You made a huge claim: that the bible is the word of god and that he intervenes in our daily life. If you want to make that claim, fine. But you can't call it science unless you back it up with actual empirical evidence which you have not done AT ALL. The onus is on you. By your logic, I can make the claim that there's a flying unicorn floating somewhere in outer space, between the earth and Mars, since you can't prove that there ISN'T a flying unicorn floating somewhere between earth and mars. Do you understand?

Despite the fact that you were the one making the outrageous accusations, I stepped up and provided the "burden of proof" in the form of historical testimonies which are documented. I then challenged to you prove I was wrong since you made the accusation and I provided concrete, indisputable evidence. You once again balked and refused to provide evidence.

You did not. Your proof is in "historical testimonies" written in an ancient book.

Only one person here has evaded every challenge and the readers can see that it is you. Since this is a CDZ, it's time for you to put up or shut up. If you can't support your position (and.....clearly....you can't), you need to walk away and accept defeat.

I did and I have. You said you want to debate. That's what I'm doing and now you're telling me to shut up?

Maybe if you actually read Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato instead of using their names to push your religious agenda, you would understand the fallacy of your arguments.

 

[there4eyeM]

Great job evading the general challenge. You still haven't given us a source that is outside the bible.

Except for Josephus Flavius, why would the Romans give a fuck about a carpenter rabbi?

That fact remains, whatever happened had a lasting impact on a lot of people. A movement that grew. Do you really believe was completely fabricated?

Testimonies don't mean anything.

Courts of law all across the globe vehemently disagree with you.

Great job evading the general challenge. You still haven't given us a source that is outside the bible.

This is what is known as "projecting". You made an outrageous comment (God doesn't exist). I challenged you to back that up with science and/or fact. You responded "I don't have to prove what I say doesn't exist - you have to prove what you say does exist" and gave an absurd tea pot theory.

Oh the irony. You claim that I made the outrageous claim that god doesn't exist. I made no such comment so it is actually you who is projecting. I made the claim that the bible is manmade, that Jesus's word is not divine, and that ultimately it doesn't matter if there is a god or not. And if there was a god, there is no evidence that suggests that such a being intervenes in our daily affairs, much less had a son in human form....

How is the tea pot theory absurd? You made a huge claim: that the bible is the word of god and that he intervenes in our daily life. If you want to make that claim, fine. But you can't call it science unless you back it up with actual empirical evidence which you have not done AT ALL. The onus is on you. By your logic, I can make the claim that there's a flying unicorn floating somewhere in outer space, between the earth and Mars, since you can't prove that there ISN'T a flying unicorn floating somewhere between earth and mars. Do you understand?

Despite the fact that you were the one making the outrageous accusations, I stepped up and provided the "burden of proof" in the form of historical testimonies which are documented. I then challenged to you prove I was wrong since you made the accusation and I provided concrete, indisputable evidence. You once again balked and refused to provide evidence.

You did not. Your proof is in "historical testimonies" written in an ancient book.

Only one person here has evaded every challenge and the readers can see that it is you. Since this is a CDZ, it's time for you to put up or shut up. If you can't support your position (and.....clearly....you can't), you need to walk away and accept defeat.

I did and I have. You said you want to debate. That's what I'm doing and now you're telling me to shut up?

Maybe if you actually read Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato instead of using their names to push your religious agenda, you would understand the fallacy of your arguments.

It seems, "04" that we are being had on. As you, I took too many of these other posts seriously. Being a little slow, it's only now the joke is seen. Good luck if you persevere; they don't deserve you.

 

[P@triot]

I did and I have.

Uh...no...you haven't. You have made a single point, provided a single fact, or referenced a single scientific study to back up your position. You keep insisting that everyone else provide all of the data. And when we provide something - you pretend like it doesn't exist.

You said you want to debate.

Bwahahahaha! No I didn't. I never said that. Once again you are caught lying. I didn't even know you existed. I simply posted links showing the left denying science and biology. That upset you. From there you started lying and denying.

That's what I'm doing and now you're telling me to shut up?

The is the CDZ - so far you've added nothing but personal attacks. You made the accusation and refused to back up your accusation. Then demanded that I prove your accusation wrong. I did that (with documented historical testimony). It's like 20 posts later you've still yet to add anything to the thread backing up your position.

Maybe if you actually read Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato instead of using their names to push your religious agenda, you would understand the fallacy of your arguments.

Maybe if you held yourself to the same standard you hold everyone too, this wouldn't be going so bad for you. You insist that I read Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato (I have - and more) while you haven't read any of them. You insist that I provide proof about your erroneous accusations (I have) while you haven't provided any.

Do you see a pattern here? I do.

 

[Boss]

Biological fact you just admitted... SOMETHING is living at conception. If it's not human, what life form is it? If it's human and it's state of being is living, then it's a living human being. What this living human being eventually grows into is irrelevant to what it already IS. This has NOTHING to do with religion or souls or sperms or eggs.

There is a difference between being human and a human being. When a person brushes their teeth, the cheek cells being washed down the drain are human, but they aren't human beings.

Cheek cells being washed down the sink are not living independent human organisms. Like sperm and egg cells, these cells are given life by their organism, they are not their own autonomous organism. Therefore, NOT human beings.

There is no difference in being a human at conception and being a human at any other point in life from a biological standpoint. A fetus us a human in the state of being. We can debate things like "viability" or "personhood" all day long, the biological fact doesn't change. It's also not debatable.

Conception itself seems to imply a concept of something taking place. Indeed, it is the concept of how new life forms. Once the male and female cells fuse and reproduce a single cell, they have met the criteria of a new living organism. It's very small and fragile. It may or may not continue being a living organism. But until it expires in seconds or a century, it is a human in the state of being... a human being.

 

[Divine Wind]

Cheek cells being washed down the sink are not living independent human organisms. Like sperm and egg cells, these cells are given life by their organism, they are not their own autonomous organism. Therefore, NOT human beings.

There is no difference in being a human at conception and being a human at any other point in life from a biological standpoint. A fetus us a human in the state of being. We can debate things like "viability" or "personhood" all day long, the biological fact doesn't change. It's also not debatable.

Conception itself seems to imply a concept of something taking place. Indeed, it is the concept of how new life forms. Once the male and female cells fuse and reproduce a single cell, they have met the criteria of a new living organism. It's very small and fragile. It may or may not continue being a living organism. But until it expires in seconds or a century, it is a human in the state of being... a human being.

Correct, just like a zygote. Human cells but not independent organisms and not a human being.

 

[Boss]

Cheek cells being washed down the sink are not living independent human organisms. Like sperm and egg cells, these cells are given life by their organism, they are not their own autonomous organism. Therefore, NOT human beings.

There is no difference in being a human at conception and being a human at any other point in life from a biological standpoint. A fetus us a human in the state of being. We can debate things like "viability" or "personhood" all day long, the biological fact doesn't change. It's also not debatable.

Conception itself seems to imply a concept of something taking place. Indeed, it is the concept of how new life forms. Once the male and female cells fuse and reproduce a single cell, they have met the criteria of a new living organism. It's very small and fragile. It may or may not continue being a living organism. But until it expires in seconds or a century, it is a human in the state of being... a human being.

Correct, just like a zygote. Human cells but not independent organisms and not a human being.

No, a zygote IS a n independent living organism.

 

[Divine Wind]

No, a zygote IS a n independent living organism.

Then removing it from the mother shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Boss]

No, a zygote IS a n independent living organism.

Then removing it from the mother shouldn't be a problem.

But it is because of development. That's not because the organism isn't a human being. We can do a test... let's wrap your head in Saran Wrap and deprive you of food, air and water, and see how long you can live in that condition. If you die, we can say you're not a human being. It doesn't matter if a living organism can survive outside expected environment, that makes it no less of what it already is. Even arguing about survival outside the womb admits that it's a living thing. If it's not a human organism, what life form is it? If it is a living human organism it is a human being.

Now..... We can have an intellectual and objective discussion about when it is appropriate for the "carrying host" of this human being to terminate the pregnancy. I am more than happy to have that debate with anyone. But BEFORE we can have that debate, the biological facts have to be understood. A new human being begins at point of conception. We are talking about a human life. A human being.

 

[Divine Wind]

But it is because of development. That's not because the organism isn't a human being. We can do a test... let's wrap your head in Saran Wrap and deprive you of food, air and water, and see how long you can live in that condition. If you die, we can say you're not a human being. It doesn't matter if a living organism can survive outside expected environment, that makes it no less of what it already is. Even arguing about survival outside the womb admits that it's a living thing. If it's not a human organism, what life form is it? If it is a living human organism it is a human being.

Now..... We can have an intellectual and objective discussion about when it is appropriate for the "carrying host" of this human being to terminate the pregnancy. I am more than happy to have that debate with anyone. But BEFORE we can have that debate, the biological facts have to be understood. A new human being begins at point of conception. We are talking about a human life. A human being.

Exactly the point; the difference between a zygote and a human being, like the difference between an apple seed and an apple tree, is one of development. Despite your veiled desire to murder me for disagreeing with you, the fact remains an apple seed only potential to become an apple tree, but it isn't one just like a zygote only has the potential to become a human being even though it isn't one.

 

[Boss]

Exactly the point; the difference between a zygote and a human being, like the difference between an apple seed and an apple tree, is one of development. Despite your veiled desire to murder me for disagreeing with you, the fact remains an apple seed only potential to become an apple tree, but it isn't one just like a zygote only has the potential to become a human being even though it isn't one.

You can tell yourself anything you please if it makes it easier for you to kill human beings. An apple seed is like a male sperm or female egg. It is not an independent living organism. We can't draw exact parallels with plant life because it originates differently but a zygote is equivalent to a seedling. An apple tree seedling isn't a fully-grown apple tree but it's still an apple tree. For most living things (including humans and apple trees) development is a never-ending condition.

I don't want to murder you for disagreeing with me, I just wanted to illustrate where your logic takes us. We can't define what things are biologically by their ability to survive unreasonable environment. For human beings, our early environment is surrounded by amniotic fluid and attached to an umbilical cord. We could take you out in a boat and attach a rock to a rope tied to your legs and dump you overboard... hey, he couldn't survive as he would in his mother's womb so he must not be a human being and it must be okay for us to kill him!

There is no "potential" argument here. Biology is clear. At point of conception you have a new human being. It has potential to be a more developed human being but it will be a human being until it no longer lives.

 

[Divine Wind]

You can tell yourself anything you please if it makes it easier for you to kill human beings. An apple seed is like a male sperm or female egg. It is not an independent living organism. We can't draw exact parallels with plant life because it originates differently but a zygote is equivalent to a seedling. An apple tree seedling isn't a fully-grown apple tree but it's still an apple tree. For most living things (including humans and apple trees) development is a never-ending condition.

I don't want to murder you for disagreeing with me, I just wanted to illustrate where your logic takes us. We can't define what things are biologically by their ability to survive unreasonable environment. For human beings, our early environment is surrounded by amniotic fluid and attached to an umbilical cord. We could take you out in a boat and attach a rock to a rope tied to your legs and dump you overboard... hey, he couldn't survive as he would in his mother's womb so he must not be a human being and it must be okay for us to kill him!

There is no "potential" argument here. Biology is clear. At point of conception you have a new human being. It has potential to be a more developed human being but it will be a human being until it no longer lives.

1) I don't advocate murdering human beings. If you support the death penalty, then it's you who advocate killing human beings. Furthermore it was you who brought up the analogy of murdering me: "let's wrap your head in Saran Wrap and deprive you of food, air and water, and see how long you can live in that condition." You could have said "let's wrap a person's head..." but you deliberately chose to make it personal. I find that a fascinating psychological insight.

2) Please consult a biology book. An apple seed is fertilized. It only needs the proper environment to grow, not binding with another apple seed. Ergo, it is not analogous to an egg or sperm. It is analogous to a zygote.

 

[Boss]

1) I don't advocate murdering human beings. If you support the death penalty, then it's you who advocate killing human beings. Furthermore it was you who brought up the analogy of murdering me: "let's wrap your head in Saran Wrap and deprive you of food, air and water, and see how long you can live in that condition." You could have said "let's wrap a person's head..." but you deliberately chose to make it personal. I find that a fascinating psychological insight.

2) Please consult a biology book. An apple seed is fertilized. It only needs the proper environment to grow, not binding with another apple seed. Ergo, it is not analogous to an egg or sperm. It is analogous to a zygote.

1) I am simply presenting analogies to illustrate your logic. If you advocate women having abortions, you advocate killing human beings. It's not murder because we don't call it murder, we call it abortion. I don't support the death penalty but like with abortion, I think people should vote and decide on this at a state level. But we're not having a debate on what laws each of us prefer. The debate is on biology and when life becomes life.

2) I know everything in the biology book. You've supported nothing with biology so far. Apples are plants, they reproduce in a completely different way and their process of living is totally different. Therefore, no valid comparisons exist between plants and mammals with regard to processes of life. Any analogy you come up with is fitting a square peg in a round hole.

A zygote is a fertilized human egg and sperm cell. It becomes a living organism as soon as it meets the criteria for organisms. It has to carry on the process of life by reproducing cells. This process takes about 30 hours. If the zygote can't reproduce any cells it expires and is not a living organism. If the zygote successfully reproduces two 2n diploid cells (as expected) it qualifies as a living organism. It is a human zygote therefore it is a human being.

Biology simply doesn't care that you want to call the zygote something else so you can kill it.

 

[Divine Wind]

1) I am simply presenting analogies to illustrate your logic. If you advocate women having abortions, you advocate killing human beings. It's not murder because we don't call it murder, we call it abortion. I don't support the death penalty but like with abortion, I think people should vote and decide on this at a state level. But we're not having a debate on what laws each of us prefer. The debate is on biology and when life becomes life......

Which brings us back to the main point of our little discussion; you equate a single-celled human organism with a human being and I do not. You and I are agreed on a state level issue. It's not the first time women would have to flock to another state for medical reasons.

...2) I know everything in the biology book. You've supported nothing with biology so far. Apples are plants, they reproduce in a completely different way and their process of living is totally different. Therefore, no valid comparisons exist between plants and mammals with regard to processes of life. Any analogy you come up with is fitting a square peg in a round hole.

A zygote is a fertilized human egg and sperm cell. It becomes a living organism as soon as it meets the criteria for organisms. It has to carry on the process of life by reproducing cells. This process takes about 30 hours. If the zygote can't reproduce any cells it expires and is not a living organism. If the zygote successfully reproduces two 2n diploid cells (as expected) it qualifies as a living organism. It is a human zygote therefore it is a human being.

Biology simply doesn't care that you want to call the zygote something else so you can kill it.

A fascinating claim.

 

[Boss]

Which brings us back to the main point of our little discussion; you equate a single-celled human organism with a human being and I do not. You and I are agreed on a state level issue. It's not the first time women would have to flock to another state for medical reasons.

There is no single-celled human organism. A "human being" is a living human organism in the state of being. This is not about what you or I "consider" or "believe" ...Biology is a Science, not a faith. Biology says (not me) that when a zygote reproduces new cells it meets the criteria as an organism. I'm sorry if that is an inconvenient truth for you or if it interferes with your beliefs.