Evolution and Genes

spendius wrote:

The position "that is bullshit" and "that is, in my view, bullshit" are miles apart. The former is condescending. It has an air of infallibility. It brooks no opposition. The latter is simply a statement of fact. What my view is.

Except the sentence that followed it kinda implied otherwise. The condescension in the sentence that followed it made the former sound condescending, because it was in the same paragraph.

This is something that tends to happen at times, not just to me, I might add, but to other people too. Things get dirtied by mere association.

Quote:

I could be persuaded to change my view.

That's nice. Do you know what would be nicer? If you would actually tell me what your view concerning Evolution really is. Because the last time I attempted to change your view, you stated that what I was talking about wasn't your view, despite the fact that this is what I gleamed from what you wrote.

We've been over this many times and when I state 'we', I mean, you and me.

Admittedly, though, your posts as of late have been far clearer from what I'm used to from you. Which is kind of ironic seeing as how I misunderstood you in that one post about science being disinterested.

0 Replies

Don't try being disinterested Wolf until you are at least 65 or have made your first million.

0 Replies

http://www.desertusa.com/aug97/collared_01.jpg

No, I'm not a rock I'm alive! Laughing

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Don't try being disinterested Wolf until you are at least 65 or have made your first million.

spendi, The 'first' million is no longer that uncommon, and that's not even considered wealthy any more.

0 Replies

You can put a million in a Government controlled investment here and get about £1,200 a week return.

I can't spend £200 a week without putting myself to all sorts of trouble, aggravation and general tribulation and those are things I learned to avoid like the plague a very long time ago.

I will agree that anyone who wants more spending capacity than that is unlikely to ever have the privilege of exercising a disinterested intelligence. For those who need to it is impossible.

0 Replies

Currently in Colorado they are voting soon on the ballots whether if life starts at birth or in fertilization.

BIG QUESTION...
How should the voters know when life starts if all of science is baffled and oblivious to the answer of the exact origin, method that life is acquired/transferred, the nature and very substance of life?

0 Replies

I wouldn't expect many of the voters to see it in those terms.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I wouldn't expect many of the voters to see it in those terms.

In what "terms" should the voters see something that is unseen?

Should laws be solidified in the face of a stark unknown?

Should the world have voted on the cause of the black death years ago in the middle of the epidemic?

What is the cause of the black death?

A: the ruling monarchy
B: the protestants
C: the catholics

OFF WITH THEIR HEADS! Smile

0 Replies

I didn't say what the voters should do.

I merely said what I expected they would do answering the question about where life begins. My expectations have been wrong before.

When they have voted it will be a stark known. For a short while.

During the plagues large numbers voted with their feet which is, as you will know, the most powerful vote there is.

I would guess that the cause of plague is psychosomatic. It certainly wouldn't be anything so simple and easy to understand as the causes offered.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Currently in Colorado they are voting soon on the ballots whether if life starts at birth or in fertilization.

BIG QUESTION...
How should the voters know when life starts if all of science is baffled and oblivious to the answer of the exact origin, method that life is acquired/transferred, the nature and very substance of life?

Except it's not. I told you quite clearly that the sperm is alive and that the egg is alive.

It is quite clear what is alive and what isn't, RexRed. What isn't clear is the definition of life. What makes something life? Is a virus, for example, alive? Some would argue yes, some would argue no, but it doesn't change the fact that we can state quite categorically what is alive and what isn't from the cellular level up.

Is this what you were building up to?

A disingenious argument, RR.

Life does not begin at fertilisation. However, as humans can't really be humans without neurones, I would say that human life begins when the first neurones are laid down. This, however, would not be at conception but at least 24 days after conception. And I do believe that UK Law prevents abortions from before 24 days.

Our laws should be informed by what science tells us, not on what might contradict what science tells us. If science has nothing to say on the matter, then we must base our laws on something else, however, science clearly outlines the major events of human embryogenesis and whether you wish to define a human being as a clump of cells and DNA, or something that is the result of that DNA's expression, is up to you.

I prefer humans be defined as the result of DNA's expression, as DNA in itself does not a human make.

0 Replies

Wolf, The problem with most religionists vs science is that people of religion claims that a fetus has a "soul." Try to work against that belief, and the argument goes nowhere.

0 Replies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj41xqwQ2LY

My latest video (has some parallels)

0 Replies

I hate videos. They are all faked.

Live cricket is best.

0 Replies

When you consider the fact that an entire whole human being comes from originally just ONE SINGLE CELL - yet goes on to be capable of producing such a multitude of various/multitude of kinds of cell differentiation. Some go on to become skin cells, or liver, kidney, gall bladder, the appendix, the inner ear, brain, bone, ovaries, teeth, a lymphatic system to protect you from infections, a blood system composed of many, many different types of cells that carry oxygen all around the physical body, & spongy erectile tissue of the penis, to vaginal mucosa which is capable of getting extremely wet at just the right time, thank Heavens, and the very complicated cells which make up the digestive system from the mouth to the gut to the small intestines which have not only specialized cells that produce muscle which propels the food substance along, but also others that are involved with the uptake of the broken down nutrients of our food into our bloodstream, into our cells so that another special cell functions attempting to create enough energy as we need it, or less so, if we don't require it. The blueprint for the entire development and of the creation of something as insanely huge and complex as the human body comes from a single cell, it is an absolute miracle!! Yet that one single cell is directed by what? It is given its working orders, it is completely directed about by the body's DNA, our genetic material, which come from something as tiny and simple as one egg and one sperm (the little sperm who could - sort of like the little engine that could) Only one of those little guys gets to the egg & once the combination has occurred the egg is no longer available for introductions to any other sperm so they might as well all hang it up, the party's over. It is increcidble and a topic that never ceases to amaze me with it's complexities, diversities, and ability to change; although within a human organism any change can happen only so very, very slowly, that we are really more like the dinosaurs of old....when you compare us to the life span of a bacteria or of a fly.

0 Replies

Apparent observation of the cell shows that the cell can interpret "information" that transforms it into another type of thing.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Wolf, The problem with most religionists vs science is that people of religion claims that a fetus has a "soul." Try to work against that belief, and the argument goes nowhere.

The Bible seems to say the moment of the soul becoming "alive" is at the first breath.

Doesn't that contradict your premise?

0 Replies

How can something "seeming" contradict anything?

Mr Obama seems to say that he is what we need. So does Mr McCain.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Wolf, The problem with most religionists vs science is that people of religion claims that a fetus has a "soul." Try to work against that belief, and the argument goes nowhere.

The Bible seems to say the moment of the soul becoming "alive" is at the first breath.

Doesn't that contradict your premise?

Rex, I'm talking about "religionists" and not the bible, so your argument is with the religionists, not me.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

How can something "seeming" contradict anything?

Mr Obama seems to say that he is what we need. So does Mr McCain.

Where there is the slightest doubt there is the chance of contradiction. Smile

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

RexRed wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Wolf, The problem with most religionists vs science is that people of religion claims that a fetus has a "soul." Try to work against that belief, and the argument goes nowhere.

The Bible seems to say the moment of the soul becoming "alive" is at the first breath.

Doesn't that contradict your premise?

Rex, I'm talking about "religionists" and not the bible, so your argument is with the religionists, not me.

I'll accept that. Smile

Nice to see you draw the distinction.

0 Replies

Evolution and Genes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know