When Does Life Begin?

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
LOL! Excellent points RL. The twisting & turning by evo's on these thoughts will be fun to watch - if they don't ignore. Wink

Like how you ignored some of the responses to RL's dishonest tactics?
Faced with an impossible position to defend logically, RL has now resorted to attacking Evolution, which does not prove his position right. In fact, let's look at his strawmen, shall we?

When you speak of strawman tactic(s) - is the example you provided [above in bold] a decent example?

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
LOL! Excellent points RL. The twisting & turning by evo's on these thoughts will be fun to watch - if they don't ignore. Wink

Like how you ignored some of the responses to RL's dishonest tactics?
Faced with an impossible position to defend logically, RL has now resorted to attacking Evolution, which does not prove his position right. In fact, let's look at his strawmen, shall we?

When you speak of strawman tactic(s) - is the example you provided [above in bold] a decent example?

No, but in the comment, I did assume you actually read the responses to RL's comments. If you did not, then it is a false assumption. But it is not a strawman.

0 Replies

Would a twin or clone be a reproduction of a cell? When you say a zygote splits and is an accident....do you mean that the zygote did not intend to split or replicate?

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Would a twin or clone be a reproduction of a cell?

That question makes no sense. What are you trying to ask?

Quote:

When you say a zygote splits and is an accident....do you mean that the zygote did not intend to split or replicate?

Of course. A zygote never intends to do anything. It's all a biological and chemical process.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
LOL! Excellent points RL. The twisting & turning by evo's on these thoughts will be fun to watch - if they don't ignore. Wink

Like how you ignored some of the responses to RL's dishonest tactics?
Faced with an impossible position to defend logically, RL has now resorted to attacking Evolution, which does not prove his position right. In fact, let's look at his strawmen, shall we?

When you speak of strawman tactic(s) - is the example you provided [above in bold] a decent example?

No, but in the comment, I did assume you actually read the responses to RL's comments. If you did not, then it is a false assumption. But it is not a strawman.

The fact that you made a false assumption has nothing to do with whether I read RL's responses or not. (And for the record - I miss little of what RL writes, and enjoy reading his thoughts!) You still made the assumption.

Claiming that RL's tactics are dishonest is also a false assumption and a strawman. (Attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position.)

More to the point; what is the 'impossible position to defend' that you speak of?

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

The fact that you made a false assumption has nothing to do with whether I read RL's responses or not. (And for the record - I miss little of what RL writes, and enjoy reading his thoughts!) You still made the assumption.

Which would not be false if you had read the responses, so I think it has something to do with whether you read it or not.

Quote:

Claiming that RL's tactics are dishonest is also a false assumption

It is not a false assumption. The tactics are highly dishonest, as anyone who has ever debated against him on the topic of Evolution can attest. Quote mining people out of context, defending the quote mining and coming up with complete strawmen about evolution regarding what it says.

Quote:

More to the point; what is the 'impossible position to defend' that you speak of?

His views on abortion.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
More context

Ps 139:13-16

13 For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.

He was in his mother's womb. Apparently this is talking about David, the author, not about Adam being formed from dust.

It still, of course, doesn't say anything about abortion or whether it is a human being in the womb, only that he was formed in the womb.

So, what's your point?

My whole argument against abortion is not based on the Bible, but on medical science.

Even atheists like Nat Hentoff will tell you that if you can read a medical textbook you should be anti-abortion.

from http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/consistent/hentoff_nonperson.html

Quote:

A recent medical textbook, "The Unborn Patient: Pre-Natal Diagnosis and Treatment" (W.B. Saunders Co.) begins: "Only now are we beginning to consider ... the concept that the fetus is a patient, an individual."

0 Replies

The fallacy of argument from authority. Well done, RL, I wondered when you'd resort to that.

Tell me, if medical science proves that a human being is born from the moment an egg is fertilised, does that mean a chimera is two human beings? Does that mean identical twins are both half a human being each?

Science does not support your claim. Only semantics.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
The fact that you made a false assumption has nothing to do with whether I read RL's responses or not. (And for the record - I miss little of what RL writes, and enjoy reading his thoughts!) You still made the assumption.

Which would not be false if you had read the responses, so I think it has something to do with whether you read it or not.

Quote:
Claiming that RL's tactics are dishonest is also a false assumption

It is not a false assumption. The tactics are highly dishonest, as anyone who has ever debated against him on the topic of Evolution can attest. Quote mining people out of context, defending the quote mining and coming up with complete strawmen about evolution regarding what it says.

Quote:
More to the point; what is the 'impossible position to defend' that you speak of?

His views on abortion.

The act of disagreeing with RL (or anyone else for that matter) does not prove nor should it imply dishonesty. Dishonesty requires malicious intent and there is no way to prove this of anyone unless they admit it. I'm pretty sure that RL believes what he says - thus there would be no malicious intent to deceive.

0 Replies

Dishonesty does not require malicious intent, baddog1. And if you read my post carefully, you'll find it's not disagreeing with RL.

RL consistently posts lies and strawmen scenarios regarding Evolution; like the strawman scenario of a situation where breeding is the only trait that ensures the survival of a species. Like his consistent pussy-footing around of what age he believes the Earth to be and distracting people away from the question.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

The fallacy of argument from authority. Well done, RL, I wondered when you'd resort to that.

Are you saying that the medical status of the unborn is irrelevant in the abortion debate?

If you are not implying that, then what ARE you talking about?

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Tell me, if medical science proves that a human being is born from the moment an egg is fertilised, does that mean a chimera is two human beings?

Whether it was one or two , I would let all live. How 'bout you?

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Does that mean identical twins are both half a human being each?

Do they have half the number of chromosomes as a human being?

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Science does not support your claim. Only semantics.

Really? So, exactly what science do you show that proves that the unborn IS NOT a living human being?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Are you saying that the medical status of the unborn is irrelevant in the abortion debate?

You provided the opinion of one doctor. An opinion. Not evidence. Not proof. An opinion from a doctor. That is argument from authority.

Quote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
Tell me, if medical science proves that a human being is born from the moment an egg is fertilised, does that mean a chimera is two human beings?

Whether it was one or two , I would let all live. How 'bout you?

The point I was trying to make, RL, is that the definition of human being is so tenuous that it is almost meaningless. Your position is impossible to defend. Granted, the pro-choice position is also impossible to defend too.

Quote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
Does that mean identical twins are both half a human being each?

Do they have half the number of chromosomes as a human being?

Genes alone do not make a human being.

Quote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
Science does not support your claim. Only semantics.

Really? So, exactly what science do you show that proves that the unborn IS NOT a living human being?

[/quote]

Exactly the same material. What's your point?

I don't think you understand why I'm here in this debate. I am only here to show you that your position is arbitrary, not to defend the other position. Showing that your position is arbitrary does not automatically ensure that the opposing side is not.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

RL consistently posts lies and strawmen scenarios regarding Evolution; like the strawman scenario of a situation where breeding is the only trait that ensures the survival of a species.

I pointed out that the example that YOU posted mentioned only breeding. As did a subsequent post of yours. Until a THIRD post where you introduced ANOTHER trait to try to bolster your argument.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Like his consistent pussy-footing around of what age he believes the Earth to be and distracting people away from the question.

What part of 'I do not know how old the earth is' has been hard for you to understand , Wolf?

I have said that I do not consider millions or billions of years to be necessary to explain the physical universe or the earth.

And I consider most of the dating methods that are used to 'prove' long ages to be severely flawed by the use of unproven and unprovable assumptions, as well as the support for contradictory findings of 'age, and the willful ignoring of evidence which falsifies such.

0 Replies

Baddog1 - You posted to cheers RL on his correlation between abortion and evolution, yet it would have made more sence to quote my responce and counter the points I made instead. RL's correlation was quickly shut down off of his miseducation on the topic, and argeeing with him only means you a additionally have the same misinformation. If you actually agree with RL, go back and please address my comments.

Bartikus - I asked you to restate the question. I also asked you to take my survey. Why have you chosen to not honor my request? I've decided to play nice, but you're testing my limits here.

Why did you choose to not to fill out my survey? What are you affraid of? Aren't you ready to defend your beliefs?

next, i'll trymy best to answer your question, but know in advance that it doesn't make sense.

Quote:

Would a twin or clone be a reproduction of a cell? When you say a zygote splits and is an accident....do you mean that the zygote did not intend to split or replicate?

As I understand SCNT, the "reproduction" of a cell produces a twin. Next, I never said anything about zygotes splitting by accident. "Accident" is a interesting choice of words, concidering, what happens without human intervention is natural and hard to classify as accidental. Lastly, referering to the zygote's intention requires the claim that the zygote is sentient. That claim is not supported by science and is difficult to address. Zygotes don't have intentions.

T
K
O

P.s. - Answer the survey in your next post. Choosing to not answer sill be concidered an answer too. The answer will be that you don't know what you believe, nor do you have the courage to defend it.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I pointed out that the example that YOU posted mentioned only breeding. As did a subsequent post of yours. Until a THIRD post where you introduced ANOTHER trait to try to bolster your argument.

And I pointed out that my example also mentioned competition, which does not mean competition for mates only and in Darwin's book never meant it. And I also pointed out that the argument was related to Darwin's book and was an argument he made.

Quote:

What part of 'I do not know how old the earth is' has been hard for you to understand , Wolf?

I have said that I do not consider millions or billions of years to be necessary to explain the physical universe or the earth.

Yet you still argue against an old Earth of 4.5 billion years.

Quote:

And I consider most of the dating methods that are used to 'prove' long ages to be severely flawed by the use of unproven and unprovable assumptions, as well as the support for contradictory findings of 'age, and the willful ignoring of evidence which falsifies such.

And this argument has been proven false to you time and time again, using quite simple language and quite simple logic. Undisputable logic and evidence too.

You have been called on your dishonesty and disingenuity several times now. If nothing else, you consistently give the impression of dishonesty.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
Are you saying that the medical status of the unborn is irrelevant in the abortion debate?

You provided the opinion of one doctor. An opinion. Not evidence. Not proof. An opinion from a doctor. That is argument from authority.

Physician groups such as AAFP (American Academy of Family Physicians) are on record as considering the unborn to be a separate patient.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1890281&highlight=patient

But as I told Jason back then, you probably know better, right?

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Dishonesty does not require malicious intent, baddog1. And if you read my post carefully, you'll find it's not disagreeing with RL.

You're right - dishonesty implies malicious intent - my grammatical misstep. However that does not alter the fact that RL believes what he writes, which still contradicts the meaning of dishonesty.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

RL consistently posts lies and strawmen scenarios regarding Evolution; like the strawman scenario of a situation where breeding is the only trait that ensures the survival of a species. Like his consistent pussy-footing around of what age he believes the Earth to be and distracting people away from the question.

I disagree with your assessment of RL's posts.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Baddog1 - You posted to cheers RL on his correlation between abortion and evolution, yet it would have made more sence to quote my responce and counter the points I made instead. RL's correlation was quickly shut down off of his miseducation on the topic, and argeeing with him only means you a additionally have the same misinformation. If you actually agree with RL, go back and please address my comments.

Hi Deist: What points are you referring to?

0 Replies

Baddog1 - The fact remains however that RL posts a lot of things that have been addressed in the past and posts them in such a way as to present it as new. That is dishonest.

The fact remains that he boasts that no one is willing to answer his questions, when in fact they get answers. I answer many of his questions, and he ignores the answers. That is dishonest.

He may believe what he posts, but he has a long preceedent of employing dishonest means to never let his beliefs be challenged.

Case and point. When A2 was being voted on here in MO last year, RL posted things that were were false. Anyone can make mistakes, so I won't say that is dishonest. However I followed up with overwelming evidence to illustrate how his statements were false. Upon having that information, he choose to continue to back up his original and proven false claims about A2. That is dishonest. when I called him on it, he quit replying to my posts. It's been a year now.

T
K
O

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

You're right - dishonesty implies malicious intent -

Malicious intent doesn't even factor into it. All it requires is not knowingly not telling the truth, regardless of motive.

Quote:

I disagree with your assessment of RL's posts.

Perhaps, but we have to consistently correct RL on several different matters repeatedly.

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know