RobertN Wrote:You do realize you are arguing against people who believe Creationism is science don't you? You will NEVER win a scientific debate with them.

Saying something stupid is not "stirring the pot". You take this approach alot, as if throwing in a smiley somehow shows how clever you are. In reality, it shows just how much your approach is exactly the one you criticize. You have no record of research, neither first-hand nor any rigorous study of what's in the scientific and philosophical literature. You offer no real support for your claims...just a declaratice sentence followed by a wink at how anyone who disagrees must be some religious dullard.

That's so standard of modern education. CS Lewis actually wrote about it 50 years ago, so I guess it's not that new. It's far easier to be a wry, cynical critic, than actually to work at understanding complex issues. So please understand that when people ignore you, it's because your efforts to be intellectual have the same appearance as a 5 year old wearing a floppy hat and stumbling in high-heels as she plays dress-up.

But seriously, if you really want to engage in a

DrTorch Wrote:That's so standard of modern education. CS Lewis actually wrote about it 50 years ago, so I guess it's not that new.

I've got a copy of my avatar's 1982 speech on the "Christian Manifesto" he gave at Coral Ridge on dvd, if you want a copy PM me an address. Its good stuff, talks alot about education and whats being taught and the worldviews behind it, i.e. "Humanist"(no meaning, here by chance and randomness) and the logical conclusions being drawn from that vs. the Christian worldview of an Infinite creator and meaning, purpose, etc......he predicted the insanity of the postmodern world back then as well of course.

I watched Woody Allens, "Match Point", the other night. Pure Nihilistic trash, however it gives a good idea of the thinking behind that and how its rooted in the conclusions they are drawing from what is being taught in science classes, it was all about "luck" and "chance" and thus no meaning........worth watching to understand the thought process and conclusions being drawn, plus Scarlett Johansen is hot.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:Anytime you actually want to have a debate instead of offering your "snappy" one liners and flat distortions of others views, you let me know. Personally I don't see it coming, since clearly you have no ability to defend your opinions outside of them. Sad, but funny.

Whatever.

If that's what it takes to get on the debate team these days then standards have really gone slack.

I'm still waiting on you to make a point that's based on fact and not opinion.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:Anytime you actually want to have a debate instead of offering your "snappy" one liners and flat distortions of others views, you let me know. Personally I don't see it coming, since clearly you have no ability to defend your opinions outside of them. Sad, but funny.

Whatever.

If that's what it takes to get on the debate team these days then standards have really gone slack.

I'm still waiting on you to make a point that's based on fact and not opinion.

Ditto.

DrTorch Wrote:

RobertN Wrote:You do realize you are arguing against people who believe Creationism is science don't you? You will NEVER win a scientific debate with them.

Saying something stupid is not "stirring the pot". You take this approach alot, as if throwing in a smiley somehow shows how clever you are. In reality, it shows just how much your approach is exactly the one you criticize. You have no record of research, neither first-hand nor any rigorous study of what's in the scientific and philosophical literature. You offer no real support for your claims...just a declaratice sentence followed by a wink at how anyone who disagrees must be some religious dullard.

That's so standard of modern education. CS Lewis actually wrote about it 50 years ago, so I guess it's not that new. It's far easier to be a wry, cynical critic, than actually to work at understanding complex issues. So please understand that when people ignore you, it's because your efforts to be intellectual have the same appearance as a 5 year old wearing a floppy hat and stumbling in high-heels as she plays dress-up.

But seriously, if you really want to engage in a

Not stupid. The truth. Go re-read the Creationism thread(s). Go read the Evolution thread(s). Then come back and tell me that most on this board don't believe in Biblical Creationism over the science of Evolution. This should be interesting.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:Anytime you actually want to have a debate instead of offering your "snappy" one liners and flat distortions of others views, you let me know. Personally I don't see it coming, since clearly you have no ability to defend your opinions outside of them. Sad, but funny.

Whatever.

If that's what it takes to get on the debate team these days then standards have really gone slack.

I'm still waiting on you to make a point that's based on fact and not opinion.

Ditto.

I had you pegged as a Rush Limbaugh fan. I guess I was right.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:Anytime you actually want to have a debate instead of offering your "snappy" one liners and flat distortions of others views, you let me know. Personally I don't see it coming, since clearly you have no ability to defend your opinions outside of them. Sad, but funny.

Whatever.

If that's what it takes to get on the debate team these days then standards have really gone slack.

I'm still waiting on you to make a point that's based on fact and not opinion.

Ditto.

I had you pegged as a Rush Limbaugh fan. I guess I was right.

Yeah, cause that word never existed until he used it.

Still waiting on your facts master debater. You keep running your trap off about how you're the only one bringing them, yet all you continue to offer are your "snappy" one liners, which grow less and less snappy by the minute.

Personally I feel you're far too obnoxious and full of yourself to engage in a sensible exchange of ideas. So far you've done nothing to prove otherwise.

Well done.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:Anytime you actually want to have a debate instead of offering your "snappy" one liners and flat distortions of others views, you let me know. Personally I don't see it coming, since clearly you have no ability to defend your opinions outside of them. Sad, but funny.

Whatever.

If that's what it takes to get on the debate team these days then standards have really gone slack.

I'm still waiting on you to make a point that's based on fact and not opinion.

Ditto.

I had you pegged as a Rush Limbaugh fan. I guess I was right.

Yeah, cause that word never existed until he used it.

Still waiting on your facts master debater. You keep running your trap off about how you're the only one bringing them, yet all you continue to offer are your "snappy" one liners, which grow less and less snappy by the minute.

Personally I feel you're far too obnoxious and full of yourself to engage in a sensible exchange of ideas. So far you've done nothing to prove otherwise.

Well done.

OK, let's debate.

I claim that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "killing babies."

What is your claim?

Ninerfan1 Wrote:master debater

the other Greg Childers Wrote:OK, let's debate.

I claim that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "killing babies."

What is your claim?

My claim is that it destroys human life. Science backs that up. I don't use the term "baby" because an embryo is not, strictly speaking, a baby, yet.

My claim is that there is a moral implication to this type of medical research that must be weighed.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:OK, let's debate.

I claim that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "killing babies."

What is your claim?

My claim is that it destroys human life. Science backs that up. I don't use the term "baby" because an embryo is not, strictly speaking, a baby, yet.

My claim is that there is a moral implication to this type of medical research that must be weighed.

An embryo is not a human. It is only a moral issue with people who can't see the distinction.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:OK, let's debate.

I claim that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "killing babies."

What is your claim?

My claim is that it destroys human life. Science backs that up. I don't use the term "baby" because an embryo is not, strictly speaking, a baby, yet.

My claim is that there is a moral implication to this type of medical research that must be weighed.

An embryo is not a human. It is only a moral issue with people who can't see the distinction.

Funny, b/c most any rigorous scientific definition would also make it a human.

I would say that it is only an issue with people who are too lazy to research the subject.

But then doing actual science can be hard, it's much easier to espouse unfounded opinions on a message board. Isn't that what freedom of speech is about!

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:OK, let's debate.

I claim that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "killing babies."

What is your claim?

My claim is that it destroys human life. Science backs that up. I don't use the term "baby" because an embryo is not, strictly speaking, a baby, yet.

My claim is that there is a moral implication to this type of medical research that must be weighed.

An embryo is not a human. It is only a moral issue with people who can't see the distinction.

I see. Since you offer nothing to substantiate your claim perhaps the Socratic method will prove useful.

Is an embryo life? A simple yes or no will suffice.

If you check the fila of a human embryo its human. If you checked the DNA of a human embryo it would have a human genome. In other words scientifically speaking it is human. These humans like slaves of old are considered property and not persons deserving of rights. People can make all kinds of arguments to justify something that is immoral by removing the label of person and calling a human property. Is slavery moral? In my view no and in the view of the people of the United States of America, who allowed the 13th Amendment to be ratified, it is not permissible and must be banned.

EastStang Wrote:If you check the fila of a human embryo its human. If you checked the DNA of a human embryo it would have a human genome. In other words scientifically speaking it is human. These humans like slaves of old are considered property and not persons deserving of rights. People can make all kinds of arguments to justify something that is immoral by removing the label of person and calling a human property. Is slavery moral? In my view no and in the view of the people of the United States of America, who allowed the 13th Amendment to be ratified, it is not permissible and must be banned.

It's not that straightforward, EastStang. The problem is that science is still struggling to define "life" (and has for a long time). They can't even define consciousness. Not being able to define life makes it impossible to say what is life and what's not because the standard is always shifting. Like saying something is "blue" as opposed to saying its spectrometry reading is a specific value. The first statement is subjective, the second objective. I don't mean, btw, that they can't distinguish dead from alive, but that the difficulty is defining what exactly separates "living" things and "non-living" things. And when you get to "human life (consciousness) vs. non-human" it gets even hairier.

Even though science can't define life, however, it can say that a human slave is "just as alive (or human)" as the owner...whatever that means. That can't, objectively, be said about a human embryo...at least not by today's standards.

EastStang Wrote:If you check the fila of a human embryo its human. If you checked the DNA of a human embryo it would have a human genome. In other words scientifically speaking it is human. These humans like slaves of old are considered property and not persons deserving of rights. People can make all kinds of arguments to justify something that is immoral by removing the label of person and calling a human property. Is slavery moral? In my view no and in the view of the people of the United States of America, who allowed the 13th Amendment to be ratified, it is not permissible and must be banned.

Embryos are slaves? Property != slaves.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Embryos are slaves? Property != slaves.

slavery was justified, 'legally', for centuries on a property rights basis ignoring basic human rights. William Wilberforce changed thinking on that forever.

same logic is used on abortion and this, the fetus is property but not a person thus no Human Rights and the most basic of all right, the right to life.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:OK, let's debate.

I claim that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "killing babies."

What is your claim?

My claim is that it destroys human life. Science backs that up. I don't use the term "baby" because an embryo is not, strictly speaking, a baby, yet.

My claim is that there is a moral implication to this type of medical research that must be weighed.

An embryo is not a human. It is only a moral issue with people who can't see the distinction.

I see. Since you offer nothing to substantiate your claim perhaps the Socratic method will prove useful.

Is an embryo life? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Is an embryo male or female? Does it have a heartbeat? Is it breathing? Does it have brain activity?

I didn't know we were counting embryos as 3/5 of a person.

People may have justified slavery by saying they were property, but they certainly wanted something counted when the census came around.

At any rate, I was taking issue with EastStang's equivocation and blurred statement. I mean if I am to take EastStang's statement at face value, I should expect an underground railroad of embryos.

Quote:These humans like slaves of old are considered property and not persons deserving of rights. People can make all kinds of arguments to justify something that is immoral by removing the label of person and calling a human property.

Ok, embryos are like slaves in that they are treated like property and people use dubious logic to justify it. Ok, to some that's a strawman. Certainly, right here, we can draw an analogy, but by no means are embryos equivalent to slavery.

Quote:Is slavery moral? In my view no and in the view of the people of the United States of America, who allowed the 13th Amendment to be ratified, it is not permissible and must be banned.

Yes! Slavery must be banned. Oh what? We're not talking about slavery. Showing that slavery is immoral does not prove that anything else is immoral.

Oh well, one thing I have noticed is that this thread is full of unsupported assertions that people want us to take as fact.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Is an embryo male or female?