Woman aborts her child because its "good for the planet"
-
Two contradictory thoughts occur to me: 1) At least she had some reason other than merely changing her mind for terminating the pregnancy, 2) As you suggest, if saving the planet is a justification for abortion, why is it not a justification for genocide and ethnic cleansing?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35. "Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population." [^] Is this a good enough definition of EcoNazi I wonder? Anyway, this bit ammused me: "But nothing in Toni's safe, middle- class upbringing ...." "Safe and middle class". Now there's a surprise. She ought to just put an end to her life and the twat she married.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Sick, she should kill herself.
The Digital World. It is an amazing place in which we primitive humans interact. Our flesh made this synthetic machine. You see, we are so smart, we know a lot of stuff. We were grown from cells that came from the universe, which the matter and physics I'm typing in it is amazing how the universe is working. Human life is very amazing. How I experience this sh*t its like wow.
-
Two contradictory thoughts occur to me: 1) At least she had some reason other than merely changing her mind for terminating the pregnancy, 2) As you suggest, if saving the planet is a justification for abortion, why is it not a justification for genocide and ethnic cleansing?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
why is it not a justification for genocide and ethnic cleansing?
Is this not you Neocons doing these days in the name of "war on terror"?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
why is it not a justification for genocide and ethnic cleansing?
Is this not you Neocons doing these days in the name of "war on terror"?
No, it's what you want to do to the Jews.
Everything is bleak. It's the middle of the night. You're all alone and the dummies might be right. Outside the darkness lurks.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
why is it not a justification for genocide and ethnic cleansing?
Is this not you Neocons doing these days in the name of "war on terror"?
Yes, giving Muslims in Iraq and Afganistan and Bosnia an opportunity to join the 21st century with freedom and democracy, helping to protect them from communism and other forms of tyranny is actually a clever plan to exterminate them. I would have to say though that the dream of a world free of Islam might just be worth the effort.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Yes, giving Muslims in Iraq and Afganistan and Bosnia an opportunity to join the 21st century with freedom and democracy, helping to protect them from communism and other forms of tyranny is actually a clever plan to exterminate them. I would have to say though that the dream of a world free of Islam might just be worth the effort.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Bosnia! Dont make me laugh. The mighty west sat on its arse and watched as bus loads of muslems got carted off to their death, and as for Iraq! Yesh, sure, 100 k dead to save thel from a tyrant who was 78 and close to his end. Wow, thats real kind of ya!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ilíon wrote:
Killing your children is an effective way to give the future to someone else.
Yes, that's called "natural selection". Keep going; you might end up understanding evolution someday.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
Diego Moita wrote:
Yes, that's called "natural selection". Keep going; you might end up understanding evolution someday.
You're such a fool, as evidenced in these silly statements alone. I *understand* "evolution" ... likely better than you do. And, understanding the various equivocations meant by the term (and also understanding the absolute necessity of logic in all things), I *reject* the silly beliefs that fools such as you have about "evolution." (The quotes are because you people use the word equivocally, sometimes even within a the same sentence) In a state of vast amusement, allow me to quote from the Holy TalkOrigins site:
TalkOrigins.org: Introduction to Evolutionary Biology[^] Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella. It is not a difficult concept, but very few people -- the majority of biologists included -- have a satisfactory grasp of it.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
No, it's what you want to do to the Jews.
Everything is bleak. It's the middle of the night. You're all alone and the dummies might be right. Outside the darkness lurks.
73Zeppelin wrote:
No, it's what you want to do to the Jews.
Well, at least his sort isn't prejudiced ... they also want to do it to you and me. What a bummer it must be to know that you and I have something in common, even if at second-hand. :laugh:
modified on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 7:35 AM
-
Diego Moita wrote:
Yes, that's called "natural selection". Keep going; you might end up understanding evolution someday.
You're such a fool, as evidenced in these silly statements alone. I *understand* "evolution" ... likely better than you do. And, understanding the various equivocations meant by the term (and also understanding the absolute necessity of logic in all things), I *reject* the silly beliefs that fools such as you have about "evolution." (The quotes are because you people use the word equivocally, sometimes even within a the same sentence) In a state of vast amusement, allow me to quote from the Holy TalkOrigins site:
TalkOrigins.org: Introduction to Evolutionary Biology[^] Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella. It is not a difficult concept, but very few people -- the majority of biologists included -- have a satisfactory grasp of it.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
You don't understand evolution, you silly duffer. The reason that the majority of biologists don't have a satisfactory grasp of it is, as you'd probably know, explained a tiny bit further in the article. People assume that they know all about it - I think you'll find that amateurs usually overestimate their abilities in a chosen field. They also speculate too loudly, and spread disinformation. What, for example, is the most glaringly obvious fault with evolutionary theory?
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.
-
You don't understand evolution, you silly duffer. The reason that the majority of biologists don't have a satisfactory grasp of it is, as you'd probably know, explained a tiny bit further in the article. People assume that they know all about it - I think you'll find that amateurs usually overestimate their abilities in a chosen field. They also speculate too loudly, and spread disinformation. What, for example, is the most glaringly obvious fault with evolutionary theory?
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.
-
You don't understand evolution, you silly duffer. The reason that the majority of biologists don't have a satisfactory grasp of it is, as you'd probably know, explained a tiny bit further in the article. People assume that they know all about it - I think you'll find that amateurs usually overestimate their abilities in a chosen field. They also speculate too loudly, and spread disinformation. What, for example, is the most glaringly obvious fault with evolutionary theory?
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What, for example, is the most glaringly obvious fault with evolutionary theory?
It proposes no mechanism, neither have any of its past incarnations prosed any mechanism not now disproved, capable of increasing the information capacity of a genome above the complexity of that belonging to a bacterium. It is therefore incapable by ommission of explaining the exitence of the majority of extant or even extinct species. Natural selection happens and can be observed, mutation happens and can be observed, the 2 do not and cannot ever add up to an explanation of the flaura and fauna observed, even given 10^100 years and a free ride at a 10^1(place 200 zeros here) chance. A theory that does not explain what it set out to explain, the origin of species, though it neatly explains speciation (a de-evoltionary process) or what it claims to explain, pretty much everything, is a dead theory. It is also a stumbling block in the way of scientific progress and a handicap to anyone actually trying to understand the world.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What, for example, is the most glaringly obvious fault with evolutionary theory?
It proposes no mechanism, neither have any of its past incarnations prosed any mechanism not now disproved, capable of increasing the information capacity of a genome above the complexity of that belonging to a bacterium. It is therefore incapable by ommission of explaining the exitence of the majority of extant or even extinct species. Natural selection happens and can be observed, mutation happens and can be observed, the 2 do not and cannot ever add up to an explanation of the flaura and fauna observed, even given 10^100 years and a free ride at a 10^1(place 200 zeros here) chance. A theory that does not explain what it set out to explain, the origin of species, though it neatly explains speciation (a de-evoltionary process) or what it claims to explain, pretty much everything, is a dead theory. It is also a stumbling block in the way of scientific progress and a handicap to anyone actually trying to understand the world.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What, for example, is the most glaringly obvious fault with evolutionary theory?
It proposes no mechanism, neither have any of its past incarnations prosed any mechanism not now disproved, capable of increasing the information capacity of a genome above the complexity of that belonging to a bacterium. It is therefore incapable by ommission of explaining the exitence of the majority of extant or even extinct species. Natural selection happens and can be observed, mutation happens and can be observed, the 2 do not and cannot ever add up to an explanation of the flaura and fauna observed, even given 10^100 years and a free ride at a 10^1(place 200 zeros here) chance. A theory that does not explain what it set out to explain, the origin of species, though it neatly explains speciation (a de-evoltionary process) or what it claims to explain, pretty much everything, is a dead theory. It is also a stumbling block in the way of scientific progress and a handicap to anyone actually trying to understand the world.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence. If you have a better one, lets hear it.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence. If you have a better one, lets hear it.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence. If you have a better one, lets hear it.
This reflects a logical fallacy that we can call "Best in Class." Also, question-begging. Also, special-pleading. Also, shifting-the-burden-of-proof. An analogy:
'Bubba' is on trial for the premeditated murder of Mr Jones. The prosecution is making its final argument: "... And so in conclusion, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, while the Defense has blown holes all through the case we have presented, the fact reamins that 'Bubba Done It!' is the explanation we have for the heinous murder of Mr Jones. Therefore, I call upon you to convict Bubba of this heinous muder!"
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence.
This claim itself is false, on both particulars: 1) 'modern evolutionary theory' explains "current biological diversity" only if one uses a very tendentious definition for "explain" and "diversity" -- and more importantly, it doesn't explain biological complexity, which is supposedly what Darwin and all his Disciples were/are doing. 1a) As DeVries said (in 1904, as I understand it): "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest." 'Modern evolutionary theory' still cannot and never will be able to explain the arrival of "the fittest." 2) "the fossil evidence" is quite *contrary* to 'modern evolutionary theory' (that is, after all, *why* Gould and Eldridge invented "punctuated equilibrium") Or, if you look at it another way, the claim is false on all three particulars: 3) 'modern evolutionary theory' is in no way scientific, in the first place!
-
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence. If you have a better one, lets hear it.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Such a question is assuming quite a lot. Firstly that an 'explanation' is required, secondly that one is possible and thirdly that science is applicable to derive one. None of these assumptions seems particularly certain or in fact less fundamental than the theory of evolution itself, even if there was one theory and it actually made sense. The current biological diversity is 'explained' best in my opinion by an a priore diverse creation much altered by fall and flood and the degredations of time in a fallen universe, just one of which is speciation caused by loss of genetic compatability, this being the result of death without offspring ( so called natural selection ) and genetic damage ( mutation ). The fossil evidence is witness to the great global catastrophe of the flood which made large proportions of the species of the time extinct, including interestingly wiping out 99.some9s% of the genetic diversity in the human species. That we have an environemntally functioning world today and a more or less sustainable human race is testament to the incredibly robust design inherent in creation and to the massive adaptability and in engineering terms 'over specification' of the originally created genomes. It fascinates me to think that the fact that almost all modern humans have five fingers rather than six may simply have been an 'accident' of which genes were and weren't present amongst the handful of flood survivors. Maybe purple and blue people were originally quite common or healthy 7'6" teenagers. Such things are of course idle speculation but they go to show that the biggest problem with 'evolution' is the effect it has on our understanding of what it is to be human. That in turn has profound psychological and social implications beyond even the scientific ones. It's not just a matter of science but of who and what we are, of the value and meaning of life. When science starts trying to dictate these things albeit indirectly then it must deal in the domain of theology where it has no authority and has to give way to greater truths about which it can have nothing valid to say. This is not to say that there is any ultimate conflict between science and theology, I believe there is not. Science at its best is the quest to understand the what and how and when, the mechanism, where theology addresess the why. When they work together as they should science comes close to what has been described as 'thinking God's thoughts after him'. I cannot think of a more rewarding career or fufilling pastime than that. :
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence. If you have a better one, lets hear it.
This reflects a logical fallacy that we can call "Best in Class." Also, question-begging. Also, special-pleading. Also, shifting-the-burden-of-proof. An analogy:
'Bubba' is on trial for the premeditated murder of Mr Jones. The prosecution is making its final argument: "... And so in conclusion, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, while the Defense has blown holes all through the case we have presented, the fact reamins that 'Bubba Done It!' is the explanation we have for the heinous murder of Mr Jones. Therefore, I call upon you to convict Bubba of this heinous muder!"
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence.
This claim itself is false, on both particulars: 1) 'modern evolutionary theory' explains "current biological diversity" only if one uses a very tendentious definition for "explain" and "diversity" -- and more importantly, it doesn't explain biological complexity, which is supposedly what Darwin and all his Disciples were/are doing. 1a) As DeVries said (in 1904, as I understand it): "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest." 'Modern evolutionary theory' still cannot and never will be able to explain the arrival of "the fittest." 2) "the fossil evidence" is quite *contrary* to 'modern evolutionary theory' (that is, after all, *why* Gould and Eldridge invented "punctuated equilibrium") Or, if you look at it another way, the claim is false on all three particulars: 3) 'modern evolutionary theory' is in no way scientific, in the first place!
Modern evolutonary theory is scientific - it explains observable phenomenon in a way that does not depend upon supernatural or divine explanations. 'Punctuated Equilibrium' is an explanation that does not reguire God, therefore it is scientific. The only possible objection is that it is not yet a complete theory. There are, in fact, many things it cannot explain. But the same is true of every field of science. Physicists cannot yet explain the cause of gravity, but that does not invalidate the entire science of physics. Again, if you can similarly explain the pertinent observable phenomenon in a way that does not depend upon supernatural causes, lets hear it. For example, explain how the universe came to be populated by galaxies billions of lights years apart in a way that does not say "God did it". Thats the rules of the game.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Such a question is assuming quite a lot. Firstly that an 'explanation' is required, secondly that one is possible and thirdly that science is applicable to derive one. None of these assumptions seems particularly certain or in fact less fundamental than the theory of evolution itself, even if there was one theory and it actually made sense. The current biological diversity is 'explained' best in my opinion by an a priore diverse creation much altered by fall and flood and the degredations of time in a fallen universe, just one of which is speciation caused by loss of genetic compatability, this being the result of death without offspring ( so called natural selection ) and genetic damage ( mutation ). The fossil evidence is witness to the great global catastrophe of the flood which made large proportions of the species of the time extinct, including interestingly wiping out 99.some9s% of the genetic diversity in the human species. That we have an environemntally functioning world today and a more or less sustainable human race is testament to the incredibly robust design inherent in creation and to the massive adaptability and in engineering terms 'over specification' of the originally created genomes. It fascinates me to think that the fact that almost all modern humans have five fingers rather than six may simply have been an 'accident' of which genes were and weren't present amongst the handful of flood survivors. Maybe purple and blue people were originally quite common or healthy 7'6" teenagers. Such things are of course idle speculation but they go to show that the biggest problem with 'evolution' is the effect it has on our understanding of what it is to be human. That in turn has profound psychological and social implications beyond even the scientific ones. It's not just a matter of science but of who and what we are, of the value and meaning of life. When science starts trying to dictate these things albeit indirectly then it must deal in the domain of theology where it has no authority and has to give way to greater truths about which it can have nothing valid to say. This is not to say that there is any ultimate conflict between science and theology, I believe there is not. Science at its best is the quest to understand the what and how and when, the mechanism, where theology addresess the why. When they work together as they should science comes close to what has been described as 'thinking God's thoughts after him'. I cannot think of a more rewarding career or fufilling pastime than that. :
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Science at its best is the quest to understand the what and how and when, the mechanism, where theology addresess the why. When they work together as they should science comes close to what has been described as 'thinking God's thoughts after him'. I cannot think of a more rewarding career or fufilling pastime than that.
Not true at all. Science is by definion a-religious. It exists precisely to derive explanations of the universe that do not depend upon divine causes. A scientific theory has no need to be true, it merely needs to predictably explain.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Science at its best is the quest to understand the what and how and when, the mechanism, where theology addresess the why. When they work together as they should science comes close to what has been described as 'thinking God's thoughts after him'. I cannot think of a more rewarding career or fufilling pastime than that.
Not true at all. Science is by definion a-religious. It exists precisely to derive explanations of the universe that do not depend upon divine causes. A scientific theory has no need to be true, it merely needs to predictably explain.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Not true at all. Science is by definion a-religious. It exists precisely to derive explanations of the universe that do not depend upon divine causes. A scientific theory has no need to be true, it merely needs to predictably explain.
Hits the nail on the head of how science has changed and become 'broken' in the past few decades. When a scientific theory no longer has any need to be true then science is in deep, deep trouble. When the purpose of science becomes justification for atheism as
Stan Shannon wrote:
exists precisely to derive explanations of the universe that do not depend upon divine causes
implies then it is no longer science at all and has becomes an anti-religion, a religion which denies its status as one, therefore resting on a lie and falsifying itself and undermining all its claims without further need for examination. This ways lies the death of science which I have posted about before and is certainly a worse and more likely 21st global catastrophe than GW.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Not true at all. Science is by definion a-religious. It exists precisely to derive explanations of the universe that do not depend upon divine causes. A scientific theory has no need to be true, it merely needs to predictably explain.
Hits the nail on the head of how science has changed and become 'broken' in the past few decades. When a scientific theory no longer has any need to be true then science is in deep, deep trouble. When the purpose of science becomes justification for atheism as
Stan Shannon wrote:
exists precisely to derive explanations of the universe that do not depend upon divine causes
implies then it is no longer science at all and has becomes an anti-religion, a religion which denies its status as one, therefore resting on a lie and falsifying itself and undermining all its claims without further need for examination. This ways lies the death of science which I have posted about before and is certainly a worse and more likely 21st global catastrophe than GW.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Hits the nail on the head of how science has changed and become 'broken' in the past few decades.
Yeah, back in the 60's it was very common to examine drug efficacy by having treatment, placebo, and prayer groups. :rolleyes:
- F
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence. If you have a better one, lets hear it.
This reflects a logical fallacy that we can call "Best in Class." Also, question-begging. Also, special-pleading. Also, shifting-the-burden-of-proof. An analogy:
'Bubba' is on trial for the premeditated murder of Mr Jones. The prosecution is making its final argument: "... And so in conclusion, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, while the Defense has blown holes all through the case we have presented, the fact reamins that 'Bubba Done It!' is the explanation we have for the heinous murder of Mr Jones. Therefore, I call upon you to convict Bubba of this heinous muder!"
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence.
This claim itself is false, on both particulars: 1) 'modern evolutionary theory' explains "current biological diversity" only if one uses a very tendentious definition for "explain" and "diversity" -- and more importantly, it doesn't explain biological complexity, which is supposedly what Darwin and all his Disciples were/are doing. 1a) As DeVries said (in 1904, as I understand it): "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest." 'Modern evolutionary theory' still cannot and never will be able to explain the arrival of "the fittest." 2) "the fossil evidence" is quite *contrary* to 'modern evolutionary theory' (that is, after all, *why* Gould and Eldridge invented "punctuated equilibrium") Or, if you look at it another way, the claim is false on all three particulars: 3) 'modern evolutionary theory' is in no way scientific, in the first place!
Ilíon wrote:
- 'modern evolutionary theory' explains "current biological diversity" only if one uses a very tendentious definition for "explain" and "diversity" -- and more importantly, it doesn't explain biological complexity, which is supposedly what Darwin and all his Disciples were/are doing.
Sure it does, especially in concert with our understanding of molecular biology and biochemistry. Do you really think evolution exists in a vacuum?
Ilíon wrote:
1a) As DeVries said (in 1904, as I understand it): "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest." 'Modern evolutionary theory' still cannot and never will be able to explain the arrival of "the fittest."
Wow, a quote from a hundred years ago. You've really captured the pulse of modern biology with that one. But he's right - natural selection doesn't explain that - genetics and molecular biology does. Ever hear of the modern synthesis? Gee, that just might have happened after 1904.
Ilíon wrote:
"the fossil evidence" is quite *contrary* to 'modern evolutionary theory' (that is, after all, *why* Gould and Eldridge invented "punctuated equilibrium")
No, it's completely consistent. Besides, whining about how incomplete the fossil record is these days is disingenuous with the information gleaned thanks to recent advances in genomics, improved sequencing techniques, and the greater computing power available to organize the information.
Ilíon wrote:
'modern evolutionary theory' is in no way scientific, in the first place!
Sure it is. It's testable and falsifiable. I hope this post leads you into a greater appreciation and understanding of such a diverse, complicated, and rewarding scientific field. Sincerely, Fisticuffs, B.Sc Molecular Biology
- F