liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

[Snowhog]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

Relationship between religion and science

Scientific method vs Faith

[bsniadajewski]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

This is getting very interesting. I'd like to hear (actually read) Ardvark's take on this mini debate on abortion.

(Disclaimer: I'm a Catholic, and oppose abortion. It still caries the DNA of a human on 46 chromosomes. It may not have anything developed, it will have what it takes to (physically) be a human.)

[DoYouKubuntu]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

(Disclaimer: I'm a Catholic, and oppose abortion. It still caries the DNA of a human on 46 chromosomes. It may not have anything developed, it will have what it takes to (physically) be a human.)

See, I don't disagree that it's HUMAN from conception. I mean, it's not a giraffe, you know? My problem arises when people claim that a blastocyst or zygote can feel pain and experience fear--which is ludicrous given the fact that their CNS isn't developed yet. If someone's opposed to abortion on moral grounds, fine, but they shouldn't use a ridiculous NON-argument as the reason they're opposed to it.

[woodsmoke]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

Some VERY interesting posts...

as to half of the people who say they are Christian going to Hell, that is probably correct for "we are all fall short of the standards of God"....but

conversely...............I really HATE to say this ( NOT! ) because there will be bric-bats thrown....

UNFORTUNATELY.............probably HALF of the "non-religionists" will be in Heaven also....darn!!

********************

DYK.....the central nervous system argument is tangential to the argument of roe v. wade, that of survivability outside the womb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

Unfortunately it is an example of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The reasoning is that "since the scientist says it does not have a nervous system then it is not human and scientists are always right". This is an example of argumentum ad verecundiam

There really is a argument against it, if one sets aside the "viability" clause to the argument.

One of the basic principles of Biology, is that "all life begins with life"(post the billion year old Harold and Urey soup that is).

Given that basic biological principle, then when the sperm meets egg the thing formed is, by that principle...alive.

And logically, it must then be some "version" of life such as a butterfly or a human.

I think that we would all say that a caterpiller really is a butterfly even though it does not yet have the nervous system of a butterfly...

Given that basic idea, then one could argue, in court, that since a foetus is produced by the combination of DNA from parents, or test tubes, and that by analogy if a caterpiller really is a butterfly then one could argue that the second that the sperm enters the egg, that the thing produced is human it just doesn't have all of the same structures yet as what we call a human.

That argument is

There is a rather old saying in botany, zoology, and biology, in general. That saying is that the function of a flower is to produce a flower. The function of a uterus is to produce a uterus.

If one takes that basic idea, in an of itself, then any stage of the "development" of the "thing" could be considered "at least" alive and therefore "possibly" human.

That would then lead into the territory of "least risk of doing harm" (to the baby) as opposed to the "mother". That argument has been made several times, but it could be "re-" argued from the above viewpoint.

However, I myself think that even though the "morning after pill" makes this all moot, I do not really believe that EITHER side wants the argument to die.

The "abortion" people want to "shove it in the face of the STUPID religion people" and to keep those donations and government funds rolling in.

The "anti-abortion" people want to keep the argument going to keep adhearents to their particular brand of religion and keep the offerings rolling in.

And the REST of the people just want to get on with their lives...

But....to move to a lighter note....

Did you hear the one about the preacher that was hunting for bears all day and became exhausted and sat down on a log to rest when a ravenous, ferocious bear was suddenly upon him!

Forgetting his rifle he implored: "Lord, save me! Convert this bear to being a Christian!"

With a blast of lightening the bear stopped, stood on his hind feet, then knelt down and with his paws raised to the Heavens....he said:

"Dear Lord please bless this food that I'm about to eat!"

woodsmoke

[bsniadajewski]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

+1 woodsmoke

[SteveRiley]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

(I was going to start with a bit on where the burden of proof lies, but instead decided to take a different approach...)


One of the worst criticisms that could be leveled against a scientific claim is that it is unfalsifiable. If a claim is constructed in such a way that there exists no possible way to disprove it, then the claim is on very shaky ground. It's little more than an opinion.

If a claim is found to be false by evidence gained through experiment (that is, a counter-example), it is rejected, and the counter-claim becomes fact. If a claim resists falsification, though, it isn't automatically granted factual status -- it simply means more research awaits. This is how science works.


Examples:

A. Claim: unicorns exist. Falsifiable? No: it is impossible to observe, simultaneously, every place in the universe where a unicorn might be located.

B. Claim: unicorns do not exist. Falsifiable? Yes: find one.


So, recognizing the risk, I offer the following for your (the community's) consideration:

A. Claim: zygotes are sentient. Falsifiable?
B. Claim: zygotes are not sentient. Falsifiable?

A. Claim: an afterlife awaits me. Falsifiable?
B. Claim: no afterlife exists. Falsifiable?


To confuse you a bit more, please keep the following in mind: (1) unfalsifiability is not the same thing as truth, and (2) just because a claim is unfalsifiable today, one can't conclude that this won't change at some point in the future.

You may proceed.

[woodsmoke]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

Aaaa verification of the negative hypothesis! I take it that you are an old physics person!

woodsmoke

[SteveRiley]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

old

Bah. My passport indicates 45, but I can envision several ways such a claim might be falsifiable, so who knows, really, hmm?

physics

Everything else is just a variation on this theme, no?

Read the Wikipedia page on falsifiability. While similar, that notion isn't exactly the same as the null (negative) hypothesis.

[DoYouKubuntu]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

...I offer the following for your (the community's) consideration:

A. Claim: zygotes are sentient. Falsifiable?
B. Claim: zygotes are not sentient. Falsifiable?

A. Claim: an afterlife awaits me. Falsifiable?
B. Claim: no afterlife exists. Falsifiable?

To confuse you a bit more, please keep the following in mind: (1) unfalsifiability is not the same thing as truth, and (2) just because a claim is unfalsifiable today, one can't conclude that this won't change at some point in the future.

You may proceed.

I would...but my brain hurts.

[GreyGeek]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

.....
I have no idea what the 2012 elections hold for me. Unless the Democrats come up with a viable alternative to Obama, I won't be voting Democrat. But, on the other hand, if the Republicans come up with some ultra-conservative wingnut (anti-choice, anti-gay, wanting religion to be used in making laws, etc.), I won't vote Republican either. I guess time will tell.

I'm in the same quandary.

I've been an Independent since 1994, but haven't bothered to un-register from the Rep party. Obama's election to the Presidency was historic, and so have been his colossal blunders, a direct result of having NO experience in management at the level of expertise that is required of the office. Great visions and an eloquent speaking ability are not enough. His ties to Chicago's dirty underside are too extensive for the MNM to cover up. Unless SOPA passes the Internet will continue to be a source of information embarrassing to any candidate trying to live a double life, regardless of how long the MNM continue to act like the three monkeys.

Had Palin completed her term as governor of Alaska she might have accumulated the necessary experience, but I believe she took herself out of the running because she fears that regardless of who is elected in 2012 there is too much crap already flying through the air toward the proverbial fan that it will make ANYONE look like a looser when it hits during the next term. And, I don't understand why anyone in their right mind would move from Alaska to Arizona.

Perry? A Gore fan and supporter, who says what he thinks people want to hear. I don't believe he has any core values. He comes off to me as being insincere, if not a phoney. And, his brain freeze will end up freezing him out of the race. That wasn't only a case of bad memory, it was also a case of trying to espouse principals that were not his core values. You cannot rationally explore positions and arrive at opinions and then forget what it was you studied unless you never really studied them but just recite as your own views a talking point memo written by a political "handler". A person who is that deceptive isn't worthy of the office.

Cain represented a serious threat to Obama. He's all Black, not half White. He is VERY intelligent, driven, and an obvious success in every job he's held over the last 40 years. He has management experience with very large corporations. Considering his accusers, who have to read from prepared statements in order to relate such "horrific" encounters, I don't believe the sexual harassment smears against him. However, his brain freeze will freeze him out of office because no one can hope to be president who has not kept themselves current on current affairs. His hopes vanished, for me anyway, when he couldn't answer a SIMPLE question on Libya. I like his 999, though. Or, at least replacing the current income tax mess with a national sales tax that can only be raised by a vote of the people.

Baachman? A typical tax lawyer. Mediocre speaker. No governing experience. No depth. I hear a lot of "me too" from her when ever someone else makes a good point. But, I'd vote for her over Palin any time.

Ron Paul? Get the government off of the backs of citizens? Obviously. Restore the respect for the Bill of Rights, and restore the meanings our Founding Fathers wrote into them. Enough of shadows of penumbras. But, a Libertarian at heart who wants the government to leave corporations alone? Pardon me, but corporate (profit and non-profit) corruption and political abuse IS the major cause of the problems in this country today, and is why most Americans have come to the conclusion that their vote doesn't matter any more because most Congressmen and Senators have sold their bowl of Constitutional porridge for personal gain. They even let the corporate lawyers write the bills they vote on without reading! > The Golden Goose has been raped so many times by those scoundrels she's at death's door, and they are too stupid or greedy to realize it. His view of corporate America is enough to turn me off, since I believe that corporate "person hood" should be repealed and made illegal.

Newt Gingrich? After Hell freezes over. He sold out his own "Contract with America". There should be a Constitutional amendment OUTLAWING lobbyists and lobbying in any political process, regardless of whom they represent.

Who does that leave? No one. But, the election is a YEAR away and anyone can pop out of the woodwork between now and then. This idea that candidates for the POTUS should be running for that office for several years is total nonsense. The ONLY reason why so many run for so long is because that gives them an opportunity to fill their "war chest" with money. Money which, I believe, they find ways to convert to personal use, just the way our Congressmen and Senators have.

Just in case anyone's wondering how I could have voted for McCain, considering Palin was his running mate and I've stated unequivocally that I would not vote for her for president, it's simple: McCain was much more qualified to be president than Obama and he's a war hero, so it was an easy choice; I figured I had to take my chances on him not dying while in office and then having the awful consequence of Palin becoming president.

I held my nose and voted the same way you did for the same reasons.

[DoYouKubuntu]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

.....
I have no idea what the 2012 elections hold for me. Unless the Democrats come up with a viable alternative to Obama, I won't be voting Democrat. But, on the other hand, if the Republicans come up with some ultra-conservative wingnut (anti-choice, anti-gay, wanting religion to be used in making laws, etc.), I won't vote Republican either. I guess time will tell.

I'm in the same quandary.

It's good to know we're in the same boat.

Obama's election to the Presidency was historic, and so have been his colossal blunders, a direct result of having NO experience in management at the level of expertise that is required of the office.

Exactly. My gripe the whole time people were jumping on his [Oh boy, he'll be the first BLACK president!] bandwagon was that he had no QUALIFICATIONS to be president. I wish more people had seen the light...sooner.

Great visions and an eloquent speaking ability

When reading from a teleprompter. Anyone who saw the Democratic debates should recall that when Obama attempted to answer questions--and, obviously, did not have his trusty teleprompter to feed him lines--his typical responses were "um...and...um..." And keep in mind that the jerks who were doing the interviewing were giving Obama REALLY TOUGH questions...like, did the sun come up today? Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton was being bombarded with tough questions about everything from national to international issues, and her responses were intelligent, eloquent, and proved that she actually KNEW what she was talking about.

His ties to Chicago's dirty underside are too extensive for the MNM to cover up.

Exactly. That plus his lies. And, as I've said before, they're DOCUMENTABLE. Like his Senate votes (or lack thereof), his shared office space with a terrorist (proven by IRS records), his background as a Muslim, and so on.

Had Palin completed her term as governor of Alaska she might have accumulated the necessary experience

I don't vote for quitters, so even if I didn't already dislike her [strongly], there's no way I'd vote for her now.

Perry?

The ice cube's chance in hell that existed in terms of my voting for him went out the window when I found out that he'd signed an anti-abortion pledge [to pacify the anti-choice zealot wing of the Republican party]. Done!

I don't believe he has any core values. He comes off to me as being insincere, if not a phoney. And, his brain freeze will end up freezing him out of the race. That wasn't only a case of bad memory, it was also a case of trying to espouse principals that were not his core values. You cannot rationally explore positions and arrive at opinions and then forget what it was you studied unless you never really studied them but just recite as your own views a talking point memo written by a political "handler". A person who is that deceptive isn't worthy of the office.

Very well said, and I totally agree. It's kind of like when Judge Judy says "if you tell the truth you don't have to have a good memory!"

Cain represented a serious threat to Obama. He's all Black, not half White. He is VERY intelligent, driven, and an obvious success in every job he's held over the last 40 years. He has management experience with very large corporations. Considering his accusers, who have to read from prepared statements in order to relate such "horrific" encounters, I don't believe the sexual harassment smears against him. However, his brain freeze will freeze him out of office because no one can hope to be president who has not kept themselves current on current affairs. His hopes vanished, for me anyway, when he couldn't answer a SIMPLE question on Libya.

He inspired my first anti-politician design for 2012, other than Palin: Cain's not able.

< snip >

Who does that leave? No one. But, the election is a YEAR away and anyone can pop out of the woodwork between now and then.

Right. Personally, I'm still hoping Clinton will run.

Just in case anyone's wondering how I could have voted for McCain, considering Palin was his running mate and I've stated unequivocally that I would not vote for her for president, it's simple: McCain was much more qualified to be president than Obama and he's a war hero, so it was an easy choice; I figured I had to take my chances on him not dying while in office and then having the awful consequence of Palin becoming president.

I held my nose and voted the same way you did for the same reasons.

Welcome to the club!

[bsniadajewski]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

I'd run, if I had the money. Some of you gays would disagree with what I'd (try to) do anyway, like a simplified progressive personal income tax (4 tiers; 1%, 10%, 20%, and 50%; instead of the current six), though I do like removing lobbyists from Washington. (It would have to be all of them. You don't want to "favor" one group(s) over another now do ya.)

[woodsmoke]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

GG and DYK....

Your above two posts just go to PROVE that you have been around ME....waaaayyyyyyyyyyy tooooooo looonnngggg

i keep tellin you guys that I am older than dirt and you just proved it!

And of all the candidates I really did think that Cain had at least a snowball's chance but with the doofs that keep popping up in the Republican bowl of nuts ......we had better hope that the scientists have figured out how to clone Abe Lincoln from one of his chinny chin hairs because it looks as if we have another four years of chicago style politics being played out on a national level before us....

ummm has anyone noticed that the largest fresh water aquifer in the WORLD in in....Paraguy?

Here is a very nice write up about how the world, the united nations and all good touchy feeling liberals are going to help out their "bretheren" in Latin America to develop it sustainably...

http://www.natureserve.org/latinamer...aniAquifer.jsp

And here is a write up about about how the detested GWB bought...

http://pimpinturtle.com/2008/07/31/b...y--brazil.aspx

And here is a writeup about how Obama is going to let Brazil pollute the ocean with oil while he won't let the U.S. companies pollute the ocean with oil...

http://thenewamerican.com/tech-mainm...-brazilian-oil

So let's see here the DETESTED Bush....buys water and natural gas reserves..... and is REVILED

and Obama.....says he will finance Brazil to POLLUTE THEIR OWN WATERS.....but not U.S. waters.....

and Obama is praised, or the deal is IGNORED, by the U.S. media and liberal elites...

hmmmmm

I think we ought to elect Joe the Plumber....

at least he is not tied to BIG MONEY......or CHICAGO POLITICS and AT LEAST....supports the American Values of hard work, raising a family and thrift.

just my thoughts and my own inimitable way of getting kicked off the forum!

woodequalopportunitypoliticalbashersmoke