Why people laugh at Creationists

[Dave Lane]

Taking a lead from Killer Clown I thought I'd create a alternative thread to post some videos I like...

[EDIT New video here]

So on with the show:

Here's the Kent Hovind Theory:



"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

[mcan]

Originally Posted by CLX

Regarding your last statement, it's not. Both took lives that didn't get a chance to prove their worth to society. I really dislike your comment "run of the mill abortion". Taking a life, whether by gun or knife in a doctors hand is still taking a life. Your argument about viable is invalid. In both cases at the time of conception both those that were killed and the unborn are viable, if that were not the case you/we wouldn't be here.

You really think that a fertilized egg that isn't even implanted yet is a human being?

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

The only difference is the attachment to the child by the time they are 5, otherwise both are human.

Same question. So, the moment a sperm cell and an egg come in contact you think it's now a human being?

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by mcan

You really think that a fertilized egg that isn't even implanted yet is a human being?



Same question. So, the moment a sperm cell and an egg come in contact you think it's now a human being?

it's life, is it not?

[CLX]

Originally Posted by mcan

You really think that a fertilized egg that isn't even implanted yet is a human being?

Same question. So, the moment a sperm cell and an egg come in contact you think it's now a human being?

1. The egg alone is not conception
2. The egg and sperm when joined is conception and life starts. If it did not start at that point none of us would have survived the trip.

[CLX]

Originally Posted by Dave

Kill yourself

Another attempt to show some kind of intelligence. FAIL AGAIN.

[mcan]

Originally Posted by CLX

1. The egg alone is not conception
2. The egg and sperm when joined is conception and life starts. If it did not start at that point none of us would have survived the trip.

the pregnancy starts. Not a "life." I believe that life starts when a pregnancy results in a human being. And that takes awhile. Now, I do agree that there is a sorites paradox inherent in the process of drawing that line. But I think it's pretty clear that a line needs to be drawn, even if it is arbitrary. Before that line, you have a 'fetus.' After that line, you have a human being with rights, and it's your responsibility to ensure it's safety and well being. I do think there should be a "save the mother" clause for problem pregnancies at all times though. I really can't understand (I will try to though) anybodies argument against early abortion. Seems to me it's just like putting ingredients into an oven and before they are cooked, deciding you don't want cake after all and taking them back out. No big deal.

*Didn't mean to hijack the thread at all. Just thought I'd throw out

[Brainiac]

Originally Posted by mcan

You really think that a fertilized egg that isn't even implanted yet is a human being?



Same question. So, the moment a sperm cell and an egg come in contact you think it's now a human being?

Originally Posted by stevieray

it's life, is it not?

A sperm is alive. It swims toward the egg. Just because something is alive doesn't make it a human being. It's a potential human being.

[mcan]

Originally Posted by stevieray

it's life, is it not?

Yes, of course the tissue is human. They are human cells, in development. But my HAIR is made of human cells. My fingernails. My beer belly. Dead skin. Just because it's made out of human, living cells doesn't make it valuable. It's just the beginning parts of a pregnancy, and I don't see it (as I said before) as any different than the beginning stages of cooking. What we value is the life of a human being. That is undeniable and obvious. But stopping the process of development before a fetus becomes a human being is no more a big deal than starting to build a car and deciding, 'nah, I don't want to build a car' and stopping. Now you just have car parts... But you can't say you destroyed a car, because there never WAS a car. I've never heard a good argument the other way. What I hear over and over again is this:

Conservatives: God made me special as soon as I came out of my Dad's dick!
Liberals: Keep your God out of the bedroom! Unless you have a vagina you can't have an opinion!

Can you even think of two more uninteresting, unenlightened, backwards, points of view about any subject? It's almost like people don't even want to make sense any more.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

A sperm is alive. It swims toward the egg. Just because something is alive doesn't make it a human being. It's a potential human being.

A skin cell is alive too.

Well at least the subcutaneous ones.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by Dave

What is salvation?

Why didn't god save those kids?

Wait is this Black Boob or Tom Cash?

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by mcan

Just because it's made out of human, living cells doesn't make it valuable. .

....and the kids that were killed yesterday weren't fully developed...were they valuable?

....way to DEVALUE human life...what a weak ass argument....and people wonder why those types of horrifc acts occur.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by mcan

Conservatives: God made me special as soon as I came out of my Dad's dick!
Liberals: Keep your God out of the bedroom! Unless you have a vagina you can't have an opinion!

You choice of the liberal stance is pretty skewed. For the most part its you don;t get to decide what a woman can do with her body.

I and most liberals I talk with are less concerned about the ownership of a vagina than we are that the time be right for a child that can be raised successfully.

I don't feel a embryo is a "person" till at best it's viable outside the womb.

Most Jewish couples don't feel its viable till its out of Law School, but to each their own.

[mcan]

Originally Posted by stevieray

....and the kids that were killed yesterday weren't fully developed...were they valuable?

....way to DEVALUE human life...what a weak ass argument....and people wonder why those types of horrifc acts occur.

Wait, what?

Of course those kids had developed into human beings, and of course they were valuable. I'm thinking you misunderstood what I wrote.

[Bowser]

(I think mcan meant to say "viable", not "valuable")

[mcan]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

You choice of the liberal stance is pretty skewed. For the most part its you don;t get to decide what a woman can do with her body.

I and most liberals I talk with are less concerned about the ownership of a vagina than we are that the time be right for a child that can be raised successfully.

I don't feel a embryo is a "person" till at best it's viable outside the womb.

Most Jewish couples don't feel its viable till its out of Law School, but to each their own.

Well, I intentionally made the conservative view sound whacky, so went with the most whacky liberal view I've heard... And yes, I've heard it a lot. An ex girlfriend of mine used to spout it quite often: sick of rich white men deciding what she can and can't do with her vagina. Okay, that's fine. But in the end, being any demographic doesn't mean your ideas or arguments are going to make more sense than somebody else's.

If I'm trying to be a bit more inclusive I might say:

Conservative: A human fetus is a life, and taking that life intentionally is a crime, just like any other murder. Perhaps worse because the child has no means of defense. Also, the perpetrator is the 'mother' whom nature has deemed it's protector. And the reasons for termination are nearly always due to the inconvenience of carrying the child to term, making the act all the more selfish and morally repulsive. If you don't want a child, do not procreate.

Liberal: A woman has a right to do with her own body whatever she chooses. It is morally wrong for the state to force any woman to have a child if she does not want that child.


Seems that both positions are tenuous at best. The first hinges on the notion that a fetus is one and the same with a human being. That there is no distinguishable characteristic between a zygote and a marathon runner that makes one a human being, and one not. While I might have fun going through the difficult process of enumerating those differences in a philosophy class, it's plainly just not the case in real life that they are one and the same. Just like an pinecone is not a tree, a zygote is not a human being.

The second position is ignoring the argument that the first is making entirely and just saying... Well, if it IS murder, then it's justified. Judith Jarvis Thompson wrote quite eloquently about the violinist thought experiment, and she made it quite clear that under certain circumstances we might all be inclined to think its okay to passively kill in the name of convenience and personal freedom. While this might be an excellent essay and an interesting philosophical position, I think it's fairly disgusting. And if it were TRUE that a fetus was a human being (making the violinist analogy a true comparison) then I would switch sides pretty damn fast and find myself on the side of the pro life people.

Thankfully, we don't have to do that. We're thinking people with common sense and can plainly see that a fetus is NOT analogous to a human being. It just isn't. At some point, it becomes one. We can't know where that point is, mostly because we don't have a good definition for "human being" that isn't predicated on some kind of ability... This would disclude mentally retarded people or the severely handicapped, and that just doesn't pass muster. But a lack of a good definition doesn't mean that we have to let our brains fall out and just say, "well I guess a zygote has the same intrinsic value as StevieRay."

Seriously, if a terrorist made me choose between shooting StevieRay in the head or shooting myself, I'd likely have to choose shooting myself. I would not want to live in the world much longer if I knew I was a killer. If the choice was to shoot StevieRay or a 3 year old child though, I'm sorry Steve but I won't hesitate. I could never shoot a 3 year old child who has his whole life in front of him. And I'm sure you'd understand and agree, and reluctantly accept your fate. Perhaps even feel like a martyr as you went out. Now, if the choice were to either shoot StevieRay in the head, or give my recently pregnant girlfriend the day after pill... How many people in this world do you think would approve of me shooting Steve? It's plainly obvious that Steve's life has value and this collection of cells has none. Anybody disagree?

[mcan]

Originally Posted by Bowser

(I think mcan meant to say "viable", not "valuable")

No, I definitely meant "valuable." As in, a zygote is not any more intrinsically valuable than my hair, or fat cells. Yes, it's alive. And yes it's human. But like an appendix, it is not "valuable" until its a human being. At which point it becomes extremely precious and earns it's value.