Yes, another attempt at distraction. Start a thread on it if you actually believe that crap. Ton of evidence. Ha!
Oh, I see, the "evidence" is miraculous, so scientists and the like can't see it. How convenient.
Is it wrong to have sex for fun, knowing it might possibly lead to an abortion?
- Thread starter SetiAlpha6
- Start date
- Status
Is this your prediction for the End Times, or do you think God will come down in his chariot sooner than that?
What you're seeing is a snapshot of certain views that exist out there in society. I think it is better to face this stuff head on than to pretend it doesn't exist.
It is exactly the kinds of views that we're seeing from SetiAlpha6 that are having real-world effects like the recent anti-abortion laws in Alabama and elsewhere. I think it is important that such views are confronted rather than silenced.
This thread is now in the Religion subforum, because it has become clear that SetiAlpha6's motivations, at least on the superficial level, are religious. That is, he chooses to excuse himself using his religion. I think it is important that people are not unnecessarily shielded from seeing how these people work, and that they are given an opportunity to interrogate the smokescreen. Inevitably, a religious discussion of this nature is going to involve some proselytising or preaching. The religion, after all, is the excuse given for the odious position. Lacking a rational position on the matter, the religious advocate has only his religious excuses to fall back on.
Fundamentalist religion is often patriarchal. It confines its followers - often to their own detriment - to live in a world in which women are not allowed to fully express themselves, and in which their choices are limited. Some men think that is the way things ought to be, of course, and that may be one reason they are attracted the religion in the first place. Understand that these people are deeply indoctrinated and have vested interests. Partriarchal views are likely unavoidable from certain brands of devout fundamentalist. If we are to talk to them in an effort to understand, and perhaps ultimately to change their minds, we can't really avoid exposure to some of that stuff, odious as it is.
In a discussion about abortion like this one, it is also all but inevitable that some of the men who are participating will be sexist, and that their views will be grounded in their sexism. It is all but impossible for these men to articulate their views without the sexism seeping through.
In summary, you see why this thread has been allowed to continue. It's a chain of links. The view on abortion flows from the sexism, which is tied to the patriarchy, which is tied to the fundamentalist religion. These people can't discuss the one without the other becoming obvious. The only alternative to discussion is to silence the voices of these men by preventing them from posting at all on the topic. Some (Tiassa, for instance) would certainly prefer that. I disagree that this is the best approach to addressing these issues in society.
Regarding this forum, I made the point to Tiassa some time ago that I believe our more balanced members are mature enough and adult enough to handle being exposed to these kinds of views. There is always the option not to read. It should be quite clear that the views of these men do not represent the views of the sciforums community at large, or its administrators or its moderators.
Last edited:
By the way:
Obviously, if discussing UFOs or the paranormal wasn't allowed here, we wouldn't have subforums dedicated to those topics.
That's not true. MR has never been warned or banned for his stance on UFOs and the paranormal. He has been repeatedly warned and has accumulated automatic bans because he refuses to support his opinions with any argument or analysis. When he has been banned, it is because he has spammed sciforums with cut-and-pasted youtube videos, usually posted without any comment, question or point of discussion.
Obviously, if discussing UFOs or the paranormal wasn't allowed here, we wouldn't have subforums dedicated to those topics.
I'm not sure why that's enough said. There's nothing particularly wrong about any of that.
Er... what?
Are you saying wegs is being sexist by calling you out as a sexist man? If she's talking specifically about you, it's not all men.
Or is it a more general concern of yours that wegs is speaking up in the forum as a woman, and you'd prefer if women were silenced?
Your explanation provides me with ID as the foundation, as step one.
I think we discussed Miller-Urey a while back and my view on it has not changed.
In the Miller-Urey experiment intelligence was used by the scientists to create and interfere with the supposedly “completely natural” chemical reactions.
And the atmosphere chemical mix used is still a guess, even today in more recently repeated experiments. It may have never happened at all.
Extraordinary claims (Abiogenesis) require extraordinary evidence! This is not extraordinary evidence.
It is certainly evidence for supporting a contrived set of conditions. But, in no way does it prove abiogenesis.
They set up and ran the experiment using their intelligence and altered the results by pulling the amino acids out of the reaction, to prevent them from being destroyed if the reaction would have continued on “naturally”. They knew exactly what needed to be done to achieve the results they wanted!
They used ID within their own experiment!
And there are other problems...
James Tour, a true expert in the field, addresses this and a few more of the problems you have brought up.
Nope. It was a jar with a prototypical atmosphere, water and a spark gap. That's it.
You are now claiming that the Earth did not have an atmosphere when life arose?
It proves that life could have arisen via this method.
Again, no. They let it run and they analyzed it when it was complete.
You sound like you did some Googling for five seconds on the topic "Miller Urey was wrong" and just copy and pasted. Not a convincing way to argue.
That's a strawman. The writer cannot argue the point, so he creates an imaginary argument to rail against.
I have taken several biology, organic chemistry and genetics classes. Never has any professor made any claims about the afterlife or the persistence of the soul. Never has any professor claimed that we "are all descendants of apes." Or that we have "no future."
Let's distill that statement down to statements a biology professor might reasonably make:
"Humans and chimps are descended from a common apelike ancestor that lived several million years ago. Mutations to DNA and natural selection have caused evolutionary changes that led to our current phenotype."
But that wouldn't be nearly as divisive (and wouldn't make that author nearly as much money.)
How many months or years did they wait before they shut the experiments down? Why not run it for a decade before it is shut down? Or more?
These processes and reactions are supposed to be able to stay in one form, or become even more complex over time, and even magically avoid entropy for what, millions of years?
One decade should be really easy.
Please explain?
Last edited:
No, women are awesome!
Your accusations are way off.
But I don’t think you have the ability to care anymore, only because you are so indoctrinated.
A week.
Others have run it for longer. The Bada-Cleaves experiment was run for two months with similar results.
?? No. Lightning creates them. Things like UV degrade them. Thus there will be places (sheltered pools) where there will be tons of amino acids. There will be places (the tops of puddles) where there will be very little.
Then go for it.
Somebody please get a grant to run an updated Miller-Urey experiment using 100,000 samples running untouched for one decade!
It would be a gravy job, and it could change the world.
It would be a gravy job, and it could change the world.
If you feel that will vindicate your beliefs, why not do it yourself? Why demand of others what you are unwilling to do for yourself?
So everyone, we are going to extrapolate and speculate that a two month experiment proves abiogenesis over millions of years. Got it!
That is no different than your desire to take a ten year experiment and extrapolate over millions of years. Same criticism applies.
But in any case, JR is right. Why not use this thread to talk about the topic you posted, and leave the science denial for another thread?
No, I just answered your question.
And this is how you slander and treat people who disagree with you.
I have no reason to communicate further with you.
I will only be slandered more if I do.
I wish you well.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
That is not correct.
The experiment was to try and duplicate the climatic conditions which prevailed on a younger earth and can no longer be found in today's natural ecology, but must be duplicated by artificial means.
The original conditions were naturally created by the earth's climate and eco-system and there were no humans around to set up a laboratory experiment to see if basic chemical reactions can yield bio-chemical reactions and compounds. That happened spontaneously all by itself, given enough time and chemical surface area.
The Miller-Urey experiment was never intended to prove that life emerged on the beach in a glass beaker.
The experiment was "proof of principle" that the concept of abiogenesis is theoretically sound and a valid course if inquiry to pursue as that is the only practical way to prove or falsify evolutionary processes.
Short of a "miracle" of biblical proportions proving creationism by ID, the narrative of ID can NEVER prove or falsify a single word in the argument of evolution.
Moreover the original intent of religious worship was to appease a host of greater and lesser gods, a practice that is still symbolized during religious ceremonies. Creationism came later when monotheism became fashionable.
First, we need to address this aspect, particularly and immediately.
You need to stop this. And, trust me, you're not the only one. But it needs to stop right now.
Seriously: What the hell? Why would you reinforce such beliefs by obliging Christians?
Nor does the point of them being wrong focus on the imposition of modern values unto ancient tradition; this is redletter. That's why it's important for you to lay out the actual argument about enforcing the Law. Don't skip and nudge and wink your way through it; the answer is generally the same, but its specific presentation attends the construction it responds to. You know, like, in what order to say the obvious, since saying it out of order, as if a standardized or doctrinaire catch-all, might accidentally confuse people; it happens a lot with evangelicals.
But, yes, when you acknowledge—e.g., "Yep."—your dalliance in fallacy, it stands out even more that you would insist they have obligation to homicide. And when we consider the fanaticism your argument obliges of all Christians, indeed, we might hope you should have better reason than self-satisfaction.
Furthermore, my society is experiencing a time when fanatics of diverse fantasies and delusions are actually shooting the place up; it seems unwise to oblige as such a known type that does, in fact, have its place on the current homicidal arc. I'm having a hard time formulating a sentence that encompasses everything you screwed up in that. Seriously, it's not just your formulation obliging all Christians to homicidal righteousness; I'm not utterly unfamiliar with the argument, and one thing worth pointing out is that it does fall under the rubric of letting people you already know are wrong set the terms of discussion. But more importantly, yes, people really are shooting the place up, these days. While the last mass slaughter about homosexuals wasn't a Christian, nor, for instance, the incels necessarily religious, we might recall the magatude, as well as other sociopolitical currents favoring hyperreactionary trends intended to spite critics by fulfilling criticism.
And it's true, that last ought to be some manner of overstatement or exaggerated caution, but even still, the bloodthirsty Christians are wrong, and you're wrong. And while there is a context in which I can appreciate proud bigotry for identifying itself°, that is not what we're dealing with; that is not the sort of outlook you're referring to.
For years, people have been expected to take it easy on certain manners of violent talk, because, well, free speech. But the expectation that people are supposed to chill out and not take everything so seriously is predicated on the idea that the talk isn't literal. You know how it goes, the snowflakes aren't supposed to get so triggered. Trying to ignore it as much as one might didn't work well with the incels; they started shooting in order to get attention. Years of organized political messaging about Latinx invaders officially achieved the White House, and are officially accounted among a terrorist's motives.
So, yeah, watching someone oblige Christians to righteous homicide for the sake of ... uh ... whatever it is you think you're doing, is a little unsettling.
Moving right along:
Show me. And toward that end—
—the next question is what the Law said.
Bring it. Please. Truth is, I can put it to rest definitively, so I'm actually curious as to what the actual underlying problem is, that I might figure out how to address it.
But how, particularly, do you see what part of the Law being enforced?
Again, it's important for you to lay out the actual argument about enforcing the Law.
I wouldn't even know what ostensibly helpful advice to suggest, and this is what that means: Words have meaning, as do the sentences we construct with them. Sometimes, people will talk of contradictions, for instance, in the Bible, and that's not to say they aren't there. But neither are they the same, nor are the points of contradiction necessarily similar in value or function. Your reference to Mt. 5.18 is incomplete, at best; what you would apply it to is your own religious assertion. You think you see something, but can you actually show it to me?
It's important, because I am very much certain I can answer you. I just need to know how you're choosing to address which components of the Law. The answer remains consistent, and what remains is a question of how to make it make sense.
____________________
Notes:
° When they're just fine identifying as bigots and supremacists, that means we can skip past the mincing spectacle of people whining about words like racism and misogyny. Like the magatude, for instance. It's one thing be okay with people chugging milk to puking while pushing white supremacism in hopes of somehow emotionally unsettling other people, but that's the thing, at least with those we have actual data on an element of dangerous stupidity; we know who to avoid. I'm also thinking of a white nationalist organizer in my region who is perfectly proud to boast that he is a racist who wants a white homeland. At least I know he's there. And if I really want to argue with him, at least he's not going to pretend he's not a racist. Thing is, he thinks he's right, and thus not hamstrung by the same neurotic distress we see among so much of the magatude, Christian right, Republican Party, and even mainstream liberals.
You need to stop this. And, trust me, you're not the only one. But it needs to stop right now.
1) Christians who advocate such homicidal arguments are wrong.
2) Do not validate them for the sake of your own personal satisfaction.
3) Do not encourage other Christians to believe such dangerous things by insisting they should.
2) Do not validate them for the sake of your own personal satisfaction.
3) Do not encourage other Christians to believe such dangerous things by insisting they should.
Seriously: What the hell? Why would you reinforce such beliefs by obliging Christians?
Nor does the point of them being wrong focus on the imposition of modern values unto ancient tradition; this is redletter. That's why it's important for you to lay out the actual argument about enforcing the Law. Don't skip and nudge and wink your way through it; the answer is generally the same, but its specific presentation attends the construction it responds to. You know, like, in what order to say the obvious, since saying it out of order, as if a standardized or doctrinaire catch-all, might accidentally confuse people; it happens a lot with evangelicals.
But, yes, when you acknowledge—e.g., "Yep."—your dalliance in fallacy, it stands out even more that you would insist they have obligation to homicide. And when we consider the fanaticism your argument obliges of all Christians, indeed, we might hope you should have better reason than self-satisfaction.
Furthermore, my society is experiencing a time when fanatics of diverse fantasies and delusions are actually shooting the place up; it seems unwise to oblige as such a known type that does, in fact, have its place on the current homicidal arc. I'm having a hard time formulating a sentence that encompasses everything you screwed up in that. Seriously, it's not just your formulation obliging all Christians to homicidal righteousness; I'm not utterly unfamiliar with the argument, and one thing worth pointing out is that it does fall under the rubric of letting people you already know are wrong set the terms of discussion. But more importantly, yes, people really are shooting the place up, these days. While the last mass slaughter about homosexuals wasn't a Christian, nor, for instance, the incels necessarily religious, we might recall the magatude, as well as other sociopolitical currents favoring hyperreactionary trends intended to spite critics by fulfilling criticism.
And it's true, that last ought to be some manner of overstatement or exaggerated caution, but even still, the bloodthirsty Christians are wrong, and you're wrong. And while there is a context in which I can appreciate proud bigotry for identifying itself°, that is not what we're dealing with; that is not the sort of outlook you're referring to.
For years, people have been expected to take it easy on certain manners of violent talk, because, well, free speech. But the expectation that people are supposed to chill out and not take everything so seriously is predicated on the idea that the talk isn't literal. You know how it goes, the snowflakes aren't supposed to get so triggered. Trying to ignore it as much as one might didn't work well with the incels; they started shooting in order to get attention. Years of organized political messaging about Latinx invaders officially achieved the White House, and are officially accounted among a terrorist's motives.
So, yeah, watching someone oblige Christians to righteous homicide for the sake of ... uh ... whatever it is you think you're doing, is a little unsettling.
Moving right along:
Show me. And toward that end—
—the next question is what the Law said.
Bring it. Please. Truth is, I can put it to rest definitively, so I'm actually curious as to what the actual underlying problem is, that I might figure out how to address it.
(And if we can cover a certain point in advance: If you wish to hand me a source, like someone else's explanation, please do be kind of specific about which parts, because otherwise we can get distracted in side issues about what you didn't mean.)
But how, particularly, do you see what part of the Law being enforced?
Again, it's important for you to lay out the actual argument about enforcing the Law.
†
I wouldn't even know what ostensibly helpful advice to suggest, and this is what that means: Words have meaning, as do the sentences we construct with them. Sometimes, people will talk of contradictions, for instance, in the Bible, and that's not to say they aren't there. But neither are they the same, nor are the points of contradiction necessarily similar in value or function. Your reference to Mt. 5.18 is incomplete, at best; what you would apply it to is your own religious assertion. You think you see something, but can you actually show it to me?
It's important, because I am very much certain I can answer you. I just need to know how you're choosing to address which components of the Law. The answer remains consistent, and what remains is a question of how to make it make sense.
____________________
Notes:
° When they're just fine identifying as bigots and supremacists, that means we can skip past the mincing spectacle of people whining about words like racism and misogyny. Like the magatude, for instance. It's one thing be okay with people chugging milk to puking while pushing white supremacism in hopes of somehow emotionally unsettling other people, but that's the thing, at least with those we have actual data on an element of dangerous stupidity; we know who to avoid. I'm also thinking of a white nationalist organizer in my region who is perfectly proud to boast that he is a racist who wants a white homeland. At least I know he's there. And if I really want to argue with him, at least he's not going to pretend he's not a racist. Thing is, he thinks he's right, and thus not hamstrung by the same neurotic distress we see among so much of the magatude, Christian right, Republican Party, and even mainstream liberals.
- Status