Abortion?

Pmoney wrote: 1.) I am talking beyond the scientific method. Not all things can be explained in a methodical fashion, but they still happen.  Use logic.  What are the odds that life would evolve from lifeless amino acids in an organic soup to form complex humans? Starting with the simplest single-cell organisms, the chances that beneficial mutations would occur, nonetheless thousands upon thousands of beneficial mutations, is slim to none.  Then, for propagation of that mutated species, two organisms of the mutated type would have to exist to reproduce, unless asexual reproduction occurred, in which case, how did gender differences develop? EDIT: What exact flaws in the application of the scientific theory are you talking about anyway? That brief statement merits an explanation. 2.) Accepting intelligent design implies the existence of a very wise and powerful being. This then brings in the morality aspect, because it does exist, and it then falls under the assumption that our design was facilitated by that wise and powerful being who must have incorporated that characteristic into our design.

(1)  ID theory essentially boils down to one of the two following statements:  (A) "Life/the world/the universe is so immensely complex that the chances of it occurring randomly are exceedingly unlikely, and therefore there must have been a guiding hand", or (B) "there are some things that science just can't explain, and therefore there must be a guiding hand".  You present a combination of the two.

As to (A) - the fundamental flawed application of science/logic is that just because something is really really unlikely doesn't make it impossible.  By that theory, we should arrest every lottery-winner for cheating, since the chances of winning fairly are tiny.

This theory is the result of confusing inferential statistics with probability statistics.  In experimental/inferential statistics, you can usually infer some outside influence if a result will only occur randomly 5% of the time.  But inferential statistics can only be applied in an experimental setting, which certainly does not exist here.  The correct application is probability statistics, which allows for no inference of causality at all.  The probability of being dealt five winning poker hands in a row is tiny - but is bound to happen eventually.

People also forget the power of compound probability.  Let's say that nature rolls a die (so to speak) to determine if life will randomly occur today.  Let's say that the chance of life occurring on any given "roll" is 0.0000001 (I realize that the probability is much much less, but I don't have a calculator capable of handling a million zeros - work with me here).  Let us say that one "roll" occurs every minute.  That means that after 1 million minutes (11.5 days), the chance of life NOT having occurred randomly is 0.999999^1,000,000 = roughly 37%.  IOW, there is a 63% chance that life DID occur randomly in less than two weeks.  Of course, we don't know how often a "roll" occurred, or what the chances of success was on any given roll, but we do know that life COULD have occurred randomly, and we do know that nature had a long time and many many tries to get it right.

Further - let's assume that we knew a lot more than we do, and we concluded that, all said, there was only a 0.01% total chance of life off by the time it did.  Here we apply the movie analogy:  Every movie you watch depicts a very unlikely event.  Somebody gets shot at a thousand times and doesn't get hit, or somehow manages to sink the final basket.  Why is it always like that in the movies?  Because if it went otherwise, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE MADE THE MOVIE.  If the guy gets shot and dies in the first scene, they don't make the movie.  Just like that, "life" is the movie that got made.  We know that we exist (Bishop Berkeley aside), and we know that it is POSSIBLE that life occurred randomly.  The logical conclusion is therefore that life occurred randomly.  Similarly, we know that it is possible to win the lottery (however unlikely).  If I win the lottery, I will therefore not conclude divine intervention, but logically conclude that I just got lucky.

To conclude that there must have been a helping hand, just because an extremely unlikely series of events has occurred, is not logical or scientific.  It is a leap of faith.

As to (B), regarding what science cannot explain, and as with your bi-gender note.  This is even simpler.  Just because science cannot explain something YET does not mean that science simply cannot explain it.  This theory was popular in the dark ages and earlier ages, and led to fine conclusions like flat earth and Thor with his hammer.  Pointing out apparent inconsistencies or flaws in a particular scientific theory is not evidence of a helping hand.

 

(2)  Even if we accept ID, we do not have to accept a "wise and powerful being" in the way you imply.  A 5-year-old might make an ant farm for a science project.  This would be intelligent design.  Does that make the kid wise and powerful?  Maybe, but ...

... that does not carry a moral imperative.  The kid built the habitat for the heck of it, and to impress his friends.  Could not the same be said for the Creator?  In Job, Heinlein posits a world where deities are squabbling children who play games with the lives of men.  This theme is also applied in most older religions - Norse, Greek/Roman, Hindu, Chinese - heck, all of them.

I see no reason to believe that simply because a being is more powerful than me, that this being must also have some set of moral standards.  There is absolutely no foundation for an assertion that the Creator "must" have imbued us with some set morals.

Further, we run into this epistemological issue.  Even if we assume that the Creator did set some moral standards, how do we know what they are?  Religions around the world disagree on what God has told us to do.  So even if God does have a plan, it doesn't matter since we don't know what it is. 

In addition, I challenge anybody to find a single moral rule that has existed in every human culture.  If there were some "moral bone" hard-wired into our being, wouldn't we all agree on those bones?  The continued strife throughout human history is de facto evidence that this "standard" morality does not exist, or at least is not known to us.

Hades wrote: Why is my question out of line? Yes, I have no faith. I have touched several bibles. I even devoted nearly 20 years to religion only to find I had wasted my time.

Hades, why do you give up on your religion?  I would seriously like to discuss it with you.

Hades wrote: The embryo is asexual until about week four of a pregancy...

What specific proof do you have of this?  And what is your point?

Maybe, I mistyped. What should have been written was that the sex organs dont begin to develope until about week four. All (expect the mutated ones) embryos are physically identical gender wise, not nessisarily asexual.
Here

article wrote: On the Y chromosome, at a particular locus which is not found on the X chromosome, there is a gene called the "sex-determining region of the Y" or simply "SRY". It is responsible for turning a mammalian embryo into a male mammal. We are all genetically "pre-programmed" to become female but at around week six of human development SRY becomes activated. .

I will get back to this later, have to run to work. It will make more sense when I finish the post.

 arbotion is murder! Even if they were rapped its not the kids fault!  just put it up for adobtion... man i think arbotion is sick an wrong! pff all you who said yes should have been aborted then see what its like

To me, saying that life will randomly happen is like saying tomorrow morning pancakes will randomly make themselves and be ready when I get up.
I don't care how many mornings there will be, it will never happen and pancakes are a hellava lot simpler then the simplest life.

u kno whats disgusting about abortion? we watched a video of it in health class last semester. people were laughing when the baby was moving around and kicking then when the needle came in and the baby started bleeding the room abruptly went dead quiet. abortion is sick. thats no reason to protest like a friggn cracked up *profanity* tho

Edited by bluemunky42

^^This coming from someone with death in their name.

^Well, I guess that would be strike #2.

High Voltage wrote: Fallout_soldier wrote:   pluse wut if its some 15 year old who got raped? ...or this one chick in my english class last year...she was not raped, though. Anyway, as a catholic i'm supposed to say it is wrong, however, i disagree with some things in my religion, so i believe it depends on the circumstances...

Thats to bad. If you dont agree with the teachings of your faith why do you put your claim on it?

The argument that its their body is bs. Who gave them "their body" is it a gift from God, I think so.

Seriously, how many rape victims made the female pregnant? Hardly none every get pregnant. If they do how is it the womens right to deny another human life? If you were a child who was born from a rape do you think you deserve a chance at life???

Edit

On the topic of when does life really occurr. When does it? Everyone has their own opinion. At conception the sperm and the egg become one(i dont no how it exactly all works i slept through class) is that not the start of your life. From that point on do you not start to become what you turn out to be. When are we human. When we have two legs two arms and a head plus torso? Do you have to be a certain age to be human? When i was a day old was i human? Whats human? SOmone define it, please. When you die is that it? You have to have a concept on life and death to talk about abortion. Is your body all youve got? What about a soul. Is a soul who you truly are? When do you develop a soul. When you look like a human you get a soul? I will always be me, even when i am dead. I dont have to have legs and arms to be me.

anyone get it?

Edited by lant