SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Should God be replaced?

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Solon who wrote (20160)5/26/2005 4:48:37 PM
From: Greg or e  Read Replies (1) of 28931
 
Since I began this thread I have probably stated a couple of dozen times that the sperm, egg, and zygote (fertilized egg) are human in dna structure. Zygotes are NOT human individuals or persons. They are NOT bipedal, and they are NOT conscious. As the egg develops through evolutionary phases of fish and reptile it eventually takes on human evolutionary characteristics and develops consciousness. (Oh--I don't want to "confuse" you! It is NOT an egg when it passes through these phases!)! Whew!

Someone is confused
Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny??????
Unbelievable!

Is the Human Embryo Essentially a Fish with Gills?
by David N. Menton, Ph.D.

"....(Haeckel was a scientific charlatan who even stooped to publishing two copies of the same woodcut side by side to demonstrate the "remarkable similarity" between human and dog embryos!) Haeckel's "law" was shown to be unsound by many of the most distinguished embryologists of his own day, but its appeal to evolutionists was so great that it remained impervious to scientific criticism. In her book Essays in the History of Embryology and Biology (MIT Press, 1967 p. 150), Jane Oppenheimer said that the work of Haeckel "was the culmination of the extremes of exaggeration which followed Darwin." She lamented that "Haeckel's doctrines were blindly and uncritically accepted," and "delayed the course of embryological progress." Embryologist Erich Blechschmidt, considered Haeckel's biogenetic "law" to be one of the most serious errors in the history of biology. In his book The Beginnings of Human Life (Springer-Verlag Inc., 1977, p. 32), Blechschmidt minced no words in repudiating Haeckel's "law":

"The so-called basic law of biogenetics is wrong. No buts or ifs can mitigate this fact. It is not even a tiny bit correct or correct in a different form. It is totally wrong.""

Would you like to retract the use of yet another false statement?

"Disposing of an unwanted egg occurs naturally and frequently--but it can also be induced in myriad ways. If the egg is unwanted then people should be encouraged and medically assisted to dispose of the egg at the earliest possible time before it "quickens"."
Message 21325760

This actually means;

"If the egg is unwanted then people should be encouraged and medically assisted to dispose of the egg at the earliest possible time before it (develops into a morula, a blastocyst, an embryo, and a fetus)--and "quickens".""

You called the fetus an egg in order to obscure the fact that you support killing Human beings at all stages of development up to and including partial birth. A woman's egg does not need to be disposed of at any time, this happens naturally and regularly if conception does not occur. Once conception occurs it never again is as you suggest, an egg. Yet you used the word egg purposely and inaccurately, then denied having done it.

I'm just about through with your insults and childish games. If you can't act like a grown up I will not respond to you anymore. You are the one making yourself look bad but thanks for the reminder that other people are watching.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext