danielsangeo

I did not. So, you did not say the following:

How can I accept evidence if there is no evidence? Look, this is just the run around. AGAIN. Provide the evidence and I'll look at it. If I have questions, I'll ask them. I'll put it through the standards of rigor that all the evidence that comes to me goes through. If you've got something, I'll admit it. I have no qualms about admitting I'm wrong. But insulting me is just a waste of your time.

I'm not the only one saying an implanted embryo is a child, you on the other hand are the only one saying a living human being is really just a dead body. And "living embryo = child" =/= "living human = dead body". If you don't understand the analogy, just say so. You stated that if x leads to y, then x = y. Did you or did you not state this?

But, it's not evidence. At all. There is nothing that as ever been provided which proves 'creationalism'. What evidence do you have? I've asked many creationists for their evidence for God/creation.....and always get the run around, but never evidence. Where is it? Why can I NEVER get the evidence? It's like a big secret or something.

"Evoutionists" have evidence. "Creationalists".....don't.

I don't think empathy is in conflict with intelligence.

Not at all. I'm not the one saying that an embryo is a child. YOU ARE.

I completely agree.

And your definition is incorrect. Show me anywhere that I equate a living human to a dead human. You won't find it. You equated an embryo with a "child". Because implantation means it is more likely than not going to (if not aborted) survive to an age of over 60 years. And eventually become a corpse. See? This is your logic, not mine. But, if you really don't like this one, then a toddler is an adult and having sex with a toddler is the same as having sex with an adult. Sound good?

Doesn't say anything about birth in the definition... You asked me my definition. Not true. Bad analogies don't help you. Being illogical will help you even less. This is YOUR logic, not mine. An embryo is no more a baby than you are a corpse. Please explain why it's different. And I just said that I was NOT using that argument specifically to avoid this sort of argument arising. Yet, this is precisely the problem. Why is implantation the dividing line?

I haven't heard the "proof" that "global warming is a hoax" yet, but I feel that it's going to be well-debunked things such as the out-of-context CRU e-mails...

Many will see these two phrases and their brain will be unable to connect the two. "How can the globe be warming if it's cold in the winter?"

Then your definition is lacking. Definition: A son or daughter of any age. Fine. A son or daughter from birth. Then why did you? If an embryo is a baby, then you are a corpse. Have they implanted into a uterus? Once they have, then it is murder, not before. Yet, many are against it even when it has never implanted....and consider it abortion or "killing children" (using your very same argument).

Sounds good. Verbose, but good. Atheism is defined by what it isn't: Belief in deities. If you believe in ghosts, you can still be an atheist. If you believe in bigfoot, you can still be an atheist. If you believe in space aliens, you can still be an atheist. If you believe in magic, you can still be an atheist. If you're a Democrat, Republican, Tory, Green, Independent, Left-Winger, Right-Winger, communist, socialist, capitalist, fascist...really, almost anything....and you can be an atheist. The only defining characteristic is a lack of belief in deities (from God to Zeus to Ahura Mazda, and more). Anything else is something else.

Then you're referring to those beliefs, NOT ATHEISM. Not at all. Nope. You're probably thinking of something like humanism or something like that. Atheism is *O*N*L*Y* the lack of belief in deities. ANYTHING ELSE, including worldview, is not atheism.

What is your definition of "child"? From birth to teenage. Equating the beginning with the end is not logical. Completely agree. Never said they couldn't, just said they aren't. But you said that "killing children" should not be done for stem cell research.

Abortion doesn't kill children. If you suggest that fetuses, embryos or even single-celled fertilized eggs are "children", then perhaps you could say that pro-choice "kills children" but then you are a corpse (you will be, someday) and the English language is dead because any word can mean anything. Tablet brick potato llama. But, back to IVF, embryos ("living children"?!?!?!?!) are killed by the literal cartload and I hear no qualms about that...so I'm curious why they can't be used for stem cell research.

Not really, ee. Atheism is not a belief system nor does it "serve the purpose" of one. Atheists, however, have a wide and varied belief system. Generally speaking, you probably won't find two atheists that agree on everything. Think of it this way. I'm sure you have some sort of hobby. Whether it's collecting stamps or playing video games, you do something you enjoy. Now, imagine something someone else enjoys that you do not do nor care to do. That is atheism. You don't believe in a deity (as in, you don't collect stamps). You, however, do other things and atheists believe in many things. Atheism doesn't drive anything...because it isn't anything. It is the LACK of something: belief in a deity.

Actually, there is. It's called the Back button.

(No, there's no such thing as a "pro-abortionist", nor do those that identify as 'pro-choice' advocate for the killing of children.)

I don't think anyone is suggesting "killing off a living child". What in the world......?! Also, I never said YOU were for outlawing... I said that there are some that want to outlaw it...

Not necessarily. I've seen green eyed children from family that had 1 great grandparent with blue eyes, and all other family members were brown. It's just more common for children to have the same color eyes as one of their parents. See up there where I said "generally"? Perhaps it's not currently relevant to survival, but that's not the point. If the parents have the same mutation and have offspring, they will generally produce offspring with that same type of mutation, aka "propagation". The very same mutation under different environmental conditions could be beneficial or it might be neutral or it could even be deleterious. Unless you're saying that mutations of any kind will not propagate....but then again, even the creationist website Answers in Genesis states that mutations propagate...so you'd have to be even beyond them.

Yet, if we outlaw "embyronic stem cell research" as some wish we could do, then these embryos would simply perish without providing a benefit for anyone.

Wait, what? Are you telling me that if a mother and father both have brown eyes, their offspring won't generally have brown eyes?

I would just like to take this time to express that while we're different from other animals, it doesn't mean that other animals do not have traits like we have....survival instinct, emotions such as love and hate, desire to control the environment around them, all of these and more appear in other animals. To say that we are the "smartest" animals on Earth is a complete tautology because we measure "smartness" based on human intelligence. Of course humans have the best human intelligence. That's just silly. We have a DIFFERENT intelligence than other animals. We are a "higher" species, sure, but "smartest"? Really? I could even say that a great numbers of humans are stupid given human intelligence capabilities.