you done with your little tantrum there? youre well known on these forums for arguments that are full of conviction but no evidence.
"No body has ever tried to determine that"
if no one has ever tried, then it doesnt make much sense to oppose something because of data that doesnt exist, does it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by me
when life begins is irrelevant because it cant be known
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by your response
No proof, no arguments - you don't know what you're talking about, you have no credentials, your statement is meaningless.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by you
No body has ever tried to determine that
|
if no one has tried to know something, how can it be known then? unsurprisingly, youre making no sense here.
"Didn't I just SAY I didn't know in the last post??"
uh... i was talking about your suggested debate. read sloooowly.
"Of all the (*)(*)(*)(*) nerve - I'M THE ONE WHO ASKED FOR A DEBATE INCLUDING SICENTISTS, remember?? One post ago??"
only a conclusion based on science would involve provable hypothesis. it should be exclusive to scientists, not merely inclusive. this is the same backwards thinking that threatened to discredit science by juxtaposing it with religious belief on the intelligent design issue.