A Reply to all who answered me Thread on Abortion

Evolution can be dis-proven because everything had to be Created. I am not saying that evolution has not happened with the first species up until now but how was the first species created?

"How could it create itself by itself"? pretty much sums up the theory. Nothing can be made from nothing.

If this is too out of your understandable reach I'll propose this comparison: A painting, will not be painted without an Artist. The same goes for the universe and nothing in it could create itself by Itself.

Are we getting this stuff? or are we just going to deny it and believe Life is Chaos without Consequence?

evolution is a theory about species creation, not the origins of life on this planet

and if you believe in the man in the sky, how about zeus or ganesha ?

Originally posted by closerseemsfurther
reply to post by homeslice

 

"Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory" --- Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1872

While natural selection and adaptations are scientifically proven, there is quite a chasm between them and evolution. You see, with the prior two, certain, less beneficial traits are weeded out, however there is never NEW genetic material being introduced as would be required for evolution to be an acceptable course for the origin of anything... because it wouldn't (and doesn't) exist. The above quote is in reference to the fact that if evolution (ignoring the genetic impossiblities) were to exist, we would have countless millions of failed (or even successful for that matter) evolutionary steps fossilized that showed a distinct transition from single celled organisms to complex organisms, including mankind. Where is this record? Darwin himself seems to scratch his head on this one.

Better make some lunch before you read this - it's fairly long.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia

Do you know how unlikely it is that a dead species will ever become fossilised? It is close to 1 in a billion. And depending on what environment the species body was deposited in there can be no chance at all. The conditions needed for fossilization are very specific. Yet despite all this we have a plethora of transitional and intermediate fossils from all around the world.

Quoting the words of a man who lived 150+ years ago prove nothing. Yet it's something you guys continue to do over and over again. The theory of evolution has progressed so far since Darwin's time. It constantly amazes me how evolution denigraters will use theories and findings long out of date to try and prove themselves right.

Evolution is not the introduction of new genetic information but the changing of the information which is already present. Just like adaption. Evolution is adaption.

Now how do I know all this? I am a Geologist, and I worked in a museum cataloging fossils for years. I also did my honors thesis on an intermediate species of fossilized coral. A transitional species as you might call it....

Your post fails on so many levels it's not even funny. And yet I almost laughed

Originally posted by mikesk8s247
Evolution can be dis-proven because everything had to be Created. I am not saying that evolution has not happened with the first species up until now but how was the first species created?

"How could it create itself by itself"? pretty much sums up the theory. Nothing can be made from nothing.

If this is too out of your understandable reach I'll propose this comparison: A painting, will not be painted without an Artist. The same goes for the universe and nothing in it could create itself by Itself.

Are we getting this stuff? or are we just going to deny it and believe Life is Chaos without Consequence?

There was never nothing, there was always something. Tell me, do you know anything about the big bang at all? It was not an explosion for starters. It was an expansion of what was already there into what you see today. Your painting argument is not an argument at all, just an assertion made from ignorance.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there's nothing out there beyond that which we see with our eyes and measure with today's instruments, which themselves are merely tools with limitations. But please, get your facts straight before spreading around misinformation to suit your own little religious agendas. These arguments may fly in church, but this here is the real world, and there's people here that actually know stuff.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I made another thread to address everyone and give my reasons for saying what I've said. You have no Idea what kind of impact it made on anyone and do not understand the mind. I'm sorry that you don't understand but I needn't explain anything to anyone refuses to Understand.

"Why take the Children's food and throw it to the Dogs"?

Originally posted by mikesk8s247
Evolution can be dis-proven because everything had to be Created.

Can you prove that everything had to be created?

And if this is true, who or what created God?

Are we getting this stuff? or are we just going to deny it and believe Life is Chaos without Consequence?

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they don't "get it"... And there are a myriad of beliefs and infinite possibilities between the extremes of "Creation" and "Life is Chaos without Consequences"...

So, I "get" your opinion, but I disagree with it. And life is not chaos without consequences. There are consequences with every action. But I don't attribute them to "god".

Originally posted by mikesk8s247
You have no Idea what kind of impact it made on anyone

Yes I do. I know the impact it made on me.

and do not understand the mind.

And you do?

reply to post by spacekc929

Your comments about the soul are all well and good but if you want to convince people that abortion is bad you are going to have to do it in a different way than appealing to God, because a great majority of people (the ones who are less vocal) honestly don't care if the "Bible said this" or "Jesus said that" or "God will send those who commit abortions to hell." You may be right, but if you want to change people's minds you're going about it the wrong way. Those who are Christian will already agree with you and you'll be preaching to the choir. Those who aren't Christian will see you as a nutbag.

Well said

I am leaning towards the "nutbag" thing......................

People just need to mind their own business.....We have too many busy bodies around that just want to stir up the pot.............this comes back to the 'I'm better than you" personality where people of religions put themselves up on a pedestal while they look down upon everyone else.........

Preach on OP, it makes you look good Jesus will love you for eternity.............

Originally posted by liejunkie01
People just need to mind their own business.....We have too many busy bodies around that just want to stir up the pot.............this comes back to the 'I'm better than you" personality where people of religions put themselves up on a pedestal while they look down upon everyone else.........

I'm not sure what the OP's heart was behind the posts made, but I have to disagree that people should mind their own business when it comes to this issue. Do you believe everyone should've minded their own business when the holocaust was happening? What about the African genocide? Abortion could, and I believe is, the greatest occurrence of genocide our world has ever seen. There are 42 million reported abortions worldwide every year, according to The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. 11 million people died in the holocaust. Babies have been born and lived as young as 19 weeks, yet they can be legally aborted at up to 24 weeks.

93% of abortions occur for social reasons -- not things like rape or incest. Additionally, in a nine-month case study noted by The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology that took place in the UK, 159 women had abortions with over 26% of them being repeat procedures. Further, only 61% of the women who were receiving repeat abortions continued to use contraception methods and 14% had been positive for sexually transmitted diseases at some point in their lives.

And as if that wasn't enough, for those more concerned with the lives of the women carrying the child than the child itself, according to a US study published by the Journal of Youth and Adolescents, young women are more at risk of mental and emotional problems after having an abortion than they are if they continue on with an unwanted pregnancy. In the same study, Dr. Priscilla Coleman stated that “those who aborted such pregnancies were five times more likely to seek help for psychological and emotional problems afterwards, three times more likely to experience trouble sleeping, and nine times more likely to report marijuana use than those who carried their pregnancies to term.” She concluded that “abortion poses more risks to women than giving birth” (“Abortion” 53). In addition to the psychological factors and the threat of greater incidence of sexually transmitted diseases due to poorer contraceptive practices, there is also a link to higher mortality rates in women after they have received an abortion. In a study published in the Southern Medical Journal, researchers found that women who have had abortions are at a much greater risk of dying than women who carry the pregnancy full term (Reardon). Another study examined by the Southern Medical Journal found similarly frightening results: “[W]omen who had an induced abortion were 76% more likely to die than women who had not been pregnant, 102% more likely to die than women who miscarried, and 252% more likely to die than women who had carried to term” (Reardon). These statistics were due to higher rates of “suicide, accidents, homicide, mental disease and cerebrovascular disease” and they state that previous history of mental illness does not explain the higher death rates (Reardon). The mental and physical effects are staggering.

While death is legally defined as brain death, brain function is "reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks digestion," (source: The New England Journal of Medicine) yet, as I said, women can legally receive an abortion at 24 weeks in some states.

Wouldn't it make sense to err on the side of caution and preserve what could even potentially be considered a life? Personally, I don't think this is an issue anyone should stay out of. I think everyone should educate themselves more on this issue, including Christian pro-lifers. Because, as it's been said, talk of God does not appeal to the sensibilities of atheists.