Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
781 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
What will the fundamentalists say when the discovery of life follows?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,079 Posts
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of an Earth man and an Earth woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples, groups or Martians."

Its not too late.
 

·
Banned forever.....or not
Joined
·
24,421 Posts
The key word is HAD
Remember: No water = No Beer
We will find NO life on Mars........ Not without Beer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,079 Posts
what will they say?

RedMenace said:
What will the fundamentalists say when the discovery of life follows?
The first thing they'll do is send evangelists to convert them.

While I'm not a fundamentalist, I'm unaware of anything in the Bible that suggests that life does not exist elsewhere, other than the fact that it is not expressly said that it does.
 

·
Seeking shades of grey
Joined
·
1,804 Posts
RedMenace said:
What will the fundamentalists say when the discovery of life follows?
What will the evolutionists say if life isn't found? You seem pretty confident that life will be discovered on Mars.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
781 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Well, it's a RED planet after all.

I'm assuming there's life there, which has organized itself into a workers' state.

But to answer your question, the evolutionists won't care. It's of no special significance to them if life does or doesn't exist on Mars. The fundamentalists will have a real problem though.

Never fear, I'm sure they'll come up with a "science" that explains Martian life isn't life at all, just an unproven theory. Hard to keep a good fundamentalist down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,079 Posts
funny

RedMenace said:
Never fear, I'm sure they'll come up with a "science" that explains Martian life isn't life at all, just an unproven theory. Hard to keep a good fundamentalist down.
Never fear, I'm sure they'll come up with a "science" that explains [unborn, human] life isn't [human] life at all, just an unproven theory. Hard to keep a good [pro-choice advocate] down.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
781 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
You could do that to just about any argument on

this board, or any argument anywhere for that matter. Not sure what abortion has to do with the discussion, but if you were making a point, point of course conceded.

Just because I'm a Marxist doesn't mean I'm for abortion, by the way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,079 Posts
the point

RedMenace said:
this board, or any argument anywhere for that matter. Not sure what abortion has to do with the discussion, but if you were making a point, point of course conceded.

Just because I'm a Marxist doesn't mean I'm for abortion, by the way.
My only point, really, is that people have a tendency on many fronts to define "human" life as they see fit to justify their goals, whether it was/is slave owners, terrorists, murderers, capital punishment proponents, or abortion proponents, etc.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
210 Posts
If theres life on Mars and its just basic microbes

or one-cell bacteria or whatever and it had been there for billions and billions of years since back when Mars had water, wouldn't that say something if *evolution* to higher forms had never taken place?

Besides, who's to say *Earth* didn't *contaminate* Mars with simple life from meteors? Remember the Mars rock that landed here several years ago as a meteor? I assume that could go both ways.

But your right, you'll never convince the fundamentalists of anything regardless of what the facts are. It's belief to them, more important than facts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
TiJeanKerouac said:
or one-cell bacteria or whatever and it had been there for billions and billions of years since back when Mars had water, wouldn't that say something if *evolution* to higher forms had never taken place?

Besides, who's to say *Earth* didn't *contaminate* Mars with simple life from meteors? Remember the Mars rock that landed here several years ago as a meteor? I assume that could go both ways.

But your right, you'll never convince the fundamentalists of anything regardless of what the facts are. It's belief to them, more important than facts.
If we find life or fossils on Mars it certainly would raise a number of scientific questions, probably more than it would answer!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
I don't believe that life existing in other ...

places in the Universe precludes the notion of a singular God/god. If God/god made the Universe, by extension, he most certainly made the life that existed on Mars, should it be found. I don't think fundamentalists will have any problem with it.

So how's your Old Kentucky home? ;) Kerry's nomination has pushed you to join the Reds?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,079 Posts
DougSloan said:
. . .slave owners, terrorists, murderers, capital punishment proponents, or abortion proponents, etc.
I assume "etc." includes Libertarians. Slave owners, terrorists, murderers and <i>Libertarians</i> have a tendency on many fronts to define "human" life as they see fit to justify their goals.

Great point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,079 Posts
yes

czardonic said:
I assume "etc." includes Libertarians. Slave owners, terrorists, murderers and <i>Libertarians</i> have a tendency on many fronts to define "human" life as they see fit to justify their goals.

Great point.
I don't know about others, but my definition, personally, is probably about as broad as it can get, affording the greatest rights to life to as many as possible. This would prohibit abortion except to save the mother's life and prohibit capital punishment, for example. The point is, concering my definition, is that it excludes no one who is alive and originated from human DNA, essentially.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,079 Posts
So what? You think that capital punishment advocates deny the humanity of the condemned? Or pro-choice advocates?

Even your broad definition prioritizes some lives over others: mothers over children. In that respect, you are in the same camp as the abortion proponents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,079 Posts
yes, they do

czardonic said:
So what? You think that capital punishment advocates deny the humanity of the condemned? Or pro-choice advocates?

Even your broad definition prioritizes some lives over others: mothers over children. In that respect, you are in the same camp as the abortion proponents.
I have heard countless people justify killing by claiming the condemned were less than human, or at least implying it.

No doubt frequently people are called upon to prioritize when there must be a choice. Self-defense is probably the best example. I'll prioritize my life over the criminal trying to kill me. Defense of others is essentially the same thing. Sometimes there simply must be a choice, such as with the mother's life in jeopardy. I have no problem choosing the mother's life, and that has nothing to do with defining the baby as non-human. Many abortion rights advocates expressly define the unborn as not human, treating them as "only tissue." That's not even close to the same thing as prioritizing a mother's life when in jeopardy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,079 Posts
I have never heard anyone argue that capital punishment is justifiable because the condemned are literally not human.

A mother chooses pregnancy. Why should her baby get the short end of the stick if things go awry? You just have a higher threshold for jeopardy than other abortion advocates.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,079 Posts
twisting

czardonic said:
I have never heard anyone argue that capital punishment is justifiable because the condemned are literally not human.

A mother chooses pregnancy. Why should her baby get the short end of the stick if things go awry? You just have a higher threshold for jeopardy than other abortion advocates.
"literally not human" -- me neither, and that's not what I said. You have a way of ducking arguments by redefining that someone else said in more unreasonable terms that suit your position. Haven't you ever heard of someone attempt to justify capital punishment by calling the condemned something like "worthless scum," "an animal," or something like that? That's what I'm talking about. It would idiotic to attempt to "define" a grown man as "literally not human."

Don't forget that unless viable, an unborn baby is condemned to death if the mother dies; therefore, aborting to save the mother's life at least saves 1 life rather than losing 2. If the baby is viable, then abortion (killing the fetus) isn't necessary. Doesn't that mean that you would never intentionally kill an unborn baby that is viable, assuming the mother can live, too?

I'm confident that there could be rare situations in which the baby can be born alive, but only at the expense of the mother's life. If so, I still have no problem in that circumstance by killing the baby to save the mother, as some choice must be made. In my view, the "right to life" itself of the mother exceeds that of the baby. Note that this is comparing two "rights to life," not "right to life" versus inconvenience, choice, or less than life threatening health.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top