Posts by Tony Judd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
At no point has there been any claim that fertilised cells are not alive. But because they are human cells, and they are alive, does not make them a human. My prostate is made of living cells. Living human cells. But my prostate is not a human.
-
@ Grant Dexter
If a person with a PhD claimed that the earth was not round I would expect them to know that such a claim was not a fact until followed up with evidence. Saying repeatedly "the earth is not round" is not evidence.As for the relative claims of yourself and Peter: So far you have claimed that a single fertilised human germ cell is a human. Peter has claimed that they are not a human until a much later stage of proceedings.
His evidence is the fact that those cells cannot survive outside of the womb, have no consciousness, and due to the high rate of natural spontaneous abortion in humans likely to turn into a human in only around 60% of pregnancies.
The evidence that you have presented so far is a claim that any fertilised cell is a human. Do you see the difference?
I refuse to use your terminology that calls a fertilised cell a baby because there is already a wealth of specific scientific literature which uses precise terminology to describe the various stages of animal embryonic development. This exists precisely because there are number of stages which an embryo must pass through before it can become a fully developed animal. There is no value in calling all embryos in the lab "mouse" or "monkey" because they are patently not such a b=creature at that point. They are potentially a mouse, or a monkey, but first they must undergo massive growth in just the right conditions.
I claim a baby is alive at conception. Peter has a graded definition of what is alive (from what I can tell). How about you? Do you think a baby at conception is alive or not alive? Or are you willing to defend or explain sensibly a view that I think says things can be more, or less, alive?
At no point has there been any claim that fertilised cells are not alive. But because they are human cells, and they are alive, does not make them a human. My prostate is made of living cells. Living human cells. But my prostate is not a human.
-
@ Grant Dexter:
Your sarcastic complements to Peter Ashby for knowing what he is talking about:
Amazing, Peter. I've never seen that many words in one place before! Truly you are on a plane of your own!
followed by a claim such as:
I haven't studied in a lab for endless hours as you have, but I do speak in nothing but facts when I say that at conception a baby is alive and human.
indicate a profound ignorance about the difference between knowledge and belief.
-
A quick look at some 6pm news stories from the last couple of days: A great story last night (watch it here if you haven't already)) on a couple of small-town dairies happily selling vital ingredients for making P – and in at least one case, doing so knowingly
There are a few comments re: the TVNZ's "p-ingredient-shock-expose" over in this thread
-
@ Andrew Smith -
Don, you've done it again. The science is not clear. I can't see how you can be so confident in this issue. The Scientists aren't even clear. Here's a few of the latest facts:
1. Last week a German study stated that the world will cool till 2015.
2. The NOAA states that the Eurasian land mass had the greatest snow cover in January ever recorded.
3. Tropical troposphere temperatures dropping to their lowest in 30 years
...and so it could go on...and no doubt from the warming side as well.The Scientists are clear - mean global temperatures are rising.
The argument is now on the deatils - what will be the specific changes seen in the climate at point X?This is not evidence of a lack of consensus on the reality of a increase in mean global temperatures, it is hammering out the nitty-gritty of what the effects of that increase will be at smaller scales.
-
@ Steve Curtis -
From the page you linked to:According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the March 2008 Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent, which is measured from passive microwave instruments onboard NOAA satellites, was below the 1979-2000 mean, but greater than the previous four years. This was the sixth least March sea ice extent on record. The past four years had the least March sea ice extent since records began in 1979. Sea ice extent for March has decreased at a rate of 2.8%/decade (since satellite records began in 1979) as temperatures in the high latitude Northern Hemisphere have risen at a rate of approximately 0.37°C/decade over the same period.
No mention of global cooling there...
This is followed by the section you cherry-picked:Meanwhile, the March 2008 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was much above the 1979-2000 mean. This was the largest sea ice extent in March (28.6% above the 1979-2000 mean) over the 30-year historical period, surpassing the previous record set in 1994 by 10.9%. Sea ice extent for March has increased at a rate of 4.2%/decade.
Clicking through the link provided at the bottom of that article one reaches the NSIDC news page and can read the following piece:
May 5, 2008
Arctic sea ice forecasts point to lower-than-average season ahead
Spring has arrived in the Arctic. After peaking at 15.21 million square kilometers (5.87 million square miles) in the second week of March, Arctic sea ice extent has declined through the month of April. April extent has not fallen below the lowest April extent on record, but it is still below the long-term average.
Taken together, an assessment of the available evidence, detailed below, points to another extreme September sea ice minimum. Could the North Pole be ice free this melt season? Given that this region is currently covered with first-year ice, that seems quite possible.
No evidence of global cooling there either...
-
All drugs are bad but some are badder than others.
Puh-lease...
When a person ingests a "drug" they do it to induce a change in brain chemistry.
Are you saying it is always BAD to change brain chemistry by ingesting some sort of substance?
Or only if the effect is in some way pleasant?
What if we change our brain chemistry by some other method?
By hugging for example. Is that BAD too?There is no moral (GOOD/BAD) component to what an individual does to their own brain chemistry. There may be a moral component to their actions after, but any claim that
All drugs are bad...
is just ridiculous.
-
@ Michael Savidge
I don't think that the link is broken, but you do need to sign up... -
Oct. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Doug Howlett, New Zealand's record try-scorer in international rugby, was arrested yesterday on suspicion of criminal damage after an incident at the team hotel in London
Not all of the All Blacks were taking the defeat lying down - Doug Howlett allegedly decided to teach a few cars a lesson. Rumours of a hotel trashing also.
-
Slightly off topic:
The lead story on the Herald's webpage included these two sentences:"Angry All Black fans have struck out hard on the internet, posting on a site dedicated to the "hatred" of referee Wayne Barnes.
A page on the social networking site Bebo is dedicated to criticism of Mr Barnes."My (admittedly unscientific and hastily done) search reveals about 60 articles since June last year where Bebo is referenced as a source for a story. Including this gem "Some pages on Bebo reference gang culture"
WTF?
Do these people just sit there monitoring Bebo for possible stories?