Atheistic Darwinist Creationism and It's Just a Sack of Chemicals

[HitchSlap]

As it turns out this story about PP selling body parts is nothing but an anti-choicer canard and here's the proof, courtesy of Tim H on CARM:

The public watchdog organization Media Matters has come out condemning the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress for their deceptive video about Planned Parenthood.



Media Calls Out Deceptively Edited Video Claiming To Show Planned Parenthood "Selling Aborted Baby Parts"

The New York Times and the Guardian also condemn the fraudulent video.

None of this will matter to the right-wing conservatives who will continue to propagate the lies about PP long after the video story dies out.

This is also very telling about just how dishonest the CMP anti-abortion group is.

This is from the full transcript. The "actor" playing a doctor tries to lure Nucatola into a discussion of selling the fetal tissues for profit. In no uncertain terms she tells him that is not acceptable.



See P.34 of full transcript.

Of course CMP cut out this portion which shows their claims to be 100% lies.
​

I have to ask IF your cause if "just", then WHY does your lot have to tell lies like this one (some other are really outrageous ones about Margaret Sanger, but that's another SET of posts) to sell it?​

Ah, just Christians being Christians.

 

[justlookinla]

Ah, just Christians being Christians.

Ah, just baby killers being baby killers.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

There is no special in the Darwinist system. We're just a collection of chemicals randomly connected for survival purposes in that worldview.

The alternative is that you're nothing more than a sack of chemicals.

Here you go again with the rhetoric. over and over like a broken record and all because it doesn't leave you with the worm and fuzzy feel of being cuddled in your own security blanket. Sorry for the sarcasm, but this is getting rather pathetic.

I don't believe in Darwinism any more than I believe in Creationism. It's the people who stand around screaming and yelling out ridiculous accusations that have distanced me from both camps. I simply don't know where the species came from and I'm open to discuss both theories with the right people.

You are definably not on my list of people I would talk to about creationism because you are too focused on giving your own examples against one view than you are of exalting your own. This is what politicians do when they want to get elected and have nothing of value to work with.

I value productivity and positivity as a trait, not finger pointing and the blame game and that is why I even responded to this thread. You've displayed none of that in any portion of this and I wish you well with your ranting and raving. I'm out!

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that the "quiver-full" movement?

Did you read the article?

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

people , at times , make choices they are empowered to make by the choices that others in the past made to redefine what is considered to be good ,then shaping laws around those chosen definitions .So the world view of evolution and the chosen premise of disbelieving in God Does effect why later choices are made and things happen .Issues such as abortion are considered socially unacceptable in all cultures and societies . proven by the fact that murdering ones own baby has never caused folks to run to your door with flowers and praise you for it.only point and Whisper .even today with it being fully legal for the 100million who commit it there are but few who publicly state they did so -which says more then enough in itself .
but world views redefined "laws" thus empowering people to do what was one socially unacceptable .
the world view upon which we establish a law allowing a certain thing has full consequence no mater which way you look at it .

People have been killing infants and children for millennium. They have left them out to die in the cold of night and have killed them in the womb by striking the mother on purpose. This started long before Darwin was even born and probably before Jesus ever came into the known history of man.

World views are not defined by laws, laws only reflect the values of the society they attempt to control and though Christianity has saturated the culture of America, Darwinism has not.

 

[Willtor]

If it's just cold emotion, our love for God is just cold emotion produced for the survival of the species.

Yes, physically.

Physically? As in... testable with physics? What do you mean when you say there's more to us, physically, than a bag of chemicals?

 

[Willtor]

So, in science...in Darwinism (if that's the right term), is there any consensus as to the importance of life?

Don't start using "Darwinism." It's a loaded term that, as best I can tell, is used by creationists to apply to evolutionists so that they can add whatever implications they want but back-peddle as soon as they're called on it.

As to your question: Science doesn't ask that kind of question. There's no answer to it that can be tested. To think about the importance of life, you have to go to philosophy and theology.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Ah, just Christians being Christians.

I think it is more the activist wing of Theology is in play here. Christianity has it's firebrands as do all ideology. I've heard some pretty crazy speeches from activist Atheists as well. No group is immune to it's fanatics.

 

[justlookinla]

Here you go again with the rhetoric. over and over like a broken record and all because it doesn't leave you with the worm and fuzzy feel of being cuddled in your own security blanket. Sorry for the sarcasm, but this is getting rather pathetic.

Conversely, it's pathetic to believe that one has no value other than as a bag of chemicals.

I don't believe in Darwinism any more than I believe in Creationism. It's the people who stand around screaming and yelling out ridiculous accusations that have distanced me from both camps. I simply don't know where the species came from and I'm open to discuss both theories with the right people.

Well, they came from somewhere.

You are definably not on my list of people I would talk to about creationism because you are too focused on giving your own examples against one view than you are of exalting your own. This is what politicians do when they want to get elected and have nothing of value to work with.

Then don't. Stop responding to me.

I value productivity and positivity as a trait, not finger pointing and the blame game and that is why I even responded to this thread. You've displayed none of that in any portion of this and I wish you well with your ranting and raving. I'm out!

Bye.

 

[justlookinla]

Physically? As in... testable with physics? What do you mean when you say there's more to us, physically, than a bag of chemicals?

We're purposely created, not just a bag of chemicals.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Conversely, it's pathetic to believe that one has no value other than as a bag of chemicals.



Well, they came from somewhere.



Then don't. Stop responding to me.



Bye.

And this is an example of Christianity. I think not!

 

[justlookinla]

And this is an example of Christianity. I think not!

The example of Christianity is that humanity was created by God.

 

[Willtor]

We're purposely created, not just a bag of chemicals.

These two things are not in conflict. However, you said that there was physically more to us than chemicals. Tell us about that.

 

[gladiatrix]

Well, that's strange. The head of Planned Parenthood apparently thinks there's something to the issue......

"Planned Parenthood’s president apologized Thursday for comments made by the group’s medical research director in a secretly recorded conversation about collecting fetal body parts, as outrage over the graphic video mounted on Capitol Hill where lawmakers are launching several investigations.

Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, defended the organization’s practices and maintained the group does not illegally sell fetal tissue. But, in a video statement, she acknowledged one of their staff members spoke in a way that does not “reflect” the “compassionate care that we provide.”

“This is unacceptable, and I personally apologize for the staff member's tone and statements,” Richards said. "

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ogizes-for-officials-fetal-organ-comments-as/
​

The FACT remains that this whole "issue" is a non-issue because the so-called video is nothing but a doctored, deceitful LIE and the evidence is HERE in my post that you ran away from (making her comments irrelevant!)

You've also avoided my question as to WHY anti-choicers would ever need to lie/misrepresent their opponents like this IF their cause is actually "on the side of the angels" (true/just)?​

 

[bhsmte]

These two things are not in conflict. However, you said that there was physically more to us than chemicals. Tell us about that.

I think he got out over his skis a bit on that one.

 

[USincognito]

I'd like to note that this thread is in the Creation and Evolution subform and thus posts about abortion are off topic.

Secondly, according to statistics posted by others in these threads, the baby (notice I did not dehumanize the child by calling it an "embryo", a "zygote", a "fetus", or even the rather vague term I've heard all too often-"products of conception")

That said, you do realize that those words are accurate descriptions of how far along a pregnancy has progressed and the baby has developed? Baby is actually rather vague. Newborn or neonate refers to a baby shortly after birth to about a month. From then it's an infant and then a toddler. Any one of those words would describe a baby, but they wouldn't inform as to how old said baby was.

 

[USincognito]

The FACT remains that this whole "issue" is a non-issue because the so-called video is nothing but a doctored, deceitful LIE and the evidence is HERE in my post that you ran away from (making her comments irrelevant!)

You've also avoided my question as to WHY anti-choicers would ever need to lie/misrepresent their opponents like this IF their cause is actually "on the side of the angels" (true/just)?​

Take a look folks. It's a rare sighting of a CF member who was here, making the Creationism and Evolution subforum a place for decent conversation and a mature exchange of ideas... by which I mean she was here B.A.V.​

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Aw. The term "atheistic creationism" kinda makes me nostalgic for the summer of 2014, haha. It brings me back to one of my first posts on here that I wrote when I was a blissfully naive, 16-year-old little internet forum newbie.

 

[justlookinla]

These two things are not in conflict. However, you said that there was physically more to us than chemicals. Tell us about that.

You want more? We're arranged in a incomprehensibly complex and functional arrangement, producing a wide variety of creations.

 

[bhsmte]

Aw. The term "atheistic creationism" kinda makes me nostalgic for the summer of 2014, haha. It brings me back to one of my first posts on here that I wrote when I was a blissfully naive, 16-year-old little internet forum newbie.

Nice post.