Life Begins at Conception

[smokydot]

Unbelievable.

Wapedia - Wiki: Twin

The zygote (union of sperm and ovum) contains 46 chromosomes.

It must double that amount before twinning (splitting) or cleavage to a blastomere.
It is the diploid that either twins (splits) or becomes a blastomere.

It is not the 46-chromosome zygote that twins (splits) or becomes a blastomere.
Splitting the 46-chromosome zygote would be its destruction.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The zygote (union of sperm and ovum) contains 46 chromosomes.

It must double that amount before twinning (splitting) or cleavage to a blastomere.
It is the diploid that either twins (splits) or becomes a blastomere.

It is not the 46-chromosome zygote that twins (splits) or becomes a blastomere.
Splitting the 46-chromosome zygote would be its destruction.

Oh, for crying out loud!

Since you apparently can't figure it out, I'll make it (hopefully) clear for you: when people colloquially talk about a zygote "splitting", they're referring to mitosis, not whatever weird process you've dreamed up.

Now that we've got that out of the way, can we move on already?

 

[smokydot]

Oh, for crying out loud!

Agreed!

Since you apparently can't figure it out, I'll make it (hopefully) clear for you: when people colloquially talk about a zygote "splitting", they're referring to mitosis, not whatever weird process you've dreamed up.

Well, for my discussion the distinction between a 46-chromosome zygote and a 92-chromosome diploid zygote is relevant.
"Colloquial" is not adequte, nor accurate.
Not to mention, correct terminology (see post #1032) would avoid the kind of confusion going on here.

Now that we've got that out of the way, can we move on already?

I vote for that!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, for my discussion the distinction between a 46-chromosome zygote and a 92-chromosome diploid zygote is relevant.
"Colloquial" is not adequte, nor accurate.
Not to mention, correct terminology (see post #1032) would avoid the kind of confusion going on here.

"Splitting" is a perfectly reasonable way of describing mitosis. Just because the word put some other image in your head that you decided to latch onto doesn't mean that the term was incorrect.

 

[smokydot]

"Splitting" is a perfectly reasonable way of describing mitosis. Just because the word put some other image in your head that you decided to latch onto doesn't mean that the term was incorrect.

Yes, it's a perfectly reasonable way to describe mitosis, and abnormal would be the way to describe a 46-chromosome split.

Thanks.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes, it's a perfectly reasonable way to describe mitosis, and abnormal would be the way to describe a 46-chromosome split.

Thanks.

Now explain how the zygote dies when it splits as you repeatedly said.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Oh, for crying out loud!

Since you apparently can't figure it out, I'll make it (hopefully) clear for you: when people colloquially talk about a zygote "splitting", they're referring to mitosis, not whatever weird process you've dreamed up.

Now that we've got that out of the way, can we move on already?

Vanity, vanity, all is vanity.

 

[smokydot]

1) Basically you're arguing that we should just "know" that life begins at conception.

Keep in mind that the head of this thread limits the paramter to the Bible.

The principle of Rom 1:19-20,32, that the Gentiles know of invisible realties--the existence of God, and of his eternal, divine, righteous nature--strictly from observing material creation (nature), certainly implies that we can know of material realities by observing material creation (nature).

2) And this knowledge is based on your limited logic concerning seeds, giving it the authority of God by either divine or natural revelation that we should all be able to access.

By observing creation we can have knowledge of the evident characteristics of all seeds.
From that knowlege we can know the characteristics of human seed.

3) Actual scientific knowledge and/or reason is thrown out with premise #1.

Remember, the parameter is the Bible.
The Bible states that we can know invisible realities by observing material creation.
Well, that certainly implies that we can also know material realities by observing material creation.

Your premise that we should know your interpretation of seeds from natural revelation is compromised by your rejection of natural science and philosophy.

Any supposed "rejection" of natural science and philosophy is irrelevant to knowledge of material realities gained by observing creation--e.g., the evident characteristics of all seeds--just as any supposed "rejection" of natural science and philosophy is irrelevant to knowledge of invisible realities gained by observing creation--the existence of God, his eternal, divine, righteous nature.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Oh, for crying out loud!

Since you apparently can't figure it out, I'll make it (hopefully) clear for you: when people colloquially talk about a zygote "splitting", they're referring to mitosis, not whatever weird process you've dreamed up.

Now that we've got that out of the way, can we move on already?

It's useless.

It's impossible for us to talk about life starting at conception and then on to abortion issues, etc....

without a basic knowledge of human development.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Keep in mind that the head of this thread limits the paramter to the Bible.

The principle of Rom 1:19-20,32, that the Gentiles know of invisible realties--the existence of God, and of his eternal, divine, righteous nature--strictly from observing material creation (nature), certainly implies that we can know of material realities by observing material creation (nature).

But we're talking about life starting at conception, which is a scientific and philosophical question concerning human development and ethics.... define that, and see if justification for such can be found in the Bible.

You've completely failed at both.

By the way - just because the Gentiles can know of God's nature from material creation - it does not mean that the Bible justifies the belief that life begins at conception.

 

[smokydot]

Now explain how the zygote dies when it splits as you repeatedly said.

It requires 46 chromosomes to be a zygote.
If the zygote were to abnormally split (i.e., while having only 46 chromosomes),
it would be destroyed. . .it would no longer exist. . .fine. . .nada.
It no longer has 46 chromosomes and, therefore, it is no longer a zygote.

It is loosely said that the sperm and egg are life.
However, they possess none of the six essential characteristics of life.
Motion does not indicate the sperm is life, motion is simply a chemical response to its environment.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You didn't answer the question.

 

[smokydot]

But we're talking about life starting at conception, which is a scientific and philosophical question concerning human development and ethics.... define that, and see if justification for such can be found in the Bible.

The NT doesn't qualify knowlege of invisible realities--the existence of God, his eternal, divine, righteous nature--with scientific and philosophical definitions.

And if the NT does not require knowledge of invisible realities to have qualifying definitions, then there's no Biblical reason for requiring knowledge of material realities (gained from observing material creation) to have them either.

You've completely failed at both.

Neither are needed when the Bible is the parameter.

By the way - just because the Gentiles can know of God's nature from material creation - it does not mean that the Bible justifies the belief that life begins at conception.

It does with the clear implication of the principle in Rom 1:19-20,32 that material realities can be known from material creation.
And since we can know the evident characteristics of all seeds from observing material creation, we can therefore know the characteristics of human seed.
Not to mention what post #963 presents that can also be known from observing material creation.

So if you don't like the seed thing, then use the post #963 thing.
They are both based on observation of creation (nature), which is the principle of Rom 1:19-20,32.

 

[smokydot]

:rainbow:

You didn't answer the question.

:redcard: This from the master of non-accountability! (posts #615, #998)

Are we looking at hypocrisy here? . .double standard? . .intellectual dishonesty? :faint:

Quick! Somebody bring the smelling salts!

 

[HonestJoe]

The NT doesn't qualify knowlege of invisible realities--the existence of God, his eternal, divine, righteous nature--with scientific and philosophical definitions.

If you're talking about observing "material creation" and coming to logical conclusions based upon those observations, you're talking about science and philosophy. You can't use them at one point but dismiss them when they don't suit your conclusions.

It does with the clear implication of the principle in Rom 1:19-20,32 that material realities can be known from material creation.

You accepted in replies to me that this is your own extended interpretation from the scripture and that you could be wrong. To continue to say that it is "clear implication" is dishonest. You've don't appear to have demonstrated a clear implication that leads to your subsequent argument to anyone here's satisfaction.

And since we can know the evident characteristics of all seeds from observing material creation, we can therefore know the characteristics of human seed.

Again, you've still not fully supported your assumption that the two are entirely comparable. After all, you're getting in the debates about the detailed nature of human conception which doesn't apply to plant seeds in the same way.

Your argument that human life begins at conception seems to be based on how human conception works and has nothing to do with plant seeds - an argument which can be made but obviously one which moves away from your Biblical basis.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The NT doesn't qualify knowlege of invisible realities--the existence of God, his eternal, divine, righteous nature--with scientific and philosophical definitions.

And if the NT does not require knowledge of invisible realities to have qualifying definitions, then there's no Biblical reason for requiring knowledge of material realities (gained from observing material creation) to have them either.

Then you have no basis for using the Bible to define a scientific or philosophical reality. In this case, you've been trying (and failing) to describe conception / human development, which you have been making up and changing at your whim.

Neither are needed when the Bible is the parameter.

A knowledge of science (conception) and a responsible interpretation of the Bible is needed to answer the question of the OP.

It does with the clear implication of the principle in Rom 1:19-20,32 that material realities can be known from material creation.
And since we can know the evident characteristics of all seeds from observing material creation, we can therefore know the characteristics of human seed.
Not to mention what post #963 presents that can also be known from observing material creation.

So if you don't like the seed thing, then use the post #963 thing.
They are both based on observation of creation (nature), which is the principle of Rom 1:19-20,32.

You are significantly contradicting yourself here.

You're trying to describe the material world with no basis at all in reality.

Then you make up nonsense about seeds, thinking that your baseless declarations justify your misinterpretation and misapplication of Scripture.

Material observation requires the scientific method, of which you appear ignorant as well.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

:rainbow:
:redcard: This from the master of non-accountability!

Are we looking at hypocrisy here? . .double standard? . .intellectual dishonesty? :faint:

Quick! Somebody bring the smelling salts!

You still didn't answer the question.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It requires 46 chromosomes to be a zygote.
If the zygote were to abnormally split (i.e., while having only 46 chromosomes),
it would be destroyed. . .it would no longer exist. . .fine. . .nada.
It no longer has 46 chromosomes and, therefore, it is no longer a zygote.

It is loosely said that the sperm and egg are life.
However, they possess none of the six essential characteristics of life.
Motion does not indicate the sperm is life, motion is simply a chemical response to its environment.

If you're going to make stuff up, at least have the decency to give it another name.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Your argument that human life begins at conception seems to be based on how human conception works and has nothing to do with plant seeds - an argument which can be made but obviously one which moves away from your Biblical basis.

And I can't tell if he's misunderstanding human development or if he's just making it up as he goes along (like the nonsense about seeds). Honestly I don't think that he has the intellectual strength to outright lie (although some his posts directly contradict eachother) - that is, it's likely that he's making stuff up and believes that he has learned it somewhere.

 

[smokydot]

If you're talking about observing "material creation" and coming to logical conclusions based upon those observations, you're talking about science and philosophy. You can't use them at one point but dismiss them when they don't suit your conclusions.

What science and philosophy did the NT have in mind when it said material creation clearly gives knowledge of the invisible God? And that it gives knowlege of his invisible eternal, divine, righteous nature?

But it is appropriate that I both use and dismiss.
I can use science at the point where it Biblically applies; e.g., nature of seeds,
and I can omit science at the point where it does not Biblically apply; e.g., the existence and nature of God.

You accepted in replies to me that this is your own extended interpretation from the scripture and that you could be wrong.

The part about which I am not yet completely sure is the Biblical authority for using the characteristics of seeds.

To continue to say that it is "clear implication" is dishonest.

There is a clear implication: That material creation gives clear knowledge of invisible realities certainly implies that material creation gives clear knowledge of visible realities. That part is valid. It's the other part about which I am not yet completely sure.

You've don't appear to have demonstrated a clear implication that leads to your subsequent argument to anyone here's satisfaction.

Again, you've still not fully supported your assumption that the two are entirely comparable. After all, you're getting in the debates about the detailed nature of human conception which doesn't apply to plant seeds in the same way.

But it does, they have identical characteristics:
1) Seeds begin as the union of two non-living gametes.
2) The seed always contains the same kind of life (DNA) as the plant that produced it.
3) The seed contains the same kind of life (DNA) from the moment the two gametes unite.
There is never a time when the life in the seed is not the same as the life in the plant which produced it.
4) The seed transforms through various stages of development into a mature plant.

Your argument that human life begins at conception seems to be based on how human conception works and has nothing to do with plant seeds - an argument which can be made but obviously one which moves away from your Biblical basis.

The argument for human life beginning at conception is the same argument as the plant (corn, cotton, grape, tomato) life beginning at its corresponding "conception."