• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Neil Gorsuch Will Be The Next Supreme Court Justice

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
For the last time, my definition for a human is a biologically human organism.

Which includes dead human corpses, a single set of disembodied human DNA, any random pair of human sperm and ova--not necessarily combined...

... and, of course, any human body part: because such a part contains a full set of human DNA.

All of these are biologically human organisms. Without the qualification of function? That is what you get: if you leave off function, mere DNA fits your silly claim.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
All of these are biologically human organisms
As I said, we'll get nowhere if you reject scientific language. Those things are not considered by any biologist to be organisms.

Here: Organism - Wikipedia that will be a good first step to dealing with your scientific illiteracy. (You'll note the first sentence dispels your claim that a dead body is an organism, an organism has to be alive).

Good day, if you want to continue and use the scientific understanding of organism and move forward, I will welcome it. If not, I haven't the energy to waste continuing to correct your gross errors; this will be my last reply along these lines.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Which includes dead human corpses, a single set of disembodied human DNA, any random pair of human sperm and ova--not necessarily combined...

... and, of course, any human body part: because such a part contains a full set of human DNA.

All of these are biologically human organisms.
Discussing the science involved here, with you, is like discussing evolutionary science with Ken Ham or climate change with @james bond .
Tom
 

Shad

Veteran Member
And I destroyed your "argument" which you 100% ignored-- so you keep lying. It appears to be your habit. Your non-argument of "I did TOO" isn't, in fact, an actual argument.

Nope as you argument considered of claiming I follow a religion when I do not.

You would force women to be body-slaves. Disgusting.

Nope. People make choices in their lives. If the choice was poorly made people have to deal with the consequences of their acts.

100% of these are because MEN have brainwashed them into believing the lie that a blob of cells (fertilized zygote) is a "baby"-- by men-- who wish to control them.


You are the one claiming a part of human development isn't human. The rest of your point is an assertion with no evidence and is dismissed as such.

It's always been this way: men like you wish to dictate to women what they may do or not do with their own bodies.

Nope. Anymore lies you would like to get out in the open?
 
Top