10-09-2015, 11:01 PM
(10-09-2015, 10:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you disagree with Webster's definition of Child. Go figure.
I did notice the first little picture you posted was titled: The developing human, embryonic and fetal as you called it (I wonder why you left out the 0 seconds as a zygote). So as an olive branch I will now refer to the unborn child as a developing human. Would that be more in line with your scientific nature?
Any resentment I have toward education is that those who get a small taste thinks it makes them smarter and always have to try and prove it to themselves and others.
I'm educated and knowledgeable. I just don't insist on posting my resume continuously on a football themed message board Doc.
Eat a snickers.
I didn't call "it" embryonic and fetal. I called the type of development embryonic and fetal. I used them as adjectives to describe development, not nouns. Of course it is human, you *******! It's not another species. I've never denied a human zygote was human.
An education doesn't make someone more intelligent. It makes them more educated. Do I think I'm smarter than you? Without a doubt. It has nothing to do with my education and everything to do with your stupid responses like this one where I find myself explaining basic English to your ass. If you would like to share your science background feel free.