Deconstructionist clap trap. I fail to see the fallacy you are trying to manufacture. Are you trying to say that just because an event is not fully understood, or cannot be seen, that it does not occur? That's toddler logic. My son (age three) is still pretty well convinced that if he can't see me, I can't see him. Your argument makes similar assumptions.
Irreducible complexity does not negate causality. For a review of the causal factors surrounding conception, see biology 101.
Your argument about continua fails as well. Pursue time and space down to the smallest observable scales, and reality is essentially discontinuous.
No, that is not what I'm trying to say. What makes you think that?
That's toddler logic. My son (age three) is still pretty well convinced that if he can't see me, I can't see him. Your argument makes similar assumptions.
I don't see it. How so?
Irreducible complexity does not negate causality.
True.
For a review of the causal factors surrounding conception, see biology 101.
Been there, many times.
Your argument about continua fails as well. Pursue time and space down to the smallest observable scales, and reality is essentially discontinuous.
Ah! Very good! But consider at what level you have to go to. At that level, almost everything looks the same, and the continuum still exists, because near events look identical and far events look different.
I'm not speaking of *THE* continuum such as used in set theory and abbreviated with aleph_1. I'm speak of a concept in which proximate elements are not significantly different but distant ones are decidedly different. It is precisely this property (regardless of what you want to call it, if you don't like "continuum") that describes the process of conception.
The example classically used for the fallacy expressed by many pro-lifers is that of a beard. As you remove discrete whiskers from a beard, at what point does it stop being a beard? The answer is that there is no such point. The fallacy is in thinking either that there MUST be such a point or that since there is no such point, a beard and a whisker must be the same thing!
If you read what some of the poofists post here, you will see that this is precisely the fallacy they commit.
You make a good point which is why for years I always included the phrase "above quantum scales". However, that was an unnecessary complication to a simple idea, and the issue of reality at the quantum scale is perhaps a bit more complicated than just being described as discrete.