CDZ Biology Deniers

[P@triot]

You mean like Intelligent Design?

Yes...that's another good example. Their denial of "Intelligent Design" as well.

Please explain the science behind "Intelligent Design". Evidence, experiments proving it, etc.

Google is your friend.

World Renowned Scientist Michio Kaku Proves Existence Of God

 

[the_human_being]

 

[Chuz Life]

Buddhists as well as the Christian bible, and even the Quran give the account that everything is alive, only at different densities. The bible goes even further, and declares that everything is conscientiously aware of this. Interestingly, little children automatically deal with their things as if they were live and conscientious beings.

Care to explain why you feel the need to bring religion into a discussion about science?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Science and religion are convergent, in fact, science was always a part of religion, except the pretentious 200 years lately.

I'm calling bullshit

If you seriously need God and religion to know (biologically) when and how a child's life begins? You are incapable of comprehending the facts in a reasonable objective way.

You are a waste of my time.



Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

The religious texts are a scientific observation in this case. Are you trying to turn this into an abortion debate? That would be off topic, wouldn't it? Also, there is a modern scientific research trend that is parallel to religious texts, to interpret life in this world as a continuously existing quantity together with all mass and energy in the universe. Isn't this what biology supporters mean as opposed to the traditional biology deniers?

The OP is about biology. More specifically, the DENIAL of biology.

One of the ways that biology gets denied is by those who cherry pick religious and philosophical theories and use those opinions and perspectives as if those texts have any actual adherence to scientific fact.

If your reaction to a secular scientific reference like a life cycle is to introduce a religious perspective and nothing secular to back your claims up?

You are a denier of Biology.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Divine Wind]

World Renowned Scientist Michio Kaku Proves Existence Of God

Fascinating!

So does this mean that he believes in the omnipotence of God? Yes, and no. Despite his theory of an intelligence being the maker of the universe, he may also be referring to Spinosa's God, which is a sort of deitification of the laws of the universe itself. This is the kind of God that Einstein also concluded years before.

 

[Coyote]

You mean like Intelligent Design?

Yes...that's another good example. Their denial of "Intelligent Design" as well.

Please explain the science behind "Intelligent Design". Evidence, experiments proving it, etc.

The only thing "supporting" ID is that evolution doesn't have an answer to all the questions yet and holes remain - that's it. That is not science.

 

[Coyote]

There is more to gender than an X and a Y chromosome.

No, there isn't. You are what your DNA makes you. Male or Female. If you are a hermaphrodite, at least the error in your genes gave you the characteristics of the two genders that already exist in the human race.

Anyone, even a transgender, can look in between their legs and identify as to what they were born as. One example is the absurdity of a transgender man who gets pregnant. How do you reconcile that? How can you be so utterly oblivious to the gender you were born with when you're a transgendered man in the maternity ward of a local hospital about to give birth to a child?

Take this for example:

Transgender man gives birth to his OWN BABY in world first

If that isn't denial of biology, then I don't know what is.

If you are a trans man with a baby's head popping out between your legs, you are NOT a man.

If you are a trans woman who had to get the trans man pregnant with male genitalia, you are NOT a woman.

Wow. Holy smokes.

Ok, let me rephrase it - there is more to gender identification than an X and Y chromosone and it appears to be hard wired in people.

 

[Coyote]

Have to admit, this topic is all over the board - abortion and the beginning of life; biological gender and gender identification; evolution and ID; climate change.

 

[Coyote]

"Consensus" is directly related to government grants. Follow the money and you will understand "Gorbal warming".

Typed like someone who doesn't know scientists. Yeah, all those scientists got together and conspired to 'make up' global warming just to get grant money. Seriously I couldn't make this shit up...

KACHING! Where are their grants coming from? Who is purchasing their "product"?

And yet the skeptics are funded by the energy industry. Follow the money.

 

[Coyote]

One of the better collections on the subject of 'transgender' issues, and updated as new info comes out.

Download My Genes Made Me Do it - Homosexuality and the scientific evidence |

Some of it I disagree with, but not a lot. What is certain is that most of the 'science' claiming homosexuality and 'transgenderism' is 'normal' is complete junk, just political propaganda, and not in the least 'scientific', and just a hoax.

Not everything can be blamed on genes, most often it's the interaction of genes and environment, and when it comes to human behavior, it's very complex. I think there is a tendency to blame genes on behavior far too broadly. But that does not mean there isn't some sort of hard-wired biology involved in certain behaviors or illness'.

Denying that the brain can't have genetic abnormalities is like denying that the body can't. The brain after all is just another organ and part of the body.

Homosexuality has been a part of the human experience since recorded history. Despite horrendous oppression, torture and death in some societies it persists at roughly the same rate. Likewise is the utter failure of "ex-gay" programs. At best, they turn men celibate. That seems to support the idea that there is something besides just "behavior" involved. Whether it's "normal" or not is irrelevant. Defining what's "normal" is culturally based as much as biological. At one point being black was considered biologically inferior. Perhaps it's better to step back from using labels like hoax and abnormal when describing things like this. What is the point in it? Do they harm anyone? No. They just want the same rights as any other human being in this country. Why is such a concept so hard to understand?

Here is an article on a fairly recent study:
Homosexuality is Genetic: Strongest Evidence Yet

Scientists have found even more evidence that sexual orientation is largely determined by genetics, not choice. That can undermine a major argument against the LBGT community that claims that these people are choosing to live "unnaturally."


That's at least according to a new and groundbreaking study recently published in the journal Psychological Medicine, which details how a study of more than 800 gay participants shared notable patterns in two regions of the human genome - one on the X chromosome and one on chromosome 8.


While many previous studies have looked into potential genetic drivers of homosexuality, these studies often boasted a significantly smaller sample size or lacked common controls. This is the first study of its kind to boast such a robust sample size and also be published in a scientific peer-reviewed paper.


Most stunningly, the team who conducted this study comes from the scientific community that has been hesitant to acknowledge the claims of previous studies, not because of their own opinions, but because of a lack of conclusive data.​

The article concludes with: Still, the researchers stress that regardless of genetic preference, genes are but a factor in the greater picture, taking into account that social and cultural pressures can still effect an individual's sexual lifestyle, no matter how they were born.

 

[P@triot]

Have to admit, this topic is all over the board - abortion and the beginning of life; biological gender and gender identification; evolution and ID; climate change.

Well most of that is related to biology (gender, evolution, gender identification).

 

[P@triot]

The only thing "supporting" ID is that evolution doesn't have an answer to all the questions yet and holes remain - that's it. That is not science.

When one examines the complexity of our entire universe, common sense dictates that it couldn't possibly be the result of an accidental "big bang".

 

[Dr Grump]

I've worked with scientists for decades; do tell me all about them ... Cigarette companies hired plenty of them, and the corruption in the so-called 'Social Sciences' is even more pervasive and fad-driven. No sale on the claim of 'objectivity', too many of them aren't.

Funny you should mention that. I'm reading a book called Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured The Truth on Issues From Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.

Just because cigarette companies hired Yes-Men scientists, doesn't mean those in the global warming arena are the same. In fact, they are the exact opposite.

 

[Dr Grump]

Just because cigarette companies hired Yes-Men scientists, doesn't mean those in the global warming arena are the same. In fact, they are the exact opposite.
Grump just can wrap is head around reality...

Great rebuttal. Like all those facts you put in there.

 

[anotherlife]

Buddhists as well as the Christian bible, and even the Quran give the account that everything is alive, only at different densities. The bible goes even further, and declares that everything is conscientiously aware of this. Interestingly, little children automatically deal with their things as if they were live and conscientious beings.

Care to explain why you feel the need to bring religion into a discussion about science?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Science and religion are convergent, in fact, science was always a part of religion, except the pretentious 200 years lately.

I'm calling bullshit

If you seriously need God and religion to know (biologically) when and how a child's life begins? You are incapable of comprehending the facts in a reasonable objective way.

You are a waste of my time.



Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

The religious texts are a scientific observation in this case. Are you trying to turn this into an abortion debate? That would be off topic, wouldn't it? Also, there is a modern scientific research trend that is parallel to religious texts, to interpret life in this world as a continuously existing quantity together with all mass and energy in the universe. Isn't this what biology supporters mean as opposed to the traditional biology deniers?

The OP is about biology. More specifically, the DENIAL of biology.

One of the ways that biology gets denied is by those who cherry pick religious and philosophical theories and use those opinions and perspectives as if those texts have any actual adherence to scientific fact.

If your reaction to a secular scientific reference like a life cycle is to introduce a religious perspective and nothing secular to back your claims up?

You are a denier of Biology.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

There is no cherry picking in my posts. You don't get off this easy.

 

[Coyote]

The only thing "supporting" ID is that evolution doesn't have an answer to all the questions yet and holes remain - that's it. That is not science.

When one examines the complexity of our entire universe, common sense dictates that it couldn't possibly be the result of an accidental "big bang".

That's not science. It's like I said - the only "evidence" you have is that science can't yet answer the question. Lack of evidence is not evidence.

 

[Boss]

"Consensus" is directly related to government grants. Follow the money and you will understand "Gorbal warming".

Typed like someone who doesn't know scientists. Yeah, all those scientists got together and conspired to 'make up' global warming just to get grant money. Seriously I couldn't make this shit up...

KACHING! Where are their grants coming from? Who is purchasing their "product"?

Who is? THat's right. They all got together. Thousands of them. And holy shit! They all came to the same conclusion..

xxxxxxxxx

They don't all come to the same conclusion, you're being lied to by propagandists. There are a wide range of opinions regarding AGW and it is totally not a settled science. The people who are pushing this narrative are Socialists who are being funded by the government in the form of grants for research. It's in their interest to continue pushing the narrative. Not only is this their livelihood, it's also their political agenda to destroy capitalism.

Furthermore, it is very important to point out that a "consensus" is NOT a scientific argument. This is called an "ad populum" argument. Popularity of a belief does not prove it true. Yet, time and time again, whenever challenged on the subject of actual science regarding global climate change, the "warmers" always resort to this silly populist tactic. I can't help but think that if you were back in the old days, you'd be among the millions who rejected that the earth was round and revolved around the sun.

 

[Dr Grump]

They don't all come to the same conclusion, you're being lied to by propagandists. There are a wide range of opinions regarding AGW and it is totally not a settled science. The people who are pushing this narrative are Socialists who are being funded by the government in the form of grants for research. It's in their interest to continue pushing the narrative. Not only is this their livelihood, it's also their political agenda to destroy capitalism.

Furthermore, it is very important to point out that a "consensus" is NOT a scientific argument. This is called an "ad populum" argument. Popularity of a belief does not prove it true. Yet, time and time again, whenever challenged on the subject of actual science regarding global climate change, the "warmers" always resort to this silly populist tactic. I can't help but think that if you were back in the old days, you'd be among the millions who rejected that the earth was round and revolved around the sun.

Total poppycock. This post belongs in the conspiracy theory section. 95% of climate scientists agree. Using your analogy, if I said to you to go fly in that experimental aeroplane over there and there's a 95% chance it will crash, would you board the plane?

The rest of your post is just laughable with regard to destroying capitalism. Spoken like somebody who doesn't know a single scientist...

 

[Boss]

It's a theory for one and it's no way complete and never makes sense how a strain of the monkeys would de- evolve from strong to weak......

When did monkeys devolve?

As a matter of faith, I believe an all-powerful entity called "God" created the entire natural universe and everything in it. Science is the study of this universe and how it works, not "magic" or the supernatural (anything outside the natural universe). Science can explain how we got from the Big Bang to here, but not what came before the Big Bang or why it happened.

For those with faith, there should be no doubt that an all powerful, eternal being can create the Universe over 13 billion years know what would develop within it.

Here's the more fascinating thing to me... we don't know everything about our physical universe. You say "things outside our natural universe" but what does that mean? When we look at atoms from the subatomic level we find electrons disappearing and appearing in two spaces simultaneously. How is that possible in a physical universe? How can something not be there but still be there? How can something be in two places at the same time? How can photons be both a particle and wave at the same time? These are perplexing questions for science because they don't seem to comport with the logic of our physical universe. Yet this is happening inside every single atom of every material thing in our universe.

 

[Boss]

Total poppycock. This post belongs in the conspiracy theory section. 95% of climate scientists agree. Using your analogy, if I said to you to go fly in that experimental aeroplane over there and there's a 95% chance it will crash, would you board the plane?

The rest of your post is just laughable with regard to destroying capitalism. Spoken like somebody who doesn't know a single scientist...

No... 95% do not reach the same conclusions... that's a lie. Even IF it were true, that's not science.... it's not how science works. Popular consensus is not scientific proof of anything.

I can go stand at the airport with a cardboard sign proclaiming you have a 95% chance of dying if you board an airplane... how many people would heed my warning? I seriously doubt it would be very many.

 

[Dr Grump]

[

No... 95% do not reach the same conclusions... that's a lie. Even IF it were true, that's not science.... it's not how science works. Popular consensus is not scientific proof of anything.

I can go stand at the airport with a cardboard sign proclaiming you have a 95% chance of dying if you board an airplane... how many people would heed my warning? I seriously doubt it would be very many.

The 97% consensus on global warming