From an educational standpoint - what can be done to educate our youth and prevent them from going down this progressive path of denying science, denying climate data, denying biology, etc.

There is a large push recently to place ideology over reality. It's important to curb that and it can really only be done through education.

Matt Walsh: Let’s start calling them ‘biology deniers’
You'd have to be more specific about what progressives are denying in science, climate change, biology, etc.

From the National Geographic article:
How Science Is Helping Us Understand Gender
....At the same time, scientists are uncovering new complexities in the biological understanding of sex.

Many of us learned in high school biology that sex chromosomes determine a baby’s sex, full stop: XX means it’s a girl; XY means it’s a boy. But on occasion, XX and XY don’t tell the whole story.

Today we know that the various elements of what we consider “male” and “female” don’t always line up neatly, with all the XXs—complete with ovaries, vagina, estrogen, female gender identity, and feminine behavior—on one side and all the XYs—testes, penis, testosterone, male gender identity, and masculine behavior—on the other. It’s possible to be XX and mostly male in terms of anatomy, physiology, and psychology, just as it’s possible to be XY and mostly female.

Each embryo starts out with a pair of primitive organs, the proto-gonads, that develop into male or female gonads at about six to eight weeks. Sex differentiation is usually set in motion by a gene on the Y chromosome, the SRY gene, that makes the proto-gonads turn into testes. The testes then secrete testosterone and other male hormones (collectively called androgens), and the fetus develops a prostate, scrotum, and penis. Without the SRY gene, the proto-gonads become ovaries that secrete estrogen, and the fetus develops female anatomy (uterus, vagina, and clitoris).

But the SRY gene’s function isn’t always straightforward. The gene might be missing or dysfunctional, leading to an XY embryo that fails to develop male anatomy and is identified at birth as a girl. Or it might show up on the X chromosome, leading to an XX embryo that does develop male anatomy and is identified at birth as a boy.

Genetic variations can occur that are unrelated to the SRY gene, such as complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS), in which an XY embryo’s cells respond minimally, if at all, to the signals of male hormones. Even though the proto-gonads become testes and the fetus produces androgens, male genitals don’t develop. The baby looks female, with a clitoris and vagina, and in most cases will grow up feeling herself to be a girl.

Which is this baby, then? Is she the girl she believes herself to be? Or, because of her XY chromosomes—not to mention the testes in her abdomen—is she “really” male?

Georgiann Davis, 35, was born with CAIS but didn’t know about it until she stumbled upon that information in her medical records when she was nearly 20. No one had ever mentioned her XY status, even when doctors identified it when she was 13 and sent her for surgery at 17 to remove her undescended testes. Rather than reveal what the operation really was for, her parents agreed that the doctors would invent imaginary ovaries that were precancerous and had to be removed.

In other words, they chose to tell their daughter a lie about being at risk for cancer rather than the truth about being intersex—with reproductive anatomy and genetics that didn’t fit the strict definitions of female and male.

“Was having an intersex trait that horrible?” wrote Davis, now a sociologist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, in Contesting Intersex: The Dubious Diagnosis. “I remember thinking I must be a real freak if even my parents hadn’t been able to tell me the truth.”


Another intersex trait occurs in an isolated region of the Dominican Republic; it is sometimes referred to disparagingly as guevedoce—“penis at 12.” It was first formally studied in the 1970s by Julianne Imperato-McGinley, an endocrinologist from the Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, who had heard about a cohort of these children in the village of Las Salinas. Imperato-McGinley knew that ordinarily, at around eight weeks gestational age, an enzyme in male embryos converts testosterone into the potent hormone DHT. When DHT is present, the embryonic structure called a tubercle grows into a penis; when it’s absent, the tubercle becomes a clitoris. Embryos with this condition, Imperato-McGinley revealed, lack the enzyme that converts testosterone to DHT, so they are born with genitals that appear female. They are raised as girls. Some think of themselves as typical girls; others sense that something is different, though they’re not sure what.

But the second phase of masculinization, which happens at puberty, requires no DHT, only a high level of testosterone, which these children produce at normal levels. They have a surge of it at about age 12, just as most boys do, and experience the changes that will turn them into men (although they’re generally infertile): Their voices deepen, muscles develop, facial and body hair appear. And in their case, what had at first seemed to be a clitoris grows into a penis.

When Imperato-McGinley first went to the Dominican Republic, she told me, newly sprouted males were suspect and had to prove themselves more emphatically than other boys did, with impromptu rituals involving blades, before they were accepted as real men. Today these children are generally identified at birth, since parents have learned to look more carefully at newborns’ genitals. But they are often raised as girls anyway.


Gender is an amalgamation of several elements: chromosomes (those X’s and Y’s), anatomy (internal sex organs and external genitals), hormones (relative levels of testosterone and estrogen), psychology (self-defined gender identity), and culture (socially defined gender behaviors). And sometimes people who are born with the chromosomes and genitals of one sex realize that they are transgender, meaning they have an internal gender identity that aligns with the opposite sex—or even, occasionally, with neither gender or with no gender at all....
 
So when does a new child's life begin? What does the science tell us?
Their life begins at conception when they become a genetically distinct organism. However, they don't become a "child" until the zygote grows enough to be identified as one.

We become human beings through stages of growth, not instantaneously at conception. The idea of "life begins at conception" is related to religious ideas of a person's soul, not biological fact. Obviously the sperm and egg were already alive prior to forming a zygote.
 
Robert Heinlein wrote of this concept in his book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". In it, the Moon has been colonized but the government is run from Earth. There are similarities to Britain's running of both the American and Australian colonies including descendents of prisoners working on the Moon. The lunar citizens refine materials which are then launched back to Earth in large pods using a rail gun. When the lunar citizens revolt they turn those large pods into weapons by filling them with mass (large rocks) and target the Earth.

Lunar prisoners fight for freedom in Robert A. Heinlein’s The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress

As for Ms. Wu, I don't understand her basis for being paranoid about the military aspects of a Moon base. Is she advocating we get there first and build a better space program or is she advocating we ban the colonization of the Moon?
 
See Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy. If one were to claim, without offering proof, that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, one could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong. In other words, if you're going to make a huge claim such as the notion that Jesus rose from the dead, the burden of proof is on YOU, not science. We do not need to prove that Jesus did not rise from the dead because we have no proof that he in fact did in the first place.
In other words - your stomach dropped when I made you realize that you're making outrageous claims without a shred of scientific evidence to back it up. The "burden of proof" on my end has been met - we have witnesses that testified as to the resurrection of Christ and documented it for all of humanity.

Your claim that it did not happen now places the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders. And so far, you've presented absolutely nothing. Not even a theory, much less scientific evidence. Game over.

No the burden of proof is still on you, you see? You made the claim that a baby named Jesus was bornof Virgin. What's the proof of this? I'm waiting...You have absolutely nothing...
Game over. You were thoroughly defeated here my friend. We have witnesses who documented the history. Your claims that they were "liars" places the burden of proof on you. Your refusal to meet that burden of proof speaks volumes. You literally have no science that supports your wild and baseless accusations.

The fact that you keep moving the goalposts and changing the subject also speaks volumes.
 
The operative term is, would. No witness of virginity in 'Mary' can be demonstrated.
Of course, that is another, unimportant side issue concerning Jesus and/or 'God'.
 
The operative term is, would. No witness of virginity in 'Mary' can be demonstrated.
Of course, that is another, unimportant side issue concerning Jesus and/or 'God'.
Not only can they be demonstrated - they were. It is documented by witnesses. The onus now shifts to the science denying leftists.
 
O.K., what first hand verifiable witness had personal knowledge of the virginity of Jesus' mother?
 
O.K., what first hand verifiable witness had personal knowledge of the virginity of Jesus' mother?
Mary. Joseph. Both documented in the Bible. If you're going to accuse eye witness accounts of being liars then the burden of proof falls on you to prove your accusations. We're waiting.
 
Their life begins at conception when they become a genetically distinct organism. However, they don't become a "child" until the zygote grows enough to be identified as one.

We become human beings through stages of growth, not instantaneously at conception. The idea of "life begins at conception" is related to religious ideas of a person's soul, not biological fact. Obviously the sperm and egg were already alive prior to forming a zygote.

Biological fact you just admitted... SOMETHING is living at conception. If it's not human, what life form is it? If it's human and it's state of being is living, then it's a living human being. What this living human being eventually grows into is irrelevant to what it already IS. This has NOTHING to do with religion or souls or sperms or eggs.
 
Biological fact you just admitted... SOMETHING is living at conception. If it's not human, what life form is it? If it's human and it's state of being is living, then it's a living human being. What this living human being eventually grows into is irrelevant to what it already IS. This has NOTHING to do with religion or souls or sperms or eggs.
There is a difference between being human and a human being. When a person brushes their teeth, the cheek cells being washed down the drain are human, but they aren't human beings.
 
So because there have been anomalies...
Bingo! The are "anomalies". Such as the Virgin Mary. Such as the resurrection of Christ. You said it yourself - the are anomalies. Thank you.

So because some stranger woke up in a coffin, Jesus's word is divine? You said that we have plenty of proof on the basis of "testimonies"....but what's the PHYSICAL evidence? What's the scientific evidence? Testimonies don't mean anything. There are plenty of testimonies of people saying that they believe Elvis is still alive or that we are all under the control of giant chicken monsters.... The cognitive dissonance is strong here.
 
O.K., what first hand verifiable witness had personal knowledge of the virginity of Jesus' mother?
Mary. Joseph. Both documented in the Bible. If you're going to accuse eye witness accounts of being liars then the burden of proof falls on you to prove your accusations. We're waiting.

So your proof is from second hand accounts recorded in a book written by illiterate peasants from thousands of years ago? Again, you keep making these huge leaps. Science requires more than two personalized accounts. Try again.
 
O.K., what first hand verifiable witness had personal knowledge of the virginity of Jesus' mother?
Mary. Joseph. Both documented in the Bible. If you're going to accuse eye witness accounts of being liars then the burden of proof falls on you to prove your accusations. We're waiting.[/QUOTE

What we're waiting for is a response from someone who understands the difference between a person who is referenced as a witness and someone who is a direct witness. "I know a guy who says he saw the accident" is not quite the same as "I saw the accident." The police only want to talk to the second person.
 
Last edited:
So your proof is from second hand accounts recorded in a book written by illiterate peasants from thousands of years ago?
Ah yes....the smug, dismissive tactic of the modern day leftist. Plato. Aristotle. Socrates. All existed before the Bible was written. All illustrated an exponentially more advanced capacity to think than the left does today.

Incidentally, if all of those people were so inferior to you and so "illiterate" - how is it they were able to document their experiences in writing?
 
Great job evading the general challenge. You still haven't given us a source that is outside the bible.
Except for Josephus Flavius, why would the Romans give a fuck about a carpenter rabbi?

That fact remains, whatever happened had a lasting impact on a lot of people. A movement that grew. Do you really believe was completely fabricated?
 

Forum List

Back
Top