CDZ Biology Deniers

[flacaltenn]

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’

Matt Walsh being the editor of my favorite journal "Reason Magazine" attracted me to this story. He's fresh, objective and radically independent in the way he views things. He just didn't take this "biology denier" thing far enough.

It's fascinating to me that if a male has an innate proclivity or drive to be a skilled interior decorator, that somehow that becomes a clue to "gender identity". Too many coordinated throw pillows = scientific evidence of "gender affinity". And it's weird to me, that MAINLY folks on the left who as feminists, reject gender stereotypes should be the ones making these behaviors and choices into scientific evidence.

I for one, benefited greatly at ages 6 to 12, by CHOOSING to play house with the neighborhood girls over pick-up sports or war gaming.. Not exclusively, but I did "volunteer" regularly. There MIGHT have been some dolls involved, but I didn't go overboard. Is wanting to play with tea sets or dolls -- a scientific observation? All that actually enhanced my perspective on the "male role" in later life.

The other weirdness to me is the concept that you can DECLARE a gender. Just by your lone self. Or with the "help" of over-protective parents. Because IF this is SCIENCE -- those declarations ought to be clear cut and DOCUMENTED. Ought to made legal ONLY by getting diagnosed and declared transgender. So that the whole bathroom wars makes little sense for politicians to involve themselves in --- UNLESS --- politicians don't TRUST science (and the legal system) to make those determinations. And want to placate transvestites, or bi-sexuals who just "feel" like a particular gender on particular days.

There are definitely a variety of legitimate transgenders. Some are easy cases to diagnose because of blatant biological evidence. And they should be encouraged and supported to transition as they see fit. But a lot of the REST of "biology denial" IS political. And attempts to use the power of the state to include "rights" for folks acting out on choice or WITHOUT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of their gender identities is somewhat demeaning to the TRUE cases.
(See the backlash against Bruce Jenner for instance)

You only have to look at the LARGEST segment of the LGBTQ community, BIsexuals, to see the "scientific denial"... These folks are acting on choice and experiences. Learning behaviors that are pleasurable to them that can be LESS than ingrained habits or "scientific evidence" of gender confusion. They are not "confused". They are relationship "opportunists". And probably have no need of political or legal protections UNLESS they choose to commit with a same sex partner long term.

 

[Picaro]

There is no definitive evidence for evolution, it's a guess, not a settled empirical fact. And, there is a growing body of scientific research suggesting 'religion' is hardwired into the human brain, and of course written history verifies it's been around a while, even before written history came along, but 'evolutionists' can't really explain that away, but obviously it's more important than 'rationalism', or more accurately what some try to pass off as 'rationalism', which is indeed a wish and fantasy, not something possible in real life; nobody has enough knowledge, past a few simple basic observations and perceptions, like learning not to stick your hand into boiling water a to make really rational judgements. 'evolution' is an ideology, as is Darwinism, some of the climate change stuff, etc., and pretty much worthless as such, as is any ideology.

Re pollution, however, there is definitely a reason to put a brake on it, and whether 'conservatives' like it or not it's a very serious problem, and both the financial and legal responsibility lies on those producing the pollution, and so should the costs, including the medical costs, created by it.

 

[Syriusly]

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.’

Has Patty always been so passive aggressive?

 

[Syriusly]

You mean like Intelligent Design?

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

Is there any evidence of Intelligent Design?

Does anyone even agree what it is?

 

[Syriusly]

Ok...now it's clear...we're talking about evidence based science (like evolution and climate change) vs faith based pseudo-science like intelligent design.

We're talking about facts. Like the fact that the polar ice-cap grew an astounding 60% (over 900,000 sq. miles) by 2014 when progressives claimed it would be completely "melted" by then. We have progressives denying indisputable climate data like that, indisputable biology like chromosomes, etc.

So you just want your approved facts to be taught. Not any others.

 

[Syriusly]

When it comes to biology, The real denial by the left is not so much about gender as it is about when a new child's life begins.

No one is being systematically killed by the confusion and debates about gender. Least not by the tens of millions like we have with abortion.p

So when does a new child's life begin? What does the science tell us?

 

[Syriusly]

Let's try to discuss the OP and not divert on other tangents.

The subject is about the left's denials and confusion about biology.
p

Ah so this is just another Right Wing propaganda thread.

 

[Syriusly]

Climate science is complicated. The fact is, there is an overwelming scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change IS occurring and not all scientists are "progressive". The consensus crosses disciplines. That is evidence based science.

Where there is less consensus is on the long term effects and the timing of those effects.

Now, with biology and gender identification it's not that clear cut. Biological gender IS. Gender identification doesn't seem to be. There is a lot about the brain we don't know yet. The fact that gender identification seems to be established very young in children leads me to think there is some sort of biological basis. There is more to gender than an X and a Y chromosone. There's a boatload of hormones, and whatever goes on in the brain.

Well using that same "logic" Coyote, any person who feels they are Jesus Christ should not be taken to a psych ward but rather should be worshipped and indulged.

I mean, after all, we don't know what goes on in the brain.

Why should a person who believes that they are Jesus Christ be taken to a psych ward if they aren't harming anyone?

And if someone wants to worship a person who believes that they are Jesus Christ- why would you prevent them?

 

[there4eyeM]

As all human life extends back directly through mitochondrial DNA in an unbroken line, the denial is in establishing an artificial 'beginning of life' point at birth. The essential part of a human has been alive for hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[Chuz Life]

When it comes to biology, The real denial by the left is not so much about gender as it is about when a new child's life begins.

No one is being systematically killed by the confusion and debates about gender. Least not by the tens of millions like we have with abortion.p

So when does a new child's life begin? What does the science tell us?

Biologically, Were you conceived as a child?

What, if anything, happened in YOUR life before that?

Biologically, when did YOUR aging begin?

YOUR life as a biological human being / organism can be traced all they way back to the moment of YOUR conception but no further than that.

Do you feel that is insignificant?

What moment or event is it that makes your biological father YOUR biological father?



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

 

[Picaro]

As all human life extends back directly through mitochondrial DNA in an unbroken line, the denial is in establishing an artificial 'beginning of life' point at birth. The essential part of a human has been alive for hundreds of thousands of years.

The fact is the mathematical probabilities against claiming evolution being 'fact' are so massive it is indeed just more magical thinking to claim it's 'science', and even Dawkins ended up admitting that it became 'intelligent design' at some point in the process, but somehow originated in chaos and random selection, which is of course absurd and contradictory as logic. And besides, the 'evolution' guess is itself merely a rip off of Judeo-Christian theology as an analogy, dependent on some 'warm pond' speculation as a 'garden of Eden' and the currently faddish 'Big Bang' theory just another analogy for a primary Force, as Thomas Aquinas defines 'God', so the evolution cultists are out of luck all around as claiming to be 'rationalists'. Some of the 'Intelligent Design' arguments are just as valid as those the evolutionist cultists are making. If one is going to ban one, then ban both from being peddling to kids; they don't need to be concerned about any of that anyway until later on anyway. As for myself and most sane people we sleep just fine not knowing which is true, none of it is can be repeated experimentally anyway, so it's a moot issue.

 

[Chuz Life]

Let's try to discuss the OP and not divert on other tangents.

The subject is about the left's denials and confusion about biology.
p

Ah so this is just another Right Wing propaganda thread.

Where has there been any propaganda on this? It's simple science and biology.

Propaganda is like when the left justifies their denial of scientific facts by saying things like "the RW only cares about them until they are born"

That is propaganda!

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

 

[Chuz Life]

As all human life extends back directly through mitochondrial DNA in an unbroken line, the denial is in establishing an artificial 'beginning of life' point at birth. The essential part of a human has been alive for hundreds of thousands of years.

You make a good point in a sense but YOU are living the life of an individual human being / specimen.

As such, YOUR life had an origin / beginning of its own.

Correct?

So when was YOUR life as the individual organism that YOU are first originated?



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

 

[Coyote]

Climate change is not "disproven"

You're right... the climate definitely changes. That's indisputable. It's warmer in Alabama today than it was yesterday, therefore, the climate obviously changed.

Over the last century, there has been ~1 degree change in ambient temperature. Given the accuracy of our instruments crossing from analog to digital in that same time period is of some consequence, but supposing all data is completely accurate, this seems to be a very insignificant overall change.

The often heard cry of how 97% of scientists agree on AGW is a falsehood. This has been proven by independent analysts who researched the claim. They found nothing could be further from the truth. The number of scientists who are qualified to assert an opinion on climatology and believe that man is the primary cause of significant increase in global warming is ~0.3%. In short, more scientists probably believe we've been visited by aliens.

Disproven where?

Climate change is not one body - it's a collection of many different disciplines. A rise in scientific consensus correlates with the level of expertise.

The 97% figure comes out of multiple reviews as well - not just one study: The 97% consensus on global warming

When you have a consensus like that, from multiple fields of discipline, I think it's sufficient to say that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. The dispute lies in what degree and how it will affect us and the time frame. It's like people still disputing evolution and clinging to the idea that every living creature was created whole as it now exists. The dispute in evolution is NOT whether or not things evolve - it's in the mechanisms and time frames.

 

[Picaro]

'Consensus' is meaningless re scientific fact. It's like voting on whether or not arithmetic is 'racist and bad' because a Nazi school textbook states that 2+2=4, so we need to purge arithmetic from being taught in our schools. The only 'answer' is the right one, period, not how many voted one way or the other.

 

[Bonzi]

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’

People have a right to believe what they want. Trying to manipulate minds is dangerous either way you slice it.
If people want to deny facts, they have that right.
People normally believe what they want anyway, but as you get older, you really can't escape the truth.....

 

[P@triot]

You mean like Intelligent Design?

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

Is there any evidence of Intelligent Design?

Does anyone even agree what it is?

Pretty much every scientific discovery ever supports "intelligent design". To believe that this entire complex structure of the universe was one giant accident is fall-down hilarious.

 

[P@triot]

When it comes to biology, The real denial by the left is not so much about gender as it is about when a new child's life begins.

No one is being systematically killed by the confusion and debates about gender. Least not by the tens of millions like we have with abortion.p

So when does a new child's life begin? What does the science tell us?

Well logic would dictate that if a doctor declares death when a heart stops beating, then life should be declared when a heart starts beating (and the begins very early on in the womb).

 

[P@triot]

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.’

Has Patty always been so passive aggressive?

What exactly is "passive aggressive" about facts? It seems to me that you are uncomfortable with the reality that progressives are in fact denying biology and have no rational, intelligent response to it.

 

[P@triot]

Why should a person who believes that they are Jesus Christ be taken to a psych ward if they aren't harming anyone? And if someone wants to worship a person who believes that they are Jesus Christ- why would you prevent them?

They shouldn't. However, fascist progressives have created tens of thousands of laws to incarcerate people in one form or another. When a person is wandering around declaring themselves "Jesus Christ", they are taken to psyche wards for "evaluation", for "their own good", and for "the safety of society".

So I will ask the question again: why is it if someone believes they are something which they are not, sexually (such as a male "believing" he is a female or a female "believing" she is a male), that is celebrated by progressives and a host of laws are created to encourage and accommodate them, but if a person believes they are Jesus Christ, that is considered a mental illness?