P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #81
CDZ Biology Deniers
- Thread starter P@triot
- Start date
the_human_being
Gold Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 15,277
- 2,747
- 290
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
Last edited:
Divine Wind
Platinum Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
And yet the skeptics are funded by the energy industry. Follow the money.
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.
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.
Dr Grump
Platinum Member
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
Platinum Member
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
Gold Member
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
Take a Memo:
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
Platinum Member
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
Take a Memo:
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
Take a Memo:
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
Platinum Member
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Trump is adding anti-trans provisions to SAVE America Act- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 0
-
If Trump is serious about a unconditional surrender. Trump needs to study how we made Japan surrender in wwII.
- Started by Hurricanelover
- Replies: 1
-
Why Amgen’s CEO Just Dropped $18M into AMGN: A Bullish Signal?- Started by BellaJones
- Replies: 0
-
Another Epstein Islander exposed: Chairman of Nobel committee that awarded Obama the Peace Prize- Started by theHawk
- Replies: 1
