OFFLINE

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Darwinism

:-)

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:



Interesting eh?  Lots of these so-called scientific theories are just bunk.

Why does Modern Man look like he's wearing sunglasses? :-P

We evolved them  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:



Interesting eh?  Lots of these so-called scientific theories are just bunk.

Why does Modern Man look like he's wearing sunglasses? :-P

We evolved them  

our future is so bright?

OFFLINE

Lol!  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
i believe in ID and evolution as the mechanism through which life exists. first, i have to stress again that the theory regarding humans isn't that we came from monkeys or any other species of currently living primates, but that we and some currently living primates share an ancient ancestor.

dennis, i don't know how some people can say they believe in intra-species evolution, but then can't take that a step further to understand how this is the process by which we derive species. the greater the change, the longer the amount of time. i don't think we can really look at species as set in stone. what we see as a species of plant or animal, is really just a snapshot of a particular point in time, of the continual process of change that occurs from generation to generation. there's really no buffers that stops this change. it's not as if god says, "whoa, your'e starting to change too much into another species, so no more genetic inputs to your offspring." it would either be that a species can't change enough to keep pace with environmental factors and the evolution of other species around it (such as predators), or it would be a successful design. some species are designed so well (or have evolved so well), that they don't change for millions of years. like crocodiles and alligators. yet even so, these species didn't come from no where. there wasn't just all of a sudden crocodiles. they came from other crocodillian ancestors that looked very similar to them.

i believe in the godly simulation. that is, the entirety of what we call the physical realm (our universe) is just a massively complex simulation (or at least the approximation of a simulation) that began with the big bang - god breathing existence into the universe. and the scientific processes that we know of, are the methods by which everything unfolded after that point.

through gravitation, stars are born from the matter left over from extinct stars. the greater the size, the greater the gravity, the more stuff gets pulled in. the stars themselves are made of the lighter materials, such as helium and hydrogen. the heavier stuff begins to circulate around the gravity created by the new star in great rings, similar to those of saturn. and through gravity again, these bits begin to coalesce into larger and larger pieces, which gives them more and more gravity, to suck up even more bits of material. eventually, these pieces form into planets. the reason this process repeats itself (as we now know of other planets revolving around other stars) is because this is the natural reaction of matter to the laws of physics. in other words, the same processes occur all across the universe, because they are all subject to the same laws of physics.

so in other words, the mightiest of stars and planets are formed from the tiniest bits of dust and debris.

similarly, i believe this is the same manner in which life springs up, all across the universe, because evolution is the law of physics for life. all life, over extreme periods of times - time scales we can't fully grasp in our heads - arises from the simplest of creatures. if conditions are right, there will be life. if conditions are right amino acids will coalesce into forming simple proteins. these proteins then form into what we would call single cell organisms, which themselves are fairly complex (if you remember biology class). these single celled organisms become multi-celled polyps and from there, it's just a matter of complexity and different arrangements of organisation. it's really the same way humans are created unto this world. we start from a single cell, and this cell multiplies, and those cells multiply and so on.

really, to my eyes, the ingeniousness of everything is how such complexity arises from such simplicity. to my thinking, this is the hand of god.

Thats a good analysis.  I would offer one thing however.  Imnsho life didnt just spring up.  We arent a product from the Goo to You theory.  

Here's the way I see it:

1. Everything that had a beginning, had a cause.  (Law of Causality which is the fundamental principle of science.).
2. Most everyone agrees that the Universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.  (God).

So I agree with your illustration about the Big bang as well as how it had a cause...God.  Well-done!  

But isnt it interesting how earth is the only site we know of that has life?  We have studied the stars and other planets and even galaxies...and earth is the only place we've found life.  We have the technology and ability to calculate the distance using radio waves of the stars, and can peer into other galaxies.  We can do a whole lot of things through the magnificence of science.  But we only have proof of life on earth.  

Earth is (the atheist might say coincidentally) in precisely the right place in orbit around the sun to produce life.  
Our oxygen level is at 21%, precisely right for life to exist.  If it were 25%, fires would erupt spontaneously.  At 15% we'd suffocate.

Our gravity is just right for life.  If our gravitational force were altered by just 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001%, our sun would not exist.

If the centrifugal force of all planetary movements did not precisely balance the gravitational forces, nothing could be held into orbit around the sun.  We rely on Jupiter's gravitation as well as earth's.

If the universe had expanded at a rate one millionth more slowly than it did, expansion would have stopped, and the universe would have collapsed on itself before any stars were formed!

If water vapor levels on earth were greater than they are now, we'd have a runaway greenhouse effect that would cause temperatures to rise too high for humans to exist on earth.  If it were less, the temps would drop too  much for us to survive.

If Jupiter were not in it's current orbit, the earth would be bombarded with space material.  Jupiter's gravitational field acts as a giant vacuum cleaner attracting asteroids that otherwise would continually bombard our earth.

If the earth's crust were thicker, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life.  If it were thinner, volcanic activity would increase to such a level as to make life impossible here.

If the rotation of earth took longer than 24 hours, tempt differences would be too great between night and day.  If it were shorter, atmospheric winds velocities would be too great.

The 23 degree axial tilt of the earth is just right. If it were altered, temperatures on earth would become extreme.

If atmospheric discharge (lightning) were too great, there would be too much fire destruction.  If it were less, there would be too little nitrogen in the soil.

If there were more seismic activity, much more life would be lost.  if there were less, nutrients on the ocean floorand in river runoff would not be cycled back to the continents through tectonic uplift.

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has calculated the probability that these and other constants (122 in all) would exist for any planet in the universe (ie, without divine intelligent design).  Assuming there are 10 (to the 22nd power) planets in the universe, then there is only 1 chance in 10 (to the 138th power) of this happening.  Keep in mind there are only 10 (to the 70th) atoms in the entire universe!

Because of this evidence, Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias, (co discoverer of the radiation afterglow), said:  Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life.  In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say , supernatural, plan.

Cosmologist Ed Harrison wrote:  Here is the proof of the existence of God ---The fine tuning of the universe provides the prima facie of deistic design.

So it appears that you are correct in that GOD...cased the big bang.  

As for evolution, I can offer the examples of dog breeders.  Dogs range in size from the Chihuahua to the great dane.  But despite dog breeders best efforts, dogs remain dogs.  One cannot manipulate things to turn a dog into an ape...or a fish.  No amount of time will change this.  No accident in the world will case a dog to evolve into anything other than a dog.  It has never happened.  Lizards didnt become dogs.  Lizards are lizards.  Dogs are dogs.  Humans are humans.  Dogs didnt share a common ancestor with a fish or a lizard.  Neither did humans share a common ancestor with an ape.  Such theories offered by Darwinists are, imo, insane.  Its fairytale land.

OFFLINE

Back to gay marriage:  I read an article that imo, is pretty interesting.  What follows is a pastor's answer to a question posed by a gay man.

Gay activists claim their lifestyle, which in some cases includes thousands of sexual partners, should be sanctioned, protected, and granted special rights by society. Their rationale is that since their sexual nature is inherited, it is involuntary and therefore should be considered morally neutral. Would you critique this stance?

Let me answer that question by asking two of my own: "What if?" and "So what?"

What if it could be demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is, as activists claim, genetic, biochemical, and neurological in origin? We would still want to know, so what? The homosexual activist community would have us believe that because their behavior is genetically programmed and beyond their control, it is morally defensible. That is not supportable. Most men have inherited a lust for women. Their natural tendency is to have sex with as many beautiful girls as possible, both before marriage and after. Abstinence before marriage and monogamy afterward are accomplished by discipline and commitment. If men did what they are genetically programmed to do, most would be sexually promiscuous from about fourteen years of age onward. Would that make such behavior any less immoral? Of course not.

What if a **** (child abuser) could claim that he inherited his lust for kids? He could make a good case for it. Certainly his sexual apparatus and the testosterone that drives it are creations of genetics. Even if his perversion resulted from early experiences, he could accurately claim not to have chosen to be what he is. But so what? Does that make his abuse of children any less offensive? Should society accept, protect, and grant special civil rights to pedophiles? Is it blatant dis- crimination that they are tried, convicted, and imprisoned for doing what they are "programmed" to do? No! The source of their sexual preference is irrelevant to the behavior itself, which is deemed to be immoral and reprehensible by society.

What if it could be demonstrated conclusively that alcoholics inherit a chemical vulnerability to alcohol? Such is probably the case, since some races have a much higher incidence of alcoholism than others. But so what? Does that mean alcoholism is any less a problem for those families and for society in general? Hardly!

I hope the point is apparent. Being genetically inclined to do immoral things does not make immoral behavior right. There are many influences at work within us, but they are irrelevant. I know of no instance in Scripture where God winked at evildoers because of their flawed inheritance or early experiences. In fact, the opposite is implied. In the book of Genesis we are told that an angel informed Ishmael's mother that the child she was carrying would be "a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers" (Genesis 16:12). In other words, Ishmael was genetically inclined toward violence and rebellion. Yet there is no indication that he enjoyed a special dispensation from God that excused his sinful behavior. Each of us is accountable for what we do, without excuses and rationalizations. That's why we all need a Savior who died to eradicate our sins, regardless of their source.

There is one other "so what" with which we must deal. If homosexuals can claim to be genetically predisposed to lust after their own sex, why does that make their circumstances different from unmarried heterosexuals? Single individuals are certainly programmed by heredity to desire fulfillment with the opposite sex, but they are called to a world of purity. I know that is a tough requirement--especially for those who will never marry--yet this is my understanding of Scripture. Promiscuity for unmarried heterosexuals is the moral equivalent of promiscuity for homosexuals. Liberal ministers who are revising church standards to sanction sexual expression by homosexuals must, I would think, extend the same concession to heterosexual singles. But before they do, some scriptural justification should be found to support the "new morality." I think none exists.

http://myfamilytalk.com/Solid-Answers/Answers.aspx?a=6710d48a-ac4f-4a8b-839f-488a55e41d70#

Now i know some of you refuse to even consider the opinion of a pastor.  But if you want me to be fair and consider alternate opinions, I think its only fair to others to do likewise.  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
i believe in ID and evolution as the mechanism through which life exists. first, i have to stress again that the theory regarding humans isn't that we came from monkeys or any other species of currently living primates, but that we and some currently living primates share an ancient ancestor.

dennis, i don't know how some people can say they believe in intra-species evolution, but then can't take that a step further to understand how this is the process by which we derive species. the greater the change, the longer the amount of time. i don't think we can really look at species as set in stone. what we see as a species of plant or animal, is really just a snapshot of a particular point in time, of the continual process of change that occurs from generation to generation. there's really no buffers that stops this change. it's not as if god says, "whoa, your'e starting to change too much into another species, so no more genetic inputs to your offspring." it would either be that a species can't change enough to keep pace with environmental factors and the evolution of other species around it (such as predators), or it would be a successful design. some species are designed so well (or have evolved so well), that they don't change for millions of years. like crocodiles and alligators. yet even so, these species didn't come from no where. there wasn't just all of a sudden crocodiles. they came from other crocodillian ancestors that looked very similar to them.

i believe in the godly simulation. that is, the entirety of what we call the physical realm (our universe) is just a massively complex simulation (or at least the approximation of a simulation) that began with the big bang - god breathing existence into the universe. and the scientific processes that we know of, are the methods by which everything unfolded after that point.

through gravitation, stars are born from the matter left over from extinct stars. the greater the size, the greater the gravity, the more stuff gets pulled in. the stars themselves are made of the lighter materials, such as helium and hydrogen. the heavier stuff begins to circulate around the gravity created by the new star in great rings, similar to those of saturn. and through gravity again, these bits begin to coalesce into larger and larger pieces, which gives them more and more gravity, to suck up even more bits of material. eventually, these pieces form into planets. the reason this process repeats itself (as we now know of other planets revolving around other stars) is because this is the natural reaction of matter to the laws of physics. in other words, the same processes occur all across the universe, because they are all subject to the same laws of physics.

so in other words, the mightiest of stars and planets are formed from the tiniest bits of dust and debris.

similarly, i believe this is the same manner in which life springs up, all across the universe, because evolution is the law of physics for life. all life, over extreme periods of times - time scales we can't fully grasp in our heads - arises from the simplest of creatures. if conditions are right, there will be life. if conditions are right amino acids will coalesce into forming simple proteins. these proteins then form into what we would call single cell organisms, which themselves are fairly complex (if you remember biology class). these single celled organisms become multi-celled polyps and from there, it's just a matter of complexity and different arrangements of organisation. it's really the same way humans are created unto this world. we start from a single cell, and this cell multiplies, and those cells multiply and so on.

really, to my eyes, the ingeniousness of everything is how such complexity arises from such simplicity. to my thinking, this is the hand of god.

Thats a good analysis.  I would offer one thing however.  Imnsho life didnt just spring up.  We arent a product from the Goo to You theory.  

Here's the way I see it:

1. Everything that had a beginning, had a cause.  (Law of Causality which is the fundamental principle of science.).
2. Most everyone agrees that the Universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.  (God).

So I agree with your illustration about the Big bang as well as how it had a cause...God.  Well-done!  

But isnt it interesting how earth is the only site we know of that has life?  We have studied the stars and other planets and even galaxies...and earth is the only place we've found life.  We have the technology and ability to calculate the distance using radio waves of the stars, and can peer into other galaxies.  We can do a whole lot of things through the magnificence of science.  But we only have proof of life on earth.  

Earth is (the atheist might say coincidentally) in precisely the right place in orbit around the sun to produce life.  
Our oxygen level is at 21%, precisely right for life to exist.  If it were 25%, fires would erupt spontaneously.  At 15% we'd suffocate.

Our gravity is just right for life.  If our gravitational force were altered by just 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001%, our sun would not exist.

If the centrifugal force of all planetary movements did not precisely balance the gravitational forces, nothing could be held into orbit around the sun.  We rely on Jupiter's gravitation as well as earth's.

If the universe had expanded at a rate one millionth more slowly than it did, expansion would have stopped, and the universe would have collapsed on itself before any stars were formed!

If water vapor levels on earth were greater than they are now, we'd have a runaway greenhouse effect that would cause temperatures to rise too high for humans to exist on earth.  If it were less, the temps would drop too  much for us to survive.

If Jupiter were not in it's current orbit, the earth would be bombarded with space material.  Jupiter's gravitational field acts as a giant vacuum cleaner attracting asteroids that otherwise would continually bombard our earth.

If the earth's crust were thicker, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life.  If it were thinner, volcanic activity would increase to such a level as to make life impossible here.

If the rotation of earth took longer than 24 hours, tempt differences would be too great between night and day.  If it were shorter, atmospheric winds velocities would be too great.

The 23 degree axial tilt of the earth is just right. If it were altered, temperatures on earth would become extreme.

If atmospheric discharge (lightning) were too great, there would be too much fire destruction.  If it were less, there would be too little nitrogen in the soil.

If there were more seismic activity, much more life would be lost.  if there were less, nutrients on the ocean floorand in river runoff would not be cycled back to the continents through tectonic uplift.

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has calculated the probability that these and other constants (122 in all) would exist for any planet in the universe (ie, without divine intelligent design).  Assuming there are 10 (to the 22nd power) planets in the universe, then there is only 1 chance in 10 (to the 138th power) of this happening.  Keep in mind there are only 10 (to the 70th) atoms in the entire universe!

Because of this evidence, Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias, (co discoverer of the radiation afterglow), said:  Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life.  In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say , supernatural, plan.

Cosmologist Ed Harrison wrote:  Here is the proof of the existence of God ---The fine tuning of the universe provides the prima facie of deistic design.

So it appears that you are correct in that GOD...cased the big bang.  

As for evolution, I can offer the examples of dog breeders.  Dogs range in size from the Chihuahua to the great dane.  But despite dog breeders best efforts, dogs remain dogs.  One cannot manipulate things to turn a dog into an ape...or a fish.  No amount of time will change this.  No accident in the world will case a dog to evolve into anything other than a dog.  It has never happened.  Lizards didnt become dogs.  Lizards are lizards.  Dogs are dogs.  Humans are humans.  Dogs didnt share a common ancestor with a fish or a lizard.  Neither did humans share a common ancestor with an ape.  Such theories offered by Darwinists are, imo, insane.  Its fairytale land.

okay, first about dogs. you're right, dogs are dogs, but dogs didn't come from dogs. they came from wolves. so why aren't they still wolves? because man manipulated the changes that occur from generation to generation, to meet our satisfaction. so then, why can't dogs become something else? because it's still dog genes interacting with dog genes. but you can look at dingos, which are clearly distinct from domesticated dogs. in many ways, the right conditions has turned them into their own sub-species. over time, much longer time periods than man has been on this earth, the dingos would continue to change. OR, if they are a successful design, they won't.


as for the "goo to you" theory, why not? if it is god's will, and this is the mechanism he/she/it used to spawn all of the animal life on earth, even a species as intelligent as man, why not? to me, that's more ingenious than dreaming up all these crazy critters one by one, and creating them from scratch. especially if he/she/it is all knowing, and capable of predicting all the outcomes, such as man.

as for everything you said about life elsewhere, you also have to keep in mind that we've only over the last decade or so, been able to detect extra solar planets. and so far, the vast majority have been gas giants similar to jupiter, which are unlikely to host any kind of life. just within the past year or so, however, we were able to detect the first earth-like planet (a solid terrestrial planet). but even so, we're not yet capable of determining if there's any kind of life there or not, or even if it has an earth-like atmosphere. these things are just so far away.

but yes, you're right, earth just so happens to be perfectly situated in the butter zone for life to occur. there are so many factors that allow for life to exist on this planet. and i do think that life is relatively rare, because of all the factors needed. but when you look at the staggering vastness of space, i simply can't believe that we are the ONLY planet in the universe that supports life. there are estimated to be between 200 and 400 BILLION stars in the milky way alone, and even though we can ONLY see a portion of the universe (even with our most powerful equipment), it is estimated that there is a galaxy in the universe, for every star in the milky way. now, with numbers like that, statistics comes into play. if i were a betting man, i'd be a fool not to bet on life existing somewhere else out there. there's no reason not to believe that, if we believe the laws of physics are the same everywhere as they are here. if this were the case, and man was the only creation in existence capable of wondering over the heavens, and admiring creation, then everything beyond our small part of the universe would basically be a waste.

OFFLINE

and by the way, i just learned that this isn't JUST for gay history. it's full LGBT. that's lesbian, gay, bi, and transgender. so now the kids in cali get to learn about cross dressers, and sex changes, and bi sexuals, who will sleep with just about anything. so how are you going to cover the history of these people, without touching on all the details of makes these people who they are?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
okay, first about dogs. you're right, dogs are dogs, but dogs didn't come from dogs. they came from wolves. so why aren't they still wolves? because man manipulated the changes that occur from generation to generation, to meet our satisfaction. so then, why can't dogs become something else? because it's still dog genes interacting with dog genes. but you can look at dingos, which are clearly distinct from domesticated dogs. in many ways, the right conditions has turned them into their own sub-species. over time, much longer time periods than man has been on this earth, the dingos would continue to change. OR, if they are a successful design, they won't.

What you've illustrated (imo) is that the dog AND the dingo both evolved from the grey wolf (Canis Lupus).  The dingo became separated from the rest because of its location in OZ.  The dingo because Canis Lupus dingo and the dog became Canis Lupus familiarus.  So I'm not arguing that dogs and dingos didnt evolve from another canine or sorts.  I'm arguing that they didnt come from some sort of fish-like creature...like the way some anthropologists want to say humans evolved from.  

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
as for the "goo to you" theory, why not? if it is god's will, and this is the mechanism he/she/it used to spawn all of the animal life on earth, even a species as intelligent as man, why not? to me, that's more ingenious than dreaming up all these crazy critters one by one, and creating them from scratch. especially if he/she/it is all knowing, and capable of predicting all the outcomes, such as man.

  

I see your point.    I just believe that God created man..not from goo, not from a fish or an ape, but fully human.  I dont think we evolved from goo to a fish to a toad to some sort of rat to an ape or chimp to man.  I dont believe we have those as our common ancestor.

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
as for everything you said about life elsewhere, you also have to keep in mind that we've only over the last decade or so, been able to detect extra solar planets. and so far, the vast majority have been gas giants similar to jupiter, which are unlikely to host any kind of life. just within the past year or so, however, we were able to detect the first earth-like planet (a solid terrestrial planet). but even so, we're not yet capable of determining if there's any kind of life there or not, or even if it has an earth-like atmosphere. these things are just so far away.

but yes, you're right, earth just so happens to be perfectly situated in the butter zone for life to occur. there are so many factors that allow for life to exist on this planet. and i do think that life is relatively rare, because of all the factors needed. but when you look at the staggering vastness of space, i simply can't believe that we are the ONLY planet in the universe that supports life. there are estimated to be between 200 and 400 BILLION stars in the milky way alone, and even though we can ONLY see a portion of the universe (even with our most powerful equipment), it is estimated that there is a galaxy in the universe, for every star in the milky way. now, with numbers like that, statistics comes into play. if i were a betting man, i'd be a fool not to bet on life existing somewhere else out there. there's no reason not to believe that, if we believe the laws of physics are the same everywhere as they are here. if this were the case, and man was the only creation in existence capable of wondering over the heavens, and admiring creation, then everything beyond our small part of the universe would basically be a waste.

Again i see your point.    What I'm hoping to get across to everyone is that our earth most likely would not have had all these things happen needed to support like...merely by accident (as some astronomers would suggest).  Odds are trillions to one against it.  Our earth just has to be created by intelligent design.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
and by the way, i just learned that this isn't JUST for gay history. it's full LGBT. that's lesbian, gay, bi, and transgender. so now the kids in cali get to learn about cross dressers, and sex changes, and bi sexuals, who will sleep with just about anything. so how are you going to cover the history of these people, without touching on all the details of makes these people who they are?

Most probably believe that they just happened on earth by accident.  They like to say they were born gay.  

Here's my question about that:

Some people are born alcoholics.
Some people are born predisposed to become an addict.  
And believe it or not, some people may be predisposed to be pedophiles!  (At least if you listen to scientists).

So does that mean its ok??  
Is it ok for pedos to be free to go anywhere they like, including kid's groups or schools?
Think of the ramifications of this.

Just because someone MAY have a gene in them that makes them act a certain way doesnt mean they shouldnt try to overcome this.  Whatever it is in people that may make them this way is still wrong, still abhorrent, still...sinful.

Again, i still dont believe there is anything in our genes that make people this way.  Its a choice.  And even if it wasnt...its STILL a choice.  Therefore I dont believe we should give our tacit approval by trying to normalize these things.



Just because someone may have some gene inside them to make them attracted to the same gender, or an alcoholic or an addict doesnt mean

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
What I'm hoping to get across to everyone is that our earth most likely would not have had all these things happen needed to support like...merely by accident (as some astronomers would suggest).  Odds are trillions to one against it.  Our earth just has to be created by intelligent design.

Well, if there are trillions of stars in the universe, then that trillions-to-one chance had to kick in somewhere..... :-P

Have you guys heard of a show called "Catastrophe", narrated by Tony Robinson (Baldrick from Blackadder)? Is a series about all the huge natural disasters that have hit earth since its formation, and how humans wouldn't be here if they hadn't happened. Is very good, well worth a watch:

http://www.ovguide.com/tv/catastrophe.htm

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

Just because someone may have some gene inside them to make them attracted to the same gender, or an alcoholic or an addict doesnt mean

Doesn't mean what? C'mon, don't leave us in suspense here!

:-P

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

Just because someone may have some gene inside them to make them attracted to the same gender, or an alcoholic or an addict doesnt mean

Doesn't mean what? C'mon, don't leave us in suspense here!

:-P

...they shouldnt try to overcome this.

It was in my post.    

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
What I'm hoping to get across to everyone is that our earth most likely would not have had all these things happen needed to support like...merely by accident (as some astronomers would suggest).  Odds are trillions to one against it.  Our earth just has to be created by intelligent design.

Well, if there are trillions of stars in the universe, then that trillions-to-one chance had to kick in somewhere..... :-P

Have you guys heard of a show called "Catastrophe", narrated by Tony Robinson (Baldrick from Blackadder)? Is a series about all the huge natural disasters that have hit earth since its formation, and how humans wouldn't be here if they hadn't happened. Is very good, well worth a watch:

http://www.ovguide.com/tv/catastrophe.htm

I havent!  I'm gonna check it out though.  I'm a big fan of Robbins and Blackadder.  Got the boxed set.  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
Apples and oranges man. People cant help what color they are.  They can help being straight or gay.  I dont care if they tell ya otherwise.

Look at the studies I cited above.  That is unless you simply don't believe in science.

The gay and lesbian community actually paid quite a handsome amount for a group of scientists to prove that there was a "gay gene". Results were released about 2 years ago. I linked it back in the MS days and really don't feel like looking for and linking it again, but basically the jist of it was that homosexuality is caused by chemicals imbalance in the brain. Considering this, why would homosexuality be the only chemical imbalance we do not medicate???

The most interesting find was that a mother's chance of giving birth to a homosexual child increases greatly as the number of children she gives birth to increases.