Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Will a "gay gene" refute I.D.?

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,06:47    Or prove that the designer put into place a series of events leading directly to Queer Eye for the Straight Guy? I opened a new topic to avoid derailing the thoughtful and endlessly entertaing discorse here. -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,09:07    Haven't you learned from our resident IDists here?  Nothing refutes ID.  Nothing you say or do will refute ID.  Nothing we can find will refute ID.  ID is Truth, and Truth can not be refuted.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,09:25    ID avocates ask for us to demonstrate thousands of years of evolution in the lab. Therefore the only way to refute it is to speed up time. I have asked my physicist friends to get on it.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,09:36    Quote (Chris Hyland @ April 06 2006,14:25) Id avocates ask for us to demonstrate thousands of years of evolution in the lab. Therefore the only way to refute it is to speed up time. I have asked my physicist friends to get on it. Speeding up relative time should be easy. Just identify where space is not moving and glue/bolt your experiment to it. Doddle? You might need a microscope/telescope though. Oh, and a way to accelerate light. Maybe not as simple as I originaly thought.

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,10:13    A homsexual gene would only disprove ID if you thought that the designer didnt want homsexuality.  Of course, our resident ID'ers are unlikely to answer that questions.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,10:17    A "pro gay" desinger would sit well with the fundamentailsts. "Fundamentalist" is very descriptive because they 'fund' the DI and they are 'mentalists'. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,10:20    Re "ID avocates ask for us to demonstrate thousands of years of evolution in the lab. Therefore the only way to refute it is to speed up time. I have asked my physicist friends to get on it." But, that would make the result intelligently designed, since the speed up wouldn't have happened without your input, which would make a success evidence for I.D. Henry

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,11:32    The "gay gene" is in all likelihood nothing more than the fantasy of gay advocates to satify there attempt at "normalcy."   As for the Designer, homosexuality seems to be the consequence of free-will.  This behavior, like most behaviors, can be modified especially if one is educated about the prevalence of disease, domestic violence and early morality that correlates STRONGLY with the practice of homosexuality.

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,11:41    Once again, TD jumps in with a logical but unocnnected with reality opinion.  The homosexuals I know would have loved to have been "Normal", since that would have saved the embarrasment and even physical danger of coming out of the closet, the strained relations with parents, the difficulties of finding other people like them, etc etc.  If it really was that much of a lifestyle choice, many of them would not have picked it in the first place.

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,11:42    "early morality." LOL -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,11:54    Hey Thordaddy! Will a gay gene refute ID? -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,12:05    Quote (Chris Hyland @ April 06 2006,14:25) ID avocates ask for us to demonstrate thousands of years of evolution in the lab. Therefore the only way to refute it is to speed up time. I have asked my physicist friends to get on it. Time goes fast when you're having fun.  Maybe you could try holding parties in your lab?

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,12:16    We would but we have computers in there that cost half a million dollars and they don't like us to spill beer on them. Quote This behavior, like most behaviors, can be modified especially if one is educated about the prevalence of disease, domestic violence and early morality that correlates STRONGLY with the practice of homosexuality. Dont forget electric shock therapy, that works to. Incedentaly, disease and domestic violence also correlate strongly with religion, but it doesn't mean that if you point this out people will stop being religious.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,12:22    Quote But, that would make the result intelligently designed, since the speed up wouldn't have happened without your input, which would make a success evidence for I.D. Henry Poor Henry has been exposed to the IDiots for so long he can now perfectly anticipate Salvadorc Ordova's responses.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,12:53    This is an example of why very few people believe in evolution.  Science is readily corrupted by ideologues.   Is there or is there not a disproportionate amount of AIDS, STDs and domestic violence amongst American homosexuals? (homosexuals represent 2% of population while representing around 60% of AIDS cases). Does the prevalence AIDS, STDs and domestic violence in a certain demographic not signify a rise in mortality rates? Given these very simple facts, is it wise and prudent, let alone "educational," to teach children of the "normalcy" of homosexuality (normal as compared to what)? The "scientists" can keep beating up the fundies about this issue, but what do they say about the above and its lack of ANY religious argumentation? The "scientists" seem more like ideologues and that's why there is little differentiation in any of the responses in this issue? A real scientist would never assume ALL those that argue against HIS position to be a religious fundamentalist, would he?

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,13:02    If you are referring to my post: I never questioned your statistics, I simply said that pointing it out to homosexual people will not make them 'repent'. I never said thay homosexiality is 'normal'. I never said you were a fundamentalist. I never expressed animosity towards religion. What makes you think I am an ideologue?

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,13:04    Silly Thordaddy, as usual, you have a point, but it's on top of your pointy white hat.  That covers your face. Down to your bedsheet. Quote Is there or is there not a disproportionate amount of AIDS, STDs and domestic violence amongst American homosexuals? (homosexuals represent 2% of population while representing around 60% of AIDS cases). Not amongst Lesbians.  Their rates are MUCH lower than the hetros. Quote Does the prevalence AIDS, STDs and domestic violence in a certain demographic not signify a rise in mortality rates? A rise? what are you talking about?  these rate have been essentialy steady for years! Quote Given these very simple facts, is it wise and prudent, let alone "educational," to teach children of the "normalcy" of homosexuality (normal as compared to what)? No, clearly it's important to teach them to be good lesbians.  This is your point, right? After all, the Designer made them gay.  With the Big Gay Gene. Quote The "scientists" can keep beating up the fundies about this issue, but what do they say about the above and its lack of ANY religious argumentation? Those words don't make a coherent sentence, try again. Will a "gay gene" refute I.D.? Third try is a charm, Thordaddy! -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,13:12    I wonder who has more STD's and domestic violence, redneck men or Lesbians?  Should we teach the virtues of the Lesbian Lifestyle, and warn the flower of American womanhood about rednecks? -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,13:17    Chris Hyland, Who said anything about homosexuals repenting? I only asked if it was wise and prudent, let alone "educational," to teach about the "normalcy" of homosexuality. Do you have an answer? Seven Popes, So now I'm part of the KKK?  And all this for exposing taboo truths? LOL!  Come up with something more original. Homosexuals are gay males and gay males are the demographic I am specifically talking about.  But about lesbians, I guess "science" will need to find 2 "gay genes?" You ask, Quote Will a "gay gene" refute I.D.? Third try is a charm, Thordaddy! I don't believe a "gay gene" will be found in all likelihood, but if one is then I think "science" will have to play coy about what it really represents.  IDers will still chalk it up to a choice of free-will.  You aren't against free-will, are you?

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,13:26    I certainly am against free will, as an answer, if it is the wrong answer. In your thread, Chris Hyland very cogently pointed out to you just why it is highly unlikely that a complex set of behaviors like homosexual behavior does not have at least some genetic component. You're right, there's never going to be a discovery of "a gay gene," as in one gene that "causes" homosexuality. But to derive from that the answer you seem content with (you know, the one you assumed from the beginning) is laughably naive. I believe it all starts with your inability to deal with any degree of ambiguity, as pointed out on yet another of your threads. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,13:41    I remember the day I chose, of free will, to be a heterosexual. I was in 7th grade and several of the other fellows had started dating. Not wishing to look developmentally delayed, I decided to begin also. But immediately I had a problem--there were two genders. Which one to select? This seemed like a dilemma of the first order, so I resolved to consider the problem carefully. On the one hand, I knew I could get along easily with males because we tended to like the same things. On the other hand, sometimes they became violent. It wouldn't feel good to have an abusive boyfriend, now would it. Girls seemed to be built more from curves than angles, and I think modernism is overrated, so curves were the more aesthetic choice. Point for the girls. In terms of smell, girls definitely smelled better, and since I would be spending a lot of time near whoever I was dating, this was a serious point for the girls. So with things pretty much tied I recalled that most boys I knew were dating girls by a margin of maybe 10:1. Perhaps this inexplicable imbalance was the result of hidden factors I wasn't aware of, which suggested girls would make better dates. Finally, I considered that I was in the south, and southerners will get very hostile to same-sex relationships usually. So I decided that girls were the clear winner, glanced at a girl's butt, and immediately got an erection.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,13:48    I don't suppose I'll have any more luck here than on the other "gay gene" thread. But, just for the record... What "new talk" is there about a "gay gene"? Who said what? And what, specifically, are what "scientists"  putting into what public school curricula that you so object to, Thordude? You know: quotes, references, links... that sort of thing. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,14:04    Silly Thordaddy, Quote IDers will still chalk it up to a choice of free-will.  You aren't against free-will, are you? How could they have free will if the designer made them gay? Fourth try Thordaddy, would a "gay gene" refute I.D.? -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,14:23    Thordaddy: Quote I only asked if it was wise and prudent, let alone "educational," to teach about the "normalcy" of homosexuality. Do you have an answer? Do you think it's prudent to allow your young women to date men?  With the greater risks of Aids,and being beaten or killed by their spouse?  Wouldn't it be MORE prudent, using your illogic, to encourage them to be Lesbians? Russell, I'm only aware of studies linking homosexuality to prenatal biology here at the Brain Research institute. Like I mentioned elewhere in this forum, they found: Quote "a male with three older brothers is three times more likely to be gay than one with no older brothers, though there's still a better than 90 percent chance he will be straight. They argue that this results from a complex interaction involving hormones, antigens, and the mother's immune system." Not a gay gene per se, but evidence of a biological root to homosexuality. SteveStory, LOL.  By the way, I owe you a thread derail, so take your shot -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,14:40    Quote (thordaddy @ April 06 2006,16:32) As for the Designer, homosexuality seems to be the consequence of free-will.  This behavior, like most behaviors, can be modified especially if one is educated about the prevalence of disease, domestic violence and early morality that correlates STRONGLY with the practice of homosexuality. TD must not know any gay people. I think he's regurgitating nonsense his pastor told him. It's also nice that TD has figured out what causes homosexuality. If only he'd share the evidence with us. sigh... Do you have any actual evidence for this homosexuality/domestic violence correlation, or is that just a product of your feverish imagination? Also, homosexual WOMEN have a lower rate of STD's than any other group. Should children be taught that? If not, why not? However, it is refreshing to see that you correlate 'early morality' with homosexuality, whatever that is. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,14:43    Quote (Seven Popes @ April 06 2006,19:04) Silly Thordaddy, Quote IDers will still chalk it up to a choice of free-will.  You aren't against free-will, are you? How could they have free will if the designer made them gay? Fourth try Thordaddy, would a "gay gene" refute I.D.? You people are STILL expecting a coherent answer from TD? WTF? Okay, here's TD's answer, since he won't say it. A gay gene would refute evolution. So would the absence of one. Got it? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,14:53    re: the Brain Research institute study. That's it??? No new mention of a "gay gene". No half-educated person is suggesting that sexuality isn't largely - though not exclusively - determined biologically. No "scientists" - or scientists - telling anyone what public schools to teach... In other words, TD is full of ####. Wow. What a surprise. Next thing you know, the sun will rise in the east. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,17:13    Arden, Quote TD must not know any gay people. I think he's regurgitating nonsense his pastor told him. He might know more gay people than he thinks he does! -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,17:27    I had no idea about the birth order thing w/r/t gayness. That's really interesting stuff. I had no idea. 3 times as likely? That's a he11 of an effect. Wow. All I'd read recently was some suspicion that the brains of embryos who later became gay people were being exposed to the mixture of hormones normal to an embryo of the other sex. I'll have to research that birth order stuff, that looks really interesting. Quote SteveStory, LOL.  By the way, I owe you a thread derail, so take your shot Steve is not for Vendetta, baby, I love everyone. I only lean on people on my threads when a corrosive creationist is oozing around, because all the little evolutionist t-cells will show up and start attacking him all kinds of ways, and you see what happens on Panda's Thumb as a result of that, I don't want that to happen on the threads where I'm interested in the topic. (edited to get the word 'he11' around Wesley's filter, which filter must have been like number 384 in the birth order, so gay is it.)

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,17:33    The responses are indicative of ideologues and not scientists. C.J. O'Brien opines, Quote I certainly am against free will, as an answer, if it is the wrong answer. In your thread, Chris Hyland very cogently pointed out to you just why it is highly unlikely that a complex set of behaviors like homosexual behavior does not have at least some genetic component. This demands two questions that relate to what I have asked.  Why and/or how are we teaching the "complex set of behaviors" of homosexuality to grade school children?  And secondly, what is the strong science that LEADS one away from the free-will hypothesis?  Evolution should require no gene and a Designer would require no need for those that had an aversion to the process of reproduction. So stevestory's trivial notion of selecting his orientation is irrelevant.  Most of us don't choose our heterosexuality, but a very few of us have inclinations that defy evolution.  You claim it be based in genetics.  Would this be the "self-destruct" gene? Quote You're right, there's never going to be a discovery of "a gay gene," as in one gene that "causes" homosexuality. But to derive from that the answer you seem content with (you know, the one you assumed from the beginning) is laughably naive. I believe it all starts with your inability to deal with any degree of ambiguity, as pointed out on yet another of your threads. And this is what we look to science for...?  Ambiguity?  I can tell you unequivocally that I am less impressed with "science" than I've ever been.  I suppose the retort will be that ambiguity is "truth" in some instances.  The problem is that the instances form a particular pattern. Russell, If it will satisfy your curiosity, I could have said "re-newed" talk of a "gay gene," but there could certainly be those for who this talk is new.

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard