BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Not only was it a dunk, you also got posterized.

I gave you scientific evidence that showed for ONE PAIR of random, beneficial mutations to arise and be fixed in the human population, it would take greater than 100 MILLION years. If there are only six million years between homo erectus and homo sapiens, I'd say that provides pretty good scientific evidence and rationalization against Darwinian evolution being the cause. And if you think all it takes is ONE mutation to get from a species that used simple tools, to a species that could travel to the moon, then your biological and genetics knowledge is laughably poor.

So I didn't just "claim" evidence and rationalization, I provided it. When you realized I had, you left the conversation without a word.

---

Are you referring to this paper you posted?: https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/180/3/1501/6063886?login=false

This paper focused on understanding the mechanisms behind the rapid turnover of transcription factor binding sites in Drosophila species and provided insights into how these changes might have happened through natural processes. To suggest that this provided evidence for intelligent design is... interesting.

You are perhaps the most confident "Intelligent Design"er that I've come across - so I do have to give you credit. Typically, folks who seriously look into evolution admit that Intelligent Design is a theological perspective, but you are adamant that you can prove it with evidence.

No modern scientist today will say that "Darwinian Evolution" as Darwin himself drew it up is accurate. Through the centuries we have made changes and updates to the model, and it looks quite different than it did in the 1800s. That is how science works - it does not make concrete claims, but uses evidence to make testable hypothesis. If you want to use god of the gaps to fixate on things we may not yet understand, that is fine, but do not pretend that your position is the objective truth.

---

Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

That paper specifically calculated how it long it would take for a similar pair of mutations show up in humans. I even quoted that part to you. And here, you are trying to minimalize the paper as only dealing with fruit flies. I guess I can't blame you for avoiding it, seeing how destructive it is to your world view.

Your claim that I think ID is "proved" is a red herring. I have been clear in explaining that ID can be shown to be the "best inference" from historical data. And if you don't think that the evidence I provided from that article supports Intelligent Design, and you insist on ID as being merely a "god of the gaps" argument, then you have a poor understanding of what the ID argument actually is.

---

If someone provided me with legitimate evidence for ID that is objective and testable, I would integrate it into my understanding of evolution. Science as a whole loves changes and new theories - it's not some static and unchanging system.

You personally are convicted that ID is the best inference from historical data. That's great - I don't see it, nor do 99.99% of scientists. Chop it up to intellectual dishonesty or whatever else you'd like to call it.

---

Testability is not the only way to truth. All history and historical sciences rely on this.

99.99% of scientists at one time thought the sun went around the earth. Besides, I think what you just presented (if it's even close to being true) is a problem about scientists, and not about ID.

---

Scientists used to think that the Sun revolved around the Earth because it appeared to fit everyday experience, mathematical models, and religious beliefs. However, as more precise astronomical observations were made, the heliocentric model became increasingly accepted as the more accurate explanation.

The reason why 99.99% of scientists accept macro-evolution as a valid theory, is the overwhelming evidence from numerous fields and it's ability to predict what we find in nature. ID is a really intriguing concept, it may even be correct, but as Carl Sagan said best: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The claim that humanity and all organisms as a whole were designed is indeed an extraordinary claim, and it better have supporting evidence to back it up. Otherwise, it's just an intellectual position to support religious ideology.

Perhaps our modern understanding of evolution is indeed like geocentricism, and we are completely wrong. I'm open to this, as is hopefully anyone who seriously purses science.

---

Darwinian evolution as the explanation for macro evolution has actually FAILED predictions. The theory is based on slow, gradual change. Predictions based on this would have the fossil record show likewise. However, as we've seen in the Cambrian explosion, TWENTY new phyla of complex organisms abruptly appear in full form, without the necessary transitional forms as Darwinian evolution would require.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Not only was it a dunk, you also got posterized.

I gave you scientific evidence that showed for ONE PAIR of random, beneficial mutations to arise and be fixed in the human population, it would take greater than 100 MILLION years. If there are only six million years between homo erectus and homo sapiens, I'd say that provides pretty good scientific evidence and rationalization against Darwinian evolution being the cause. And if you think all it takes is ONE mutation to get from a species that used simple tools, to a species that could travel to the moon, then your biological and genetics knowledge is laughably poor.

So I didn't just "claim" evidence and rationalization, I provided it. When you realized I had, you left the conversation without a word.

---

Are you referring to this paper you posted?: https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/180/3/1501/6063886?login=false

This paper focused on understanding the mechanisms behind the rapid turnover of transcription factor binding sites in Drosophila species and provided insights into how these changes might have happened through natural processes. To suggest that this provided evidence for intelligent design is... interesting.

You are perhaps the most confident "Intelligent Design"er that I've come across - so I do have to give you credit. Typically, folks who seriously look into evolution admit that Intelligent Design is a theological perspective, but you are adamant that you can prove it with evidence.

No modern scientist today will say that "Darwinian Evolution" as Darwin himself drew it up is accurate. Through the centuries we have made changes and updates to the model, and it looks quite different than it did in the 1800s. That is how science works - it does not make concrete claims, but uses evidence to make testable hypothesis. If you want to use god of the gaps to fixate on things we may not yet understand, that is fine, but do not pretend that your position is the objective truth.

---

Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

That paper specifically calculated how it long it would take for a similar pair of mutations show up in humans. I even quoted that part to you. And here, you are trying to minimalize the paper as only dealing with fruit flies. I guess I can't blame you for avoiding it, seeing how destructive it is to your world view.

Your claim that I think ID is "proved" is a red herring. I have been clear in explaining that ID can be shown to be the "best inference" from historical data. And if you don't think that the evidence I provided from that article supports Intelligent Design, and you insist on ID as being merely a "god of the gaps" argument, then you have a poor understanding of what the ID argument actually is.

---

If someone provided me with legitimate evidence for ID that is objective and testable, I would integrate it into my understanding of evolution. Science as a whole loves changes and new theories - it's not some static and unchanging system.

You personally are convicted that ID is the best inference from historical data. That's great - I don't see it, nor do 99.99% of scientists. Chop it up to intellectual dishonesty or whatever else you'd like to call it.

---

Testability is not the only way to truth. All history and historical sciences rely on this.

99.99% of scientists at one time thought the sun went around the earth. Besides, I think what you just presented (if it's even close to being true) is a problem about scientists, and not about ID.

---

Scientists used to think that the Sun revolved around the Earth because it appeared to fit everyday experience, mathematical models, and religious beliefs. However, as more precise astronomical observations were made, the heliocentric model became increasingly accepted as the more accurate explanation.

The reason why 99.99% of scientists accept macro-evolution as a valid theory, is the overwhelming evidence from numerous fields and it's ability to predict what we find in nature. ID is a really intriguing concept, it may even be correct, but as Carl Sagan said best: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The claim that humanity and all organisms as a whole were designed is indeed an extraordinary claim, and it better have supporting evidence to back it up. Otherwise, it's just an intellectual position to support religious ideology.

Perhaps our modern understanding of evolution is indeed like geocentricism, and we are completely wrong. I'm open to this, as is hopefully anyone who seriously purses science.

---

Darwinian evolution as the explanation for macro evolution has actually FAILED predictions. The theory is based on slow, gradual change. Predictions based on this would have the fossil record show likewise. However, as we've seen in the Cambrian explosion, TWENTY new phyla of complex organisms abruptly appear in full form, without the necessary transitional forms as Darwinian evolution would require.

---

The position that evolution is a static, slow process is an outdated view. I completely agree with you on this actually, if someone holds this position, they are incorrect - the evidence is clear. Modern macro-evolutionary theory acknowledges that the pace of evolution can be both dynamic and variable. Evolutionary processes can occur at different rates, with periods of rapid diversification and change as well as periods of relative stasis. Factors such as environmental changes, genetic innovations, and ecological interactions can influence the tempo and mode of evolutionary change.

Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the Cambrian Explosion, including:

• Environmental changes: The Earth underwent significant changes around the time of the Cambrian Explosion, such as increased oxygen levels, global warming, and changes in ocean chemistry. These changes may have created new ecological opportunities for organisms to adapt and diversify.
• Developmental genetics: The evolution of new genes and gene regulatory networks may have allowed for the development of more complex body plans and structures, leading to the rapid diversification of life forms.
• Ecological interactions: Increased predation, competition, and other ecological interactions may have driven the rapid evolution of new adaptations and body plans.
• The "arms race" hypothesis: The emergence of predators with new adaptations may have driven prey species to evolve new defenses, leading to an evolutionary "arms race" between predators and prey.

It is an oversimplification to state that twenty new phyla of complex organisms appeared "in full form" and "without the necessary transitional forms".

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Not only was it a dunk, you also got posterized.

I gave you scientific evidence that showed for ONE PAIR of random, beneficial mutations to arise and be fixed in the human population, it would take greater than 100 MILLION years. If there are only six million years between homo erectus and homo sapiens, I'd say that provides pretty good scientific evidence and rationalization against Darwinian evolution being the cause. And if you think all it takes is ONE mutation to get from a species that used simple tools, to a species that could travel to the moon, then your biological and genetics knowledge is laughably poor.

So I didn't just "claim" evidence and rationalization, I provided it. When you realized I had, you left the conversation without a word.

---

Are you referring to this paper you posted?: https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/180/3/1501/6063886?login=false

This paper focused on understanding the mechanisms behind the rapid turnover of transcription factor binding sites in Drosophila species and provided insights into how these changes might have happened through natural processes. To suggest that this provided evidence for intelligent design is... interesting.

You are perhaps the most confident "Intelligent Design"er that I've come across - so I do have to give you credit. Typically, folks who seriously look into evolution admit that Intelligent Design is a theological perspective, but you are adamant that you can prove it with evidence.

No modern scientist today will say that "Darwinian Evolution" as Darwin himself drew it up is accurate. Through the centuries we have made changes and updates to the model, and it looks quite different than it did in the 1800s. That is how science works - it does not make concrete claims, but uses evidence to make testable hypothesis. If you want to use god of the gaps to fixate on things we may not yet understand, that is fine, but do not pretend that your position is the objective truth.

---

Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

That paper specifically calculated how it long it would take for a similar pair of mutations show up in humans. I even quoted that part to you. And here, you are trying to minimalize the paper as only dealing with fruit flies. I guess I can't blame you for avoiding it, seeing how destructive it is to your world view.

Your claim that I think ID is "proved" is a red herring. I have been clear in explaining that ID can be shown to be the "best inference" from historical data. And if you don't think that the evidence I provided from that article supports Intelligent Design, and you insist on ID as being merely a "god of the gaps" argument, then you have a poor understanding of what the ID argument actually is.

---

If someone provided me with legitimate evidence for ID that is objective and testable, I would integrate it into my understanding of evolution. Science as a whole loves changes and new theories - it's not some static and unchanging system.

You personally are convicted that ID is the best inference from historical data. That's great - I don't see it, nor do 99.99% of scientists. Chop it up to intellectual dishonesty or whatever else you'd like to call it.

---

Testability is not the only way to truth. All history and historical sciences rely on this.

99.99% of scientists at one time thought the sun went around the earth. Besides, I think what you just presented (if it's even close to being true) is a problem about scientists, and not about ID.

---

Scientists used to think that the Sun revolved around the Earth because it appeared to fit everyday experience, mathematical models, and religious beliefs. However, as more precise astronomical observations were made, the heliocentric model became increasingly accepted as the more accurate explanation.

The reason why 99.99% of scientists accept macro-evolution as a valid theory, is the overwhelming evidence from numerous fields and it's ability to predict what we find in nature. ID is a really intriguing concept, it may even be correct, but as Carl Sagan said best: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The claim that humanity and all organisms as a whole were designed is indeed an extraordinary claim, and it better have supporting evidence to back it up. Otherwise, it's just an intellectual position to support religious ideology.

Perhaps our modern understanding of evolution is indeed like geocentricism, and we are completely wrong. I'm open to this, as is hopefully anyone who seriously purses science.

---

Darwinian evolution as the explanation for macro evolution has actually FAILED predictions. The theory is based on slow, gradual change. Predictions based on this would have the fossil record show likewise. However, as we've seen in the Cambrian explosion, TWENTY new phyla of complex organisms abruptly appear in full form, without the necessary transitional forms as Darwinian evolution would require.

---

The position that evolution is a static, slow process is an outdated view. I completely agree with you on this actually, if someone holds this position, they are incorrect - the evidence is clear. Modern macro-evolutionary theory acknowledges that the pace of evolution can be both dynamic and variable. Evolutionary processes can occur at different rates, with periods of rapid diversification and change as well as periods of relative stasis. Factors such as environmental changes, genetic innovations, and ecological interactions can influence the tempo and mode of evolutionary change.

Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the Cambrian Explosion, including:

• Environmental changes: The Earth underwent significant changes around the time of the Cambrian Explosion, such as increased oxygen levels, global warming, and changes in ocean chemistry. These changes may have created new ecological opportunities for organisms to adapt and diversify.
• Developmental genetics: The evolution of new genes and gene regulatory networks may have allowed for the development of more complex body plans and structures, leading to the rapid diversification of life forms.
• Ecological interactions: Increased predation, competition, and other ecological interactions may have driven the rapid evolution of new adaptations and body plans.
• The "arms race" hypothesis: The emergence of predators with new adaptations may have driven prey species to evolve new defenses, leading to an evolutionary "arms race" between predators and prey.

It is an oversimplification to state that twenty new phyla of complex organisms appeared "in full form" and "without the necessary transitional forms".

---

I don't want to hijack this thread so if you want to continue discussing, go to the other thread.

All of this is grasping at straws nonsense, by the way.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

All of this is grasping at straws nonsense, by the way.

---

I wish you could see the irony in this statement, considering your position. However, you mentioned before that you are in a field closely related to Biology/Genetics, so perhaps you will be the one to develop Intelligent Design as an accepted theory.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Not only was it a dunk, you also got posterized.

I gave you scientific evidence that showed for ONE PAIR of random, beneficial mutations to arise and be fixed in the human population, it would take greater than 100 MILLION years. If there are only six million years between homo erectus and homo sapiens, I'd say that provides pretty good scientific evidence and rationalization against Darwinian evolution being the cause. And if you think all it takes is ONE mutation to get from a species that used simple tools, to a species that could travel to the moon, then your biological and genetics knowledge is laughably poor.

So I didn't just "claim" evidence and rationalization, I provided it. When you realized I had, you left the conversation without a word.

---

Are you referring to this paper you posted?: https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/180/3/1501/6063886?login=false

This paper focused on understanding the mechanisms behind the rapid turnover of transcription factor binding sites in Drosophila species and provided insights into how these changes might have happened through natural processes. To suggest that this provided evidence for intelligent design is... interesting.

You are perhaps the most confident "Intelligent Design"er that I've come across - so I do have to give you credit. Typically, folks who seriously look into evolution admit that Intelligent Design is a theological perspective, but you are adamant that you can prove it with evidence.

No modern scientist today will say that "Darwinian Evolution" as Darwin himself drew it up is accurate. Through the centuries we have made changes and updates to the model, and it looks quite different than it did in the 1800s. That is how science works - it does not make concrete claims, but uses evidence to make testable hypothesis. If you want to use god of the gaps to fixate on things we may not yet understand, that is fine, but do not pretend that your position is the objective truth.

---

Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

That paper specifically calculated how it long it would take for a similar pair of mutations show up in humans. I even quoted that part to you. And here, you are trying to minimalize the paper as only dealing with fruit flies. I guess I can't blame you for avoiding it, seeing how destructive it is to your world view.

Your claim that I think ID is "proved" is a red herring. I have been clear in explaining that ID can be shown to be the "best inference" from historical data. And if you don't think that the evidence I provided from that article supports Intelligent Design, and you insist on ID as being merely a "god of the gaps" argument, then you have a poor understanding of what the ID argument actually is.

---

If someone provided me with legitimate evidence for ID that is objective and testable, I would integrate it into my understanding of evolution. Science as a whole loves changes and new theories - it's not some static and unchanging system.

You personally are convicted that ID is the best inference from historical data. That's great - I don't see it, nor do 99.99% of scientists. Chop it up to intellectual dishonesty or whatever else you'd like to call it.

---

*chalk

Sam Lowry said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Not only was it a dunk, you also got posterized.

I gave you scientific evidence that showed for ONE PAIR of random, beneficial mutations to arise and be fixed in the human population, it would take greater than 100 MILLION years. If there are only six million years between homo erectus and homo sapiens, I'd say that provides pretty good scientific evidence and rationalization against Darwinian evolution being the cause. And if you think all it takes is ONE mutation to get from a species that used simple tools, to a species that could travel to the moon, then your biological and genetics knowledge is laughably poor.

So I didn't just "claim" evidence and rationalization, I provided it. When you realized I had, you left the conversation without a word.

---

Are you referring to this paper you posted?: https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/180/3/1501/6063886?login=false

This paper focused on understanding the mechanisms behind the rapid turnover of transcription factor binding sites in Drosophila species and provided insights into how these changes might have happened through natural processes. To suggest that this provided evidence for intelligent design is... interesting.

You are perhaps the most confident "Intelligent Design"er that I've come across - so I do have to give you credit. Typically, folks who seriously look into evolution admit that Intelligent Design is a theological perspective, but you are adamant that you can prove it with evidence.

No modern scientist today will say that "Darwinian Evolution" as Darwin himself drew it up is accurate. Through the centuries we have made changes and updates to the model, and it looks quite different than it did in the 1800s. That is how science works - it does not make concrete claims, but uses evidence to make testable hypothesis. If you want to use god of the gaps to fixate on things we may not yet understand, that is fine, but do not pretend that your position is the objective truth.

---

Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

That paper specifically calculated how it long it would take for a similar pair of mutations show up in humans. I even quoted that part to you. And here, you are trying to minimalize the paper as only dealing with fruit flies. I guess I can't blame you for avoiding it, seeing how destructive it is to your world view.

Your claim that I think ID is "proved" is a red herring. I have been clear in explaining that ID can be shown to be the "best inference" from historical data. And if you don't think that the evidence I provided from that article supports Intelligent Design, and you insist on ID as being merely a "god of the gaps" argument, then you have a poor understanding of what the ID argument actually is.

---

If someone provided me with legitimate evidence for ID that is objective and testable, I would integrate it into my understanding of evolution. Science as a whole loves changes and new theories - it's not some static and unchanging system.

You personally are convicted that ID is the best inference from historical data. That's great - I don't see it, nor do 99.99% of scientists. Chop it up to intellectual dishonesty or whatever else you'd like to call it.

---

*chalk

---

Thank you for catching that lol. I have a unique skill to incorrectly use idioms all the time.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Not only was it a dunk, you also got posterized.

I gave you scientific evidence that showed for ONE PAIR of random, beneficial mutations to arise and be fixed in the human population, it would take greater than 100 MILLION years. If there are only six million years between homo erectus and homo sapiens, I'd say that provides pretty good scientific evidence and rationalization against Darwinian evolution being the cause. And if you think all it takes is ONE mutation to get from a species that used simple tools, to a species that could travel to the moon, then your biological and genetics knowledge is laughably poor.

So I didn't just "claim" evidence and rationalization, I provided it. When you realized I had, you left the conversation without a word.

---

Are you referring to this paper you posted?: https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/180/3/1501/6063886?login=false

This paper focused on understanding the mechanisms behind the rapid turnover of transcription factor binding sites in Drosophila species and provided insights into how these changes might have happened through natural processes. To suggest that this provided evidence for intelligent design is... interesting.

You are perhaps the most confident "Intelligent Design"er that I've come across - so I do have to give you credit. Typically, folks who seriously look into evolution admit that Intelligent Design is a theological perspective, but you are adamant that you can prove it with evidence.

No modern scientist today will say that "Darwinian Evolution" as Darwin himself drew it up is accurate. Through the centuries we have made changes and updates to the model, and it looks quite different than it did in the 1800s. That is how science works - it does not make concrete claims, but uses evidence to make testable hypothesis. If you want to use god of the gaps to fixate on things we may not yet understand, that is fine, but do not pretend that your position is the objective truth.

---

Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

That paper specifically calculated how it long it would take for a similar pair of mutations show up in humans. I even quoted that part to you. And here, you are trying to minimalize the paper as only dealing with fruit flies. I guess I can't blame you for avoiding it, seeing how destructive it is to your world view.

Your claim that I think ID is "proved" is a red herring. I have been clear in explaining that ID can be shown to be the "best inference" from historical data. And if you don't think that the evidence I provided from that article supports Intelligent Design, and you insist on ID as being merely a "god of the gaps" argument, then you have a poor understanding of what the ID argument actually is.

---

If someone provided me with legitimate evidence for ID that is objective and testable, I would integrate it into my understanding of evolution. Science as a whole loves changes and new theories - it's not some static and unchanging system.

You personally are convicted that ID is the best inference from historical data. That's great - I don't see it, nor do 99.99% of scientists. Chop it up to intellectual dishonesty or whatever else you'd like to call it.

---

*chalk

---

Thank you for catching that lol. I have a unique skill to incorrectly use idioms all the time.

---

I'm tempted to start saying "chop" now. It does make a lively phrase!

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

No one is a homosexual. There are people who engage in homosexual conduct. It is not an immutable characteristic as some would like you to believe.

---

Holy ****, this might be the most ignorant post I've seen on the board. Homosexuality is by definition a sexual orientation that is characterized by a romantic and/or sexual attraction to individuals of the same gender.

Do you genuinely believe no one is actually homosexual?

---

Have you ever read something on these boards that it made you want to slap that person upside the head and knock some sense into them?

---

All the time

---

and yet, you've not assaulted anyone. You've resisted your urges.

So by your method of applying definitions, you're a violent criminal yet by his method, you're not.

Double standard much?

---

Aren't we all? It is the definition of civility.
I bet you have committed adultery in your heart. "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Heterosexuals who resist urges to rape can live exemplary lives and contribute to society.
Celibate homosexuals resist temptation and can live exemplary lives.

---

And if they don't then according to your theology they go to hell.

---

Depends on their heart

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I don't remember any poster saying it is an acceptable lifestyle. I have said there are people who have same sex attractions and who struggle with temptation.
There are people who are heterosexual who struggle with temptation (e.g. adultery or serial fornication).

Both groups have struggles with temptation

---

I am advocating that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, even from a Christian worldview.

It is unfair to compare a straight person's struggle with adultery to a gay person's same-sex attraction. The straight person has the legal freedom to love and marry someone, and yet chooses to pursue a relationship outside of this marriage. Beyond spiritual implications, this action directly hurts their spouse.

What is the solution for a gay person who "struggles" with same-sex attraction? To be celibate the rest of their lives? Celibacy is something that one should choose themselves if they feel led and called to, so that they can focus on other aspects of their lives. However, forcing someone to be celibate seems cruel in my opinion.

---

paragraph 2: why do you get to make the rules?

You simply disagree with what scripture says. There are a lot of people that disagree with what scripture says but are humble enough to accept God's standards.

Why do some have anger issues?
Why do some struggle to control their diet?
Why do some go through life with great eyesight while others need glasses most of their lives?
Why was I given the footwork of a great post player but I'm only 5'7".

Some go through life with a thorn in the flesh while others go through a season.

Empathy doesn't change sin.

---

I want to better understand your position. To confirm, you believe, due to scripture, that the best action for homosexual people is to remain celibate?

There are many things that I disagree with found in scripture - homosexuality though is not one of them, as the Bible is not clear on the topic as mentioned above.

---

The Bible is crystal clear. Sex is to be between one man and one woman in a marriage. Anything outside of that is sin. Agree, disagree, it makes no difference.

---

Okay, that's great - for arguments sake we can assume that's true. So what does scripture state on what these homosexual people should do who struggle with this sin? Remain celibate?

---

Yes. God loves them and wants the best for them

---

Was sexual identity the defining characteristic of a human being?

---

I'd say being made in God's image

---

what's your interpretation of that passage in Genesis that would rule out homosexuality?

---

I think taking scripture in total, it is clear that homosexuality is not God's best result for us. As was said earlier, He made them male and female. I'm not seeing the part of scripture that blesses homosexual marriage.

I know there are Christians who struggle with same sex attraction. Emphasis on "Christians". They are loved by God and should accepted and be able to worship in any Christian church.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

All of this is grasping at straws nonsense, by the way.

---

I wish you could see the irony in this statement, considering your position. However, you mentioned before that you are in a field closely related to Biology/Genetics, so perhaps you will be the one to develop Intelligent Design as an accepted theory.

---

There isn't any irony. The hypotheses you gave only present theories about selection pressures. They either do nothing to explain the emergence of new genetic information required for exquisitely complex body plans, or they simply presuppose an even more complex system arising by chance that caused their emergence, which only compounds the Darwinian problem.

What would be ironic, is saying that you believe only in testability, but then promote untestable hypotheses.

Back to LGBTQ topic from Evolution discussion:


[in the process, U.S. jurisprudence incidentally established a legal mechanism for civil rights that relies on a key term: Immutability a quality or attribute that is fixed and cannot be altered. In order to qualify as a "discrete and insular minority," the court said in another case, a group must meet certain criteria, such as having faced historical discrimination based on a shared characteristic and not having access to traditional methods of political power. And, most significantly for my argument, the shared characteristic must be immutable.

And so, when gay, lesbian and, to some extent, bisexual people began to seek legal protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the U.S. and elsewhere in the 1980s and 1990s, they picked up the "born this way" baton to attempt to prove that sexual orientation is an immutable trait. If being gay couldn't be changed, the reasoning went, then gay people deserved protections and rights...

But the victory having been won there are now already many gay publications and academics who are abandoning the notion that sexuality is fixed at birth.]

Redbrickbear said:

---

Back to LGBTQ topic from Evolution discussion:


[in the process, U.S. jurisprudence incidentally established a legal mechanism for civil rights that relies on a key term: Immutability a quality or attribute that is fixed and cannot be altered. In order to qualify as a "discrete and insular minority," the court said in another case, a group must meet certain criteria, such as having faced historical discrimination based on a shared characteristic and not having access to traditional methods of political power. And, most significantly for my argument, the shared characteristic must be immutable.

And so, when gay, lesbian and, to some extent, bisexual people began to seek legal protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the U.S. and elsewhere in the 1980s and 1990s, they picked up the "born this way" baton to attempt to prove that sexual orientation is an immutable trait. If being gay couldn't be changed, the reasoning went, then gay people deserved protections and rights...

But the victory having been won there are now already many gay publications and academics who are abandoning the notion that sexuality is fixed at birth.]

---

so much for gender fluid

Redbrickbear said:

---

Back to LGBTQ topic from Evolution discussion:


[in the process, U.S. jurisprudence incidentally established a legal mechanism for civil rights that relies on a key term: Immutability a quality or attribute that is fixed and cannot be altered. In order to qualify as a "discrete and insular minority," the court said in another case, a group must meet certain criteria, such as having faced historical discrimination based on a shared characteristic and not having access to traditional methods of political power. And, most significantly for my argument, the shared characteristic must be immutable.

And so, when gay, lesbian and, to some extent, bisexual people began to seek legal protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the U.S. and elsewhere in the 1980s and 1990s, they picked up the "born this way" baton to attempt to prove that sexual orientation is an immutable trait. If being gay couldn't be changed, the reasoning went, then gay people deserved protections and rights...

But the victory having been won there are now already many gay publications and academics who are abandoning the notion that sexuality is fixed at birth.]

---

I agree with the notion that sexual orientation is not pre-determined at birth, but one is certainly pre-dispositioned with their internal wiring. Beyond just biology & genetics, there are other factors like social and cultural environments, personal experiences, and psychological factors that are believed to contribute.

For the vast majority of people, their sexual orientation remains stable throughout their lifetime - although based on that definition of immutability I could see how it would not apply to every single case.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Back to LGBTQ topic from Evolution discussion:


[in the process, U.S. jurisprudence incidentally established a legal mechanism for civil rights that relies on a key term: Immutability a quality or attribute that is fixed and cannot be altered. In order to qualify as a "discrete and insular minority," the court said in another case, a group must meet certain criteria, such as having faced historical discrimination based on a shared characteristic and not having access to traditional methods of political power. And, most significantly for my argument, the shared characteristic must be immutable.

And so, when gay, lesbian and, to some extent, bisexual people began to seek legal protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the U.S. and elsewhere in the 1980s and 1990s, they picked up the "born this way" baton to attempt to prove that sexual orientation is an immutable trait. If being gay couldn't be changed, the reasoning went, then gay people deserved protections and rights...

But the victory having been won there are now already many gay publications and academics who are abandoning the notion that sexuality is fixed at birth.]

---

I agree with the notion that sexual orientation is not pre-determined at birth, but one is certainly pre-dispositioned with their internal wiring. Beyond just biology & genetics, there are other factors like social and cultural environments, personal experiences, and psychological factors that are believed to contribute.

For the vast majority of people, their sexual orientation remains stable throughout their lifetime - although based on that definition of immutability I could see how it would not apply to every single case.

---

It's actually much less stable for gays, and even less so for lesbians.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Back to LGBTQ topic from Evolution discussion:


[in the process, U.S. jurisprudence incidentally established a legal mechanism for civil rights that relies on a key term: Immutability a quality or attribute that is fixed and cannot be altered. In order to qualify as a "discrete and insular minority," the court said in another case, a group must meet certain criteria, such as having faced historical discrimination based on a shared characteristic and not having access to traditional methods of political power. And, most significantly for my argument, the shared characteristic must be immutable.

And so, when gay, lesbian and, to some extent, bisexual people began to seek legal protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the U.S. and elsewhere in the 1980s and 1990s, they picked up the "born this way" baton to attempt to prove that sexual orientation is an immutable trait. If being gay couldn't be changed, the reasoning went, then gay people deserved protections and rights...

But the victory having been won there are now already many gay publications and academics who are abandoning the notion that sexuality is fixed at birth.]

---

I agree with the notion that sexual orientation is not pre-determined at birth, but one is certainly pre-dispositioned with their internal wiring. Beyond just biology & genetics, there are other factors like social and cultural environments, personal experiences, and psychological factors that are believed to contribute.

For the vast majority of people, their sexual orientation remains stable throughout their lifetime - although based on that definition of immutability I could see how it would not apply to every single case.

---

It's actually much less stable for gays, and even less so for lesbians.

---

Lesbians also fall under the gay category lol, but I know what you mean. It wouldn't surprise me if that's the case. Regardless of what percentage fluctuates though, the person is not making a choice in the matter. Don't get me wrong - there are absolutely people who take advantage of fads & movements for personal attention and may knowingly falsely identify as something.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Back to LGBTQ topic from Evolution discussion:


[in the process, U.S. jurisprudence incidentally established a legal mechanism for civil rights that relies on a key term: Immutability a quality or attribute that is fixed and cannot be altered. In order to qualify as a "discrete and insular minority," the court said in another case, a group must meet certain criteria, such as having faced historical discrimination based on a shared characteristic and not having access to traditional methods of political power. And, most significantly for my argument, the shared characteristic must be immutable.

And so, when gay, lesbian and, to some extent, bisexual people began to seek legal protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the U.S. and elsewhere in the 1980s and 1990s, they picked up the "born this way" baton to attempt to prove that sexual orientation is an immutable trait. If being gay couldn't be changed, the reasoning went, then gay people deserved protections and rights...

But the victory having been won there are now already many gay publications and academics who are abandoning the notion that sexuality is fixed at birth.]

---

I agree with the notion that sexual orientation is not pre-determined at birth, but one is certainly pre-dispositioned with their internal wiring. Beyond just biology & genetics, there are other factors like social and cultural environments, personal experiences, and psychological factors that are believed to contribute.

For the vast majority of people, their sexual orientation remains stable throughout their lifetime - although based on that definition of immutability I could see how it would not apply to every single case.

---

It's actually much less stable for gays, and even less so for lesbians.

---

Regardless of what percentage fluctuates though, the person is not making a choice in the matter.

---

There have been enough people go from straight to gay and gay to straight to demonstrate this statement is false.

She was definitely born this way

This person identifies as a hawk trapped in a human body pic.twitter.com/JS2HWlnzQ4

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 22, 2023

When are we going to stop encouraging this madness?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adult children of lesbian parents less likely to identify as straight, study finds

They're "significantly more likely to report same-sex attraction, sexual minority identity, and same-sex experience" than the general population.

By Julie Moreau

The children of lesbian parents are less likely to identify as heterosexual as adults and much more likely to report same-sex attraction, according to a long-term study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, a think tank focused on sexual orientation and gender.

Dr. Nanette Gartrell, the report's lead author and a visiting distinguished scholar at the Williams Institute, told NBC News there are multiple theories to explain sexual orientation including hormones, genetics and the environment -- but so far, she added, "the evidence suggests that there is no one factor that is a single determinant."

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/adult-children-lesbian-parents-less-likely-identify-straight-study-finds-n989976

---

You headline is misleading because it's not what the study says. It says there's no one factor.

So, it offends conservatives because it doesn't rule out a genetic factor.

It offends liberals because it doesn't rule out other factors.

ShooterTX said:

---

She was definitely born this way

This person identifies as a hawk trapped in a human body pic.twitter.com/JS2HWlnzQ4

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 22, 2023

When are we going to stop encouraging this madness?

---

You just posted a video of a hawk identifying as a hawk? What's strange about this?

C. Jordan said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adult children of lesbian parents less likely to identify as straight, study finds

They're "significantly more likely to report same-sex attraction, sexual minority identity, and same-sex experience" than the general population.

By Julie Moreau

The children of lesbian parents are less likely to identify as heterosexual as adults and much more likely to report same-sex attraction, according to a long-term study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, a think tank focused on sexual orientation and gender.

Dr. Nanette Gartrell, the report's lead author and a visiting distinguished scholar at the Williams Institute, told NBC News there are multiple theories to explain sexual orientation including hormones, genetics and the environment -- but so far, she added, "the evidence suggests that there is no one factor that is a single determinant."

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/adult-children-lesbian-parents-less-likely-identify-straight-study-finds-n989976

---

You headline is misleading because it's not what the study says. It says there's no one factor.

So, it offends conservatives because it doesn't rule out a genetic factor.

It offends liberals because it doesn't rule out other factors.

---

The implication of "born this way" has always been that there is one factor.

C. Jordan said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adult children of lesbian parents less likely to identify as straight, study finds

They're "significantly more likely to report same-sex attraction, sexual minority identity, and same-sex experience" than the general population.

By Julie Moreau

The children of lesbian parents are less likely to identify as heterosexual as adults and much more likely to report same-sex attraction, according to a long-term study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, a think tank focused on sexual orientation and gender.

Dr. Nanette Gartrell, the report's lead author and a visiting distinguished scholar at the Williams Institute, told NBC News there are multiple theories to explain sexual orientation including hormones, genetics and the environment -- but so far, she added, "the evidence suggests that there is no one factor that is a single determinant."

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/adult-children-lesbian-parents-less-likely-identify-straight-study-finds-n989976

---

You headline is misleading because it's not what the study says. It says there's no one factor.

---

You must have missed the discourse in the West over the past 30 years as it relates to all things Homosexuality.

The entire Liberal-Left position has been that sexuality is an inborn innate thing...the same as biological race.

That people who practice it are "born that way" and that any social opprobrium on them for their sexual acts would be like criticizing a natural born blonde haired person for having blonde hair.

It was the entire basis for the legal "gay rights" movement.

[U.S. jurisprudence incidentally established a legal mechanism for civil rights that relies on a key term: Immutability a quality or attribute that is fixed and cannot be altered. In order to qualify as a "discrete and insular minority," the court said in another case, a group must meet certain criteria, such as having faced historical discrimination based on a shared characteristic and not having access to traditional methods of political power. And, most significantly for my argument, the shared characteristic must be immutable.

And so, when gay, lesbian and, to some extent, bisexual people began to seek legal protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the U.S. and elsewhere in the 1980s and 1990s, they picked up the "born this way" baton to attempt to prove that sexual orientation is an immutable trait. If being gay couldn't be changed, the reasoning went, then gay people deserved protections and rights.]

Also interesting to note how "tolerate us because we are a small minority group with inborn sexual preferences we can't help" then very quickly became "maybe its not inborn but if you don't celebrate LGBTQ you are going to be fired from your job and possibly arrested as a terrorist"

Bible college fires theologian for tweet against homosexuality, threatens to report as terrorist: lawyers https://t.co/BrA2XKjdDf

— Fox News (@FoxNews) March 19, 2023

Redbrickbear said:

---

Also interesting to note how "tolerate us because we are a small minority group with inborn sexual preferences we can't help" then very quickly became "maybe its not inborn but if you don't celebrate LGBTQ you are going to be fired from your job and possibly arrested as a terrorist"

Bible college fires theologian for tweet against homosexuality, threatens to report as terrorist: lawyers https://t.co/BrA2XKjdDf

— Fox News (@FoxNews) March 19, 2023

---

Yeah I definitely don't think it is okay to fire people for having conservative religious views. If someone holds the position that being gay is a sin, and even tweets about it, that shouldn't be something to get you fired. This is something that is incredibly annoying that the "left" does - where if you aren't kissing my ass and celebrating me then you are being discriminatory towards me.

Now, if you are being a hateful person openly toward a group of people, calling for them to die, burn in hell, or something similar (very small minority of Christians) - yeah that's pretty messed up and I could understand a company/organization letting someone go for that.

You shouldn't be fired for simply having a difference in opinion.

Redbrickbear said:

---

quash said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

No one is a homosexual. There are people who engage in homosexual conduct. It is not an immutable characteristic as some would like you to believe.

---

And we can pray that behavior away.

Lulz

---

Does praying not help people control their desires-impulses-feelings?

Have you never watched a podcast or interview with a man who was formerly a sexually active homosexual that has given that up?

Are these guys just lying? Are they making it up?

Is praying useless?

---

Yes praying is useless in the sense that no supernatural intervention takes place.

As therapy it could be useful.

BaylorJacket said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

She was definitely born this way

This person identifies as a hawk trapped in a human body pic.twitter.com/JS2HWlnzQ4

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 22, 2023

When are we going to stop encouraging this madness?

---

You just posted a video of a hawk identifying as a hawk? What's strange about this?

---

Seriously?

quash said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

quash said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

No one is a homosexual. There are people who engage in homosexual conduct. It is not an immutable characteristic as some would like you to believe.

---

And we can pray that behavior away.

Lulz

---

Does praying not help people control their desires-impulses-feelings?

Have you never watched a podcast or interview with a man who was formerly a sexually active homosexual that has given that up?

Are these guys just lying? Are they making it up?

Is praying useless?

---

Yes praying is useless in the sense that no supernatural intervention takes place.

As therapy it could be useful.

---

I'm praying for you.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

She was definitely born this way

This person identifies as a hawk trapped in a human body pic.twitter.com/JS2HWlnzQ4

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 22, 2023

When are we going to stop encouraging this madness?

---

You just posted a video of a hawk identifying as a hawk? What's strange about this?

---

Seriously?

---

Obligatory /s

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Precisely. The problem is that reasonable people can disagree on the morality or immorality of behavior (I smoke pot/I think pot smoking is immoral). it's open for debate. But if you move it to "identity," well then it's not open for debate. Then, it's discrimination.

That's why the trans debate is so strange. It is so very clearly aberrant, self-harming behavior. Reasonable people can debate about whether and what adults should be able to do, and in a free society, people can come down on being more lenient on allowing adults to do whatever they want to themselves. But if "trans" is some kind of "identity," (and the LBGTQ crowd is primed to say anything with a sexual behavioral component is actually identify), well then not only are they free to do that thing, but you are not allowed to treat them differently because of it. It's not a choice, it's an identity.

---

Exactly. it's a pure power play by weak people to gain control over others.

Sam Lowry said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adult children of lesbian parents less likely to identify as straight, study finds

They're "significantly more likely to report same-sex attraction, sexual minority identity, and same-sex experience" than the general population.

By Julie Moreau

The children of lesbian parents are less likely to identify as heterosexual as adults and much more likely to report same-sex attraction, according to a long-term study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, a think tank focused on sexual orientation and gender.

Dr. Nanette Gartrell, the report's lead author and a visiting distinguished scholar at the Williams Institute, told NBC News there are multiple theories to explain sexual orientation including hormones, genetics and the environment -- but so far, she added, "the evidence suggests that there is no one factor that is a single determinant."

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/adult-children-lesbian-parents-less-likely-identify-straight-study-finds-n989976

---

You headline is misleading because it's not what the study says. It says there's no one factor.

So, it offends conservatives because it doesn't rule out a genetic factor.

It offends liberals because it doesn't rule out other factors.

---

The implication of "born this way" has always been that there is one factor.

---

we've mapped the human genome and there is no "gene." it is a behavior which might be associated with one or more other clusters of genes, but mendelian genetics are not at play here.

whiterock said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Precisely. The problem is that reasonable people can disagree on the morality or immorality of behavior (I smoke pot/I think pot smoking is immoral). it's open for debate. But if you move it to "identity," well then it's not open for debate. Then, it's discrimination.

That's why the trans debate is so strange. It is so very clearly aberrant, self-harming behavior. Reasonable people can debate about whether and what adults should be able to do, and in a free society, people can come down on being more lenient on allowing adults to do whatever they want to themselves. But if "trans" is some kind of "identity," (and the LBGTQ crowd is primed to say anything with a sexual behavioral component is actually identify), well then not only are they free to do that thing, but you are not allowed to treat them differently because of it. It's not a choice, it's an identity.

---

Exactly. it's a pure power play by weak people to gain control over others.

---

Agreed

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Not only was it a dunk, you also got posterized.

I gave you scientific evidence that showed for ONE PAIR of random, beneficial mutations to arise and be fixed in the human population, it would take greater than 100 MILLION years. If there are only six million years between homo erectus and homo sapiens, I'd say that provides pretty good scientific evidence and rationalization against Darwinian evolution being the cause. And if you think all it takes is ONE mutation to get from a species that used simple tools, to a species that could travel to the moon, then your biological and genetics knowledge is laughably poor.

So I didn't just "claim" evidence and rationalization, I provided it. When you realized I had, you left the conversation without a word.

---

...You are perhaps the most confident "Intelligent Design"er that I've come across - so I do have to give you credit. Typically, folks who seriously look into evolution admit that Intelligent Design is a theological perspective, but you are adamant that you can prove it with evidence.

---

Here's what you, and many others, get wrong about ID: it is NOT making any theological claims. It is merely showing the evidence for "design". There are, of course, theological implications that arise from an argument for design, but that is not the focus of the argument.

---

Yes, it is a theological statement from conservative dogma. You claim the intelligent designer is God as you understand Him (Him is also a theological concept).

OsoCoreyell said:

---

quash said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

quash said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

No one is a homosexual. There are people who engage in homosexual conduct. It is not an immutable characteristic as some would like you to believe.

---

And we can pray that behavior away.

Lulz

---

Does praying not help people control their desires-impulses-feelings?

Have you never watched a podcast or interview with a man who was formerly a sexually active homosexual that has given that up?

Are these guys just lying? Are they making it up?

Is praying useless?

---

Yes praying is useless in the sense that no supernatural intervention takes place.

As therapy it could be useful.

---

I'm praying for you.

---

I'd rather not be even remotely involved in your waste of time

But if you're doing it as therapy?:Tots and pears

I get the feeling Africa is about to become a threat to democracy pic.twitter.com/7V9CUtwsXY

— Auron MacIntyre (@AuronMacintyre) April 3, 2023

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

No one is a homosexual. There are people who engage in homosexual conduct. It is not an immutable characteristic as some would like you to believe.

---

Holy ****, this might be the most ignorant post I've seen on the board. Homosexuality is by definition a sexual orientation that is characterized by a romantic and/or sexual attraction to individuals of the same gender.

Do you genuinely believe no one is actually homosexual?

---

A homosexual is someone who engages in sexual conduct with someone of the same sex. If you don't act on a same sex attraction, then you are either celibate or still straight.

In other words, there is no homosexual without a homosexual act. No one is a homosexual but some acts are homosexual.

---

Is this your personal definition?

---

No. That is pretty much what you have to do to be a homosexual. Sine qua non.

---

Here is the definition of homosexuality from a few different sources:

• Collins English Dictionary: "Sexual activity or desire directed towards a person or persons of one's own sex."
• Cambridge Dictionary: "Sexual activity or desire for people of the same sex."
• American Heritage Dictionary: "Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex."

To be clear, you believe that these definitions of homosexuality are incorrect, and it is instead purely about the act and not the desire? Do you have any evidence to back this up, or are you just being ignorant?

---

False dilemma. Typical.

Report: Amazon Studios Scrapped Ranking Shows Based On Audience Scores Because It Revealed “Audiences Found Queer Stories Off-Putting” https://t.co/8uxv33SSaP

— Bounding Into Comics (@BoundingComics) April 5, 2023