warri0r45

John Dalton? Well I think atomic theory would have sprung up but perhaps at a later time. People thought of matter in a particulate nature centuries before Dalton. He just formulated Atomic theory which (the core of it, anyway) stands to this day.

I really hope I'm wrong here, but are you saying that genes can be transmitted through blood transfusions and to the kids of those who recieve the transfusions? It seems that you're saying that if gayness is partly genetic and gays give blood transfusions, that their 'gay' blood and genes will somehow result in the kids of the transfusion recipients being gay? Again, I really hope I'm wrong. :?

Dunlop Volleys.

Yeah, don't mind a bit of slipknot. Thier self-titled is probably my favourite of thier work. I don't mind Iowa either. My plague is an awesome song.

I don't know of any other candidates that could ruin things like we can. But you never know. On a similar theme, I want to know how things would've turned out if the Permian-Triassic extinction event, the biggest ever, never occured (killed up to 96% marine species, 70% terrestrial species :ohnoes: ). There would possibly be no such thing as dinosaurs as the extinction opened up niches for them to fill.

Yeah, you're probably right. It happened a while ago so it's not fresh in my mind.

Yep, now that you mention Mormons, I believe the shark attack boy was one.

I suppose the obligation to treat people would be the difficulty (although, if I remember correctly, some teenager in Australia refused a blood transfusion for religious reasons after being attacked by a shark [not sure which religion] :? ). But yeah, I can picture the scenario: kid in a car accident, looses blood, forced to accept possibly HIV infected blood, sues. It dosen't surprise me these days - even if the kid would have died, there'll still be someone who sues. But I've gotta say, if I had the choice between certain death and a chance of HIV, you know, I'd personally be greatful. That's just me.

I found this bit interesting. I mean, let's say the hypothetical comes true and you're going to die with the only chance of life being a blood donation from a gay man. Could they somehow separate the 'gay' samples from the 'straight' samples (I know it sounds bad, but go with me here) and give the dying person a choice to take the 'gay' blood (and hence live) but be fully informed of the risked infection of HIV? Same procedure for needle users, etc, or is it too much red tape and paperwork? Something to think about. Too much red tape. There's a heavy risk that even if the patient is given the risk, they have the legal right to sue the hospital if they contract HIV/AIDS. You're probably right. I'm curious though (if anyone here knows the answer), do people sue if their kids get a genetic disease after being informed the risks/chances by the genetic counselors of a hospital? If not, Barihawk, do you think this would negate your point? I don't mind that there's limitation on who can donate on pragmatic grounds (and no, I don't think this is really a case of discrimination), I'm just wondering if we could impliment something that would give more people a chance at life while knowing the downsides of doing so, just like a genetic counselor gives prospective parents the downsides of having kids based on their family pedigrees, etc.

What would have happened if the Islamic Golden Age never stopped? I think it may have meant the Islamic world would be as 'advanced' as the western world (without western influences pooring into the place, if you get what I mean). With the contributions to the arts, sciences, philosophy, etc, from the Islamic world to the present day, we'd possibly be more advanced and peacefully co-existent as a whole. Oh and sept. 11 wouldn't have happened as there would be no Islamic Extremists. They'd all be far to 'enlightened'. :P

I found this bit interesting. I mean, let's say the hypothetical comes true and you're going to die with the only chance of life being a blood donation from a gay man. Could they somehow separate the 'gay' samples from the 'straight' samples (I know it sounds bad, but go with me here) and give the dying person a choice to take the 'gay' blood (and hence live) but be fully informed of the risked infection of HIV? Same procedure for needle users, etc, or is it too much red tape and paperwork? Something to think about.

Basically sums it up. Raven, thanks for the chat but I feel I'll just be going around in circles demonstrating old points. I'm not accepting "true origin" as a credible source (obvious reasons), especially considering it's concerning the whole 'gay gene' issue which I've already adressed. Not really interested in going around in circles. But as I said on the brain structures point, don't take my word for it. I'm more inclined to stop debating and research that and other specifics more to satisfy myself. I haven't seen anything credible that would indicate in any significant way that any of my sources are wrong about homosexuality not being a conscious choice.

1) Ohk, no worries. It's just a small pedantic point on my part, but Down Syndrome is caused by duplication of chromosome 21 (trisomy 21). 2) As for the nitty-gritty specifics of homosexual orientations, I'm not totally sure to be honest. It's just that any number of sources will indicate it's something deeper than just "oh, I think I'll be gay", which, when you think about it and how you're attracted to females and not males and the nature of that attraction, makes sense. As a basis to look into it deeper, the sources tend to suggest contributions from biological/genetic factors, psychological factors and environmental factors. I'd really have to look into it more to comment specifically, but to answer the question of changes in the brain, I think there may be some between homosexuals and heterosexuals: Here's a little excerpt of a few findings into different particular brain structures between homosexuals and heterosexuals, namely the 'suprachiasmatic nucleus', part of the hypothalamus, and some of the 'interstitial nuclei', also part of the (anterior) hypothalamus. This is just a little touch of research. I'm not satisfied - I'm probably going to read over this more some other time so you know, don't take my word for it. All this stuff is pretty easy to research anyway - anyone can do it really. Of course, there's still a lot we don't know about the specifics of the human genome so perhaps, assuming these changes in the hypothalamus are due to genetic precursors, there are genetic factors not yet known? Dunno, just a little conjecture for you to dwell on. Just to add, yeah, genes play an important role in who we are but environmental factors can play a significant role, too. It's the old addage of genotype + environment = phenotype. With this consideration genetics don't strictly set in stone all traits - they may be influenced in one way or another during development or perhaps at other times of life. 3) I don't think it's a case of genetics not playing a part or your sources stating that they don't; I think it's the case of your sources and mine both stating that genetics isn't the only cause. There are environmental factors too. It seems it's likely a mix of those factors.

You're not the only one... Perhaps though a better way to look at it would be if there was zero indoctrination, everyone chose their beliefs and was skeptical and critical of them and thier impacts on society. I mean I really don't give a toss what people believe. I may not agree, but at the end of the discussion we can agree to disagree and no one's hurt at all. It just pisses me off when people want to change what science is, how it's taught and what it's found out, ostracize a sexual orientation and 'cure their disease', blow up the infidels, force-feed their kids their beliefs, change history, etc. Yeah, these are extreme examples and they probably don't apply to 99.9% of the people on these forums, but there's nothing more reason proof, immutable or uncomprimizing than fundamentalism, for you see, they are sanctioned by god. What they believe is flawless, inerrant. They can not be wrong. There's the dangerous thing. But again, these are generally fringe views. The vocal minority.

I'd be speaking Japanese, for one.

[hide] [2] states that there is no clear conclusion, and since science has offered no scientific proof, there is no option to accept, only that being gay is a choice. This specific piece of evidence is saying that either there is no gene, or 1/3 of all men are gay. Which...frankly, would be weird. :-s Even he, later on in life, quoted that he was lying, stretching statistics, and didn't believe in his research. And it is even said that no other researchers managed to find any form of 'gay' gene. Prentice Hall Biology, Miller Levine, Kenneth R. Miller, Ph.D Professor of Biology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, with Joseph Levine, Ph.D. Science writer and Producer, Concord Massachusetts. Said that there were only 46 human chromosomes. [3] Is said that most of the credibility of 'gay gene' claims are faux. P.S. NARTH stands for National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality Most of the studies that involve looking for irregular gene traits are not only false, but misled by a combination of genes. According to the Human Genome Project, there could be an estimated 30,000 different human genes. There is sure to be irregularities, especially with DNA coding billions of times over, to only get checked once by polymerase before getting reproduced. Enzymes are not foolproof. Despite most uneducated (Please, I say this lightly, and when I say uneducated, I mean that they are not AS educated as these top end quality) people claim that they are gay by birth, it is simply because they maybe made the choice earlier on. Maybe their brains thought about it subconsciously (the brain is processing power is enormous; we are only aware of a tiny fraction of what we think about) and immediately imposed the choice onto the character who admitted to being gay. Scientists agree with this, and they are unable to agree with any form of 'gay gene'. Conclusion: The Gay Gene is an unreliable fall back as a form of excuse of gay behavior. There is absolutely no solid proof that there is any gay gene out there that controls sexual behavior. However, as gays have demonstrated, their IS proof that it is a choice. EDIT: In my own defense, I wrote that letter when I was upset. I get a lot of taunting at my school for being catholic, and I just put together some...bad dots. I'd rather not be held to it, but you may believe what you must. And second off...there isn't anything wrong with gays. There really isn't. It's not like they're wrong, or I'm right, or visa versa, my only problem is their encroachment on the church's sacred act of Marriage. (Which, by the way, is a Christian sacrament which required Baptism, Reconciliation, Communion, and Confirmation before it) EDIT SQUARED: Uhm....furthermore I'd like to state that I think we should give gay's the right to marry within the government. Cool, whatever, but a lot of them are demanding religious ceremonies. At the root of it, that's what I'm vehemently oppose to. [/hide] For your first source, how can you be so sure that this manÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s experience, if we grant it credence, is the way it is for every gay person? Do you want me to come up with my own anecdotal stories of men stating they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t choose to be gay? (the American Psychological Association [APA] source IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve already presented lays waste to this point anyway) From what IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve read I can hardly call choosing to be gay, if itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s as easy as this guy states, anything but the slim minority of scenarios. For your second source, it states: Totally agreed. This view aligns with the American Psychological Association source I presented. By the way your source says that there is no reported clear conclusion of the reality of a single ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâgay geneÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ which I totally agree with. This does nothing to harm the view that being of a homosexual orientation is not a choice and that this orientation is contributed to by biological factors. In my sources, homosexuality is said to be influenced by genetics and biology, not determined by them fully and especially not by a single gene. By the way science does not conclude your view if my view fails. ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a false dilemma fallacy and your conclusion that homosexuality is a choice isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t supported, anyway. Your article concludes: This article never once categorically stated that a biological component was non-existent (it only said that a purely biological basis for sexual orientation was weak, which makes sense given the failed studies that tried to establish that view that were presented in this article), and it does seem to say environmental factors play a part in determining sexual orientation, which is in line with the sources I presented. I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t think this goes any way to establishing sexual orientation as a mere choice as some people would like to believe. (by the way, why is the fact that someone said there were ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâonly 46 human chromosomesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ relevant? ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s basic biology and no oneÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s disputing that) For your third source, IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m more weary of this one. They encourage reparative therapy ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åtherapy of homosexualityÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Cough it up then. Sources or stop spouting BS assuming I'll bite. You can claim superiority in the fact that you say you're on a debate team and telling me to 'grow a brain and research' but I've already done that. I've already shown that sexual orientation can not be chosen and animals display homosexual behaviour. If you want to debate for what reason animals display homosexual behaviour then show me your sources. I think there's an interesting point here on which to make a distinction. It's pretty clear that animals can show homosexual behaviour, but can they actually be oriented in the homosexual sexual orientation, which it seems to me you're arguing they can't? The same source then goes on to say: So perhaps some animals, other than us, can be homosexually oriented? I think it needs further study, and I need your sources. :) Edit::: Apology accepted. But perhaps I was hasty too. I apologize, I'll take your word for it and take your 'The Week' source of nov. 2007. As you claim, it states that homosexuality was reproduced in worms yet this result was doubted due to the worms being hermaphroditic. (how does this make the results doubtful?) I have a source from the previous month to yours which concludes that:

Strawman argument, ergo the rest of your post is bunk. As well as being bunk, it's also extremely bigoted, but you're not worth the time it would take to deconstruct point by point. With all due respect, I'm losing my temper. Being gay is a choice. There is only a few animals that they have experimented on that can be born gay, and guess what? They're all hemaphrodite, asexual beings. Like worms. And they even had to be stimulated into it, pre birth. Nothing of my post is 'bunk'. It's a valid logical conclusion. You, unfortunately, still believe that everybody is equal, which is...cabbage. Equality of opportunity in public society, yes...but when it comes to treading on other's private lands, we have every right to turn you away. Why do people continually say crap like this? It isn't 'unnatural' to be gay. It happens in nature, both wild and civilized, and by the dictates of nature, i.e. by biological and environmental factors. Some animals can display homosexual behaviour [1-2] and it's not a conscious choice for humans to be what sexual orientation they end up with; they end up with their orientation by biological and environmental factors [3-5]. QED. Now go away. Preferably in the direction of an educated opinion.

I checked it's sources, looks alright to me. Of course parts cannot be taken seriously, as something like that has an overall biased view. It does however have some interesting things in there. Well, as long as you check your sources and don't take hokey documentaries (however entertaining they may be) on face value.

Yep... You cannot scientifically directly prove or disprove anything because none of it can reproduced right now. All you can do is look at indirect things and use them to try to see the bigger picture. Like Rebdragon said, basically it all comes down to which position you place your faith in. Well to be exact it doesn't come down to which position you place your faith in.. Atheists have no faith involved. They just don't see faith nessessary at all, big bang is just a theory, but if it gets proven to be right someday thats just better. And if someone manages to prove gods existense, meaning real proofs of it, nothing like those stinky revelations of bible, but real evedense. Then even atheist would believe there is a god, when no faith is required. I think most of them wouldn't worship that god but believe newertheless. Just because I feel like it, here's warri0rÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s science 101 for yours and others reading pleasure. Observations and previous knowledge inspire hypotheses, or statements about the natural world that may be true. Hypotheses offer predictions and those predictions are tested. A hypothesis is either supported or rejected based on the outcomes of testing. It is not 'proven'. A hypothesis that is supported by numerous tests, data, observations and other evidence becomes a fact - "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent". Such facts may be that the earth revolves around the sun, that heredity material is made of DNA, or that matter is made of particles called atoms. Theories emerge when a sufficient number of intertwined hypotheses regarding the same or similar phenomena come to the fore. Theories in science are never mere guess or conjecture. A strong theory is supported by numerous tested hypotheses, facts and data, perhaps some general principles and/or laws and other evidence, all linked in a logical framework. Theories offer a 'leg-up' for more scientific advancement by way of offering more predictions to be tested. Theories are not, nor will they ever be 'proven'. The main job of a theory is as a system of explanation, born out by their cumulative nature, which inevitably helps us understand the natural world better. Science does not 'prove'. Mathematics and logic proves. Science cumulatively and tentatively understands by forming factual knowledge of the natural world to be encompassed by theoretical systems of explanation. Pfft. You think a movie like that is a reliable source? As much as I love the George Carlin and Bill Hicks routines, I seriously doubt that movie is an accurate source of information.

Regret? I don't think so. Maybe that's because I look to the future more than dwell on the past. I'll regret when I'm 80 in some home somehwere realizing I haven't done what I want to do now.

Which brings us the the point of no proper evidence existing as to the existence of a supernatural being. If there was logical, definite proof of a specific god, then there would be room for debate. There just... isn't any. Faith is illogical. Intelligient debate is based on logic. Broken record, it's futile. [/hide] WTFMATE? When did warrior ever say he had all the answers? And what does that have to do with this topic at all? Sorry, I withdraw what I said. What I meant was that Warrior was making logical conclusions about his experiences. The problem is that if there were a God it doesn't matter how we think God should act because God would be acting how God would be acting. True. Sorry for not making myself clear. My response was directed at someone's post and was purposed to say some of the things I disagree with about the Christian faith. Those disagreements are inconsequential to the question of whether there is a god or not. Who knows, god could be a real bastard (sorry, can't phrase that in an unoffensive way :lol: ), but that dosen't mean he dosen't exist. As for this: Yeah, I know I don't have all the answers, hence why I don't believe god dosen't exist. I just don't have any reason to believe he does. I am faithless. I'm your doubting Thomas, "ye of little faith".

Or it could be futile if neither side has any proof for it's opinion, nor any proof against the other's opinion. A negative can never be proven, and thusfar physical evidence for a supernatural being is nonexistent. It's futile. It's a matter of faith, either you got it or you don't. Pretty much sums up the whole nature of the debate. :wink:

I'd tend to agree with this view somewhat. I personally rather respect, reward or condemn people based on their actions, not their beliefs. I don't give a toss whether you believe x, y, or z. I don't think it's sensible to judge and reward or punish people on that and neglect their actions. (see John 3:18, Ephesians 2:8-9) I'm also perplexed by the whole infinite punishment for finite sins thing. I don't think that's fair. I mean, imagine being a good person by anyone's measure your whole life, giving to charity, raising a good family, failing to accept Jesus and earning everlasting fire. :? (see John 15:6, Matt 25:41)

One of my favourites. Classic sitcom genious.