Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 173386 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

anonymous

Franklin, PA

#71107 Jan 16, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know what your issue is with homosexuals. Is it because you hate to be called a fag? I don't have to explain more of what I just stated because it's common sense. Scientists haven't found a gay gene, well it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or should they exist in the first place? Can they identify the gene responsible for what kind of men I'm attracted to or my favorite color? It's all about chemistry and what turns you on. What about actors who play gay roles? Do they have that gay gene? Homosexuality is a genetic trait and I don't think it's a fuse in chromosome or any abnormality in the genes or any of that sort. It's both psychological and hormonal I would think.
"Both classes of male and female hormones are present in both males and females alike, but in vastly different amounts."
Don't bother analyzing my motives. I've stated them. You choose to ignore them.

Just like you can't identify a gene for your favorite color, you can't find one that is responsible for homosexuality.....AND you aren't going to create any law about your right to a favorite color, just as there's no laws about rights to anyone's sexual preferences. It's foolish.

I'm posing a reasonable theory on the nature of homosexuality. My goal is to dismiss a claim that there's a moral mandate to protect homosexuality. You've inadvertently endorsed my logic. Your goal was probably to try to dominate the discussion by creating castration anxiety, but asserting my masculinity was not my goal.

That's what I like to call scientific discipline. Checkpoint met!:o)

“Mercury bubbles blast!”

Since: Mar 11

Mercury

#71108 Jan 16, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
no...the truth is anyone who comes on forums that aren't about homosexuality, to promote homosexuality, are seeking to promote a political agenda for their own personal satisfaction...I could care less about what you think is right.
there's really only one of two reasons that you are here...
1. to intimidate
2. your looking to be accepted.
I find that most seek to intimidate.
hahaha!

So...you came here to intimidate?

I came here to procrastinate. I know I am wasting my time trying to explain how reality works to people like you, but to be honest, I don't write for you. I write for others and use you as a foil. The things is, people without religious prejudice aren't going to ask such uninformed questions. So the forums need people like you, with all your biases and strange beliefs to drive conversations.

I used to post links to scientific articles to back up everything I write. Time after time they just get ignored - people with committed belief systems are immune to learning. You guys just ignore the science. So why bother posting the links?

Cheers.

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71109 Jan 16, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
no...the truth is anyone who comes on forums that aren't about homosexuality, to promote homosexuality, are seeking to promote a political agenda for their own personal satisfaction...I could care less about what you think is right.
there's really only one of two reasons that you are here...
1. to intimidate
2. your looking to be accepted.
I find that most seek to intimidate.
I think she made a valid point though. If homosexuality can be observed in animals, why would we be any different? Talk about animal instincts. Damn bonobos!

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71110 Jan 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't bother analyzing my motives. I've stated them. You choose to ignore them.
Just like you can't identify a gene for your favorite color, you can't find one that is responsible for homosexuality.....AND you aren't going to create any law about your right to a favorite color, just as there's no laws about rights to anyone's sexual preferences. It's foolish.
I'm posing a reasonable theory on the nature of homosexuality. My goal is to dismiss a claim that there's a moral mandate to protect homosexuality. You've inadvertently endorsed my logic. Your goal was probably to try to dominate the discussion by creating castration anxiety, but asserting my masculinity was not my goal.
That's what I like to call scientific discipline. Checkpoint met!:o)
So you want to continue to discriminate them? I get it.

“Mercury bubbles blast!”

Since: Mar 11

Mercury

#71111 Jan 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you have nothing to say other than your arrogant opinion. OK.
Not science. You claim to be one? Hmm..
Nah. I've posted links to science over and over again on these forums. But people like you are committed to remaining biased and ignorant and so just ignore them. I gave you two names from where my explanation came from and you just made fun of them without bothering to look them up. So why should I waste my time for someone like you who has no problems fabricating all kinds of pretend facts? It's not like you produced a single link to a single science publication.

Here: Strum, proving your ramblings about baboons to be bs:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/...

Her website and publications:

http://www.baboonsrus.com/16.html

Here, Vasy:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF...

Notice the abstract:

"Homosexual behavior is defined as genital contact, genital manipulation or both between same-sex individuals. Available data indicate that this behavior is phylogenetically widespread among the anthropoid primates, but totally absent among prosimians. The majority of the 33 species that demonstrate homosexual behavior do so rarefy, but for a substantial number (N =12) it appears to be a more common pattern under free-ranging conditions."

His book:

http://books.google.co.jp/books...

There, I gave you your links to the science that backs up what I have been explaining to you.

Yes, I know that posting these links to you is utterly futile because you are committed to a belief system rather than a deductive reasoning system.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#71112 Jan 16, 2013
From what I've learned (years ago), homosexuality is thought to be a combination of the influence of hormones (testosterone?)induced upon a fetus while in the womb, and nurture after birth.

Among other things, perhaps.

Clearly not a 'choice'.

“Mercury bubbles blast!”

Since: Mar 11

Mercury

#71113 Jan 16, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I think she made a valid point though. If homosexuality can be observed in animals, why would we be any different? Talk about animal instincts. Damn bonobos!
Thanks Cybele. I just posted links to some of the info I was discussing above. Vasey's article is interesting - he produces 5 testable hypotheses to explain why homosexuality evolved.

I disagree with him on terminology, though. I think we should call it same sex sexual behavior so as to be specific in what we are discussing - not a sexual identity, but behavior.

“Mercury bubbles blast!”

Since: Mar 11

Mercury

#71114 Jan 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't bother analyzing my motives. I've stated them. You choose to ignore them.
Just like you can't identify a gene for your favorite color, you can't find one that is responsible for homosexuality.....AND you aren't going to create any law about your right to a favorite color, just as there's no laws about rights to anyone's sexual preferences. It's foolish.
I'm posing a reasonable theory on the nature of homosexuality. My goal is to dismiss a claim that there's a moral mandate to protect homosexuality. You've inadvertently endorsed my logic. Your goal was probably to try to dominate the discussion by creating castration anxiety, but asserting my masculinity was not my goal.
That's what I like to call scientific discipline. Checkpoint met!:o)
You aren't posting a theory, you are posting a hypothesis at best - one that has been tossed out decades ago.

This history of scientific investigation into homosexuality is rife with failures. First, they imagined physical differences between gays and straights - oops, none existed. Then they imagined hormone differences - oops, none exist. Next they imagined hormone-led developmental differences - oops, none exist. Then, hormone-led brain differences - ooops...non-explanatory and not found.

Homosexuality was removed as a psychological disorder because it is not one. Treatment programs for it failed; they were driven by cultural beliefs and not scientific information.

For you to imagine that homosexuality is a mental disorder, you have to ignore that all human cultures have homosexual behavior in them, with the majority of cultures (Ford and Beach, 1951) accepting of it as normal.

Your problem, as I've mentioned before, is that you fail to understand that your comprehension of all things sexual is a cultural construction. Western culture divides sexuality into homo and hetero - most cultures do not. In fact, that's new for Western culture, too - it began roughly 130 years ago with the rise of sexology in Germany.

But you are going to ignore history, ignore anthropology, ignore psychology to maintain your unsupported and unsupportable belief system. Why? Because you grew up that way - you were raised to value one way of doing sex against all others.

“Mercury bubbles blast!”

Since: Mar 11

Mercury

#71115 Jan 16, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
From what I've learned (years ago), homosexuality is thought to be a combination of the influence of hormones (testosterone?)induced upon a fetus while in the womb, and nurture after birth.
Among other things, perhaps.
Clearly not a 'choice'.
That camp has never produced viable theory - their hypotheses are never borne out.

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71116 Jan 16, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Vasey's article is interesting - he produces 5 testable hypotheses to explain why homosexuality evolved.
I find one of them to be funny. lol

"practice for heterosexual copulation"
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#71117 Jan 16, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I fail to see your point about psychiatric disorders? What does the link even have to do with homosexuality? Homosexuality is not a medical problem. And you say who is to say who is political or not? Why don't you ask Bernanke if he is closet gay and what his political views on gay rights? lol
If homosexuality is not a medical problem, why can't a civil union be as acceptable as marriage? Sure, make the contract carry the financial equality of marriage. But that's not the goal. It MUST BE MARRIAGE!!! I'm fairly confident that the agenda will accept nothing less. We've seen it from everyone who's lined up to go through their sound bites. The goal is legal recognition of homosexuality as "normal" behavior.

Well, there's the point you fail to see. Go around in circles some more. I won't forget. Bernanke won't care. My message continues to be demonstrated to my satisfaction.

Now, watch as we witness our latest contestant demonstrate all of the annoying traits like "Gish gallops" in the name of "Gay science." We still don't have a representative of the uniquely "gay" debate tactic, the invader of privacy.

Are you going to cross that line? If you do, here's how it goes: 1. I ask you if you're a homosexual. 2. You either refuse to answer or take it over the top, but really only keep working the castration thing. 3. I dismiss your claims as prejudiced opinion. 4. You either fall back to your dubious psychic theories or engage in a collaborative effort with hidingfromyou, but still only engage in attempts to generate castration anxiety. You then strive to establish an echo chamber of "one million Elvis fans can't be wrong" mob psychology.

Nah. I've never seen this slop before.



Conclusion: It's all politics!

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#71118 Jan 16, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
hahaha!
So...you came here to intimidate?
I came here to procrastinate. I know I am wasting my time trying to explain how reality works to people like you, but to be honest, I don't write for you. I write for others and use you as a foil. The things is, people without religious prejudice aren't going to ask such uninformed questions. So the forums need people like you, with all your biases and strange beliefs to drive conversations.
I used to post links to scientific articles to back up everything I write. Time after time they just get ignored - people with committed belief systems are immune to learning. You guys just ignore the science. So why bother posting the links?
Cheers.
and I should care about your homosexuality because...?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#71119 Jan 16, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You aren't posting a theory, you are posting a hypothesis at best - one that has been tossed out decades ago.
This history of scientific investigation into homosexuality is rife with failures. First, they imagined physical differences between gays and straights - oops, none existed. Then they imagined hormone differences - oops, none exist. Next they imagined hormone-led developmental differences - oops, none exist. Then, hormone-led brain differences - ooops...non-explanatory and not found.
Homosexuality was removed as a psychological disorder because it is not one. Treatment programs for it failed; they were driven by cultural beliefs and not scientific information.
For you to imagine that homosexuality is a mental disorder, you have to ignore that all human cultures have homosexual behavior in them, with the majority of cultures (Ford and Beach, 1951) accepting of it as normal.
Your problem, as I've mentioned before, is that you fail to understand that your comprehension of all things sexual is a cultural construction. Western culture divides sexuality into homo and hetero - most cultures do not. In fact, that's new for Western culture, too - it began roughly 130 years ago with the rise of sexology in Germany.
But you are going to ignore history, ignore anthropology, ignore psychology to maintain your unsupported and unsupportable belief system. Why? Because you grew up that way - you were raised to value one way of doing sex against all others.
No, you're going to go on avoiding that simple evolutionary observation that homosexuality does not produce offspring.

The rest can be described as learned behavior, but as with our baboon friends, herd cohesion is absolutely essential to the survival strategy of a species that must survive on land and defend itself from predators rather than flee to the trees.

You missed my wording when I said "passive". Nobody said the bonobos were lazy. I said they weren't fighters. You're not looking at the the debate without bias. You're confused. You're not ready to defend your pack as part of the group. My observation is that your personal point of view is not shared with the majority and even though I spell it out, you'll probably go back to your mythology. With that, you're inclined to repetitive rituals, maybe even obsessive-compulsive behavior.

So you want me to read books and fence with the bonobos using fancy Latin words? Nah. Not today.

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71120 Jan 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
If homosexuality is not a medical problem, why can't a civil union be as acceptable as marriage? Sure, make the contract carry the financial equality of marriage. But that's not the goal. It MUST BE MARRIAGE!!! I'm fairly confident that the agenda will accept nothing less. We've seen it from everyone who's lined up to go through their sound bites. The goal is legal recognition of homosexuality as "normal" behavior.
Well, there's the point you fail to see. Go around in circles some more. I won't forget. Bernanke won't care. My message continues to be demonstrated to my satisfaction.
Now, watch as we witness our latest contestant demonstrate all of the annoying traits like "Gish gallops" in the name of "Gay science." We still don't have a representative of the uniquely "gay" debate tactic, the invader of privacy.
Are you going to cross that line? If you do, here's how it goes: 1. I ask you if you're a homosexual. 2. You either refuse to answer or take it over the top, but really only keep working the castration thing. 3. I dismiss your claims as prejudiced opinion. 4. You either fall back to your dubious psychic theories or engage in a collaborative effort with hidingfromyou, but still only engage in attempts to generate castration anxiety. You then strive to establish an echo chamber of "one million Elvis fans can't be wrong" mob psychology.
Nah. I've never seen this slop before.
Conclusion: It's all politics!
It's politics because you want to it to be a political issue. It's also science but you want to ignore the facts.

I don't care about gay marriage or civil unions, but they should be given a choice just like straight people. Just live them alone and focus on your own sexuality for a change.

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71121 Jan 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're going to go on avoiding that simple evolutionary observation that homosexuality does not produce offspring.
The rest can be described as learned behavior, but as with our baboon friends, herd cohesion is absolutely essential to the survival strategy of a species that must survive on land and defend itself from predators rather than flee to the trees.
You missed my wording when I said "passive". Nobody said the bonobos were lazy. I said they weren't fighters. You're not looking at the the debate without bias. You're confused. You're not ready to defend your pack as part of the group. My observation is that your personal point of view is not shared with the majority and even though I spell it out, you'll probably go back to your mythology. With that, you're inclined to repetitive rituals, maybe even obsessive-compulsive behavior.
So you want me to read books and fence with the bonobos using fancy Latin words? Nah. Not today.
LOL.

As far as I'm concerned you were the one defending the neanderthals, um yeah. Bonobos are no different.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#71122 Jan 16, 2013
anonymous, even if, no change that, when homosexual marriage is legally recognized in your state no one will force you to marry a "homo". So you can quit worrying.

Why are you so opposed to the concept?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#71123 Jan 16, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
It's politics because you want to it to be a political issue. It's also science but you want to ignore the facts.
I don't care about gay marriage or civil unions, but they should be given a choice just like straight people. Just live them alone and focus on your own sexuality for a change.
I'm quite sure that I'm not interested in the private lives of gays!

This whole debate started when imsickofit dropped in with his usual mission statement that we must put down all those NAZI Christians and save gay marriage so that civilization can move on again.

Well, I don't like that childish slop. Whether you call it childish, mentally unbalanced or just plain nasty trolling, that was a disruption of the topic. I know the stereotype so I'm hunkering down for a stream of the megaphone toting shills.

That includes gays who are all messed up inside, male hating women and hypocritically bigoted white-male haters of all types who think we're hard-wired bigots until properly castrated. Toss in upper middle class, married, White men who still have a reason to ride the gravy train and you've got the Democratic party.

It was political jihad as soon as I replied to sickofit. I knew that. There's not one scrap of this story that hasn't been acted out a million times before.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#71124 Jan 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't bother analyzing my motives. I've stated them. You choose to ignore them.
Just like you can't identify a gene for your favorite color, you can't find one that is responsible for homosexuality.....AND you aren't going to create any law about your right to a favorite color, just as there's no laws about rights to anyone's sexual preferences. It's foolish.
I'm posing a reasonable theory on the nature of homosexuality. My goal is to dismiss a claim that there's a moral mandate to protect homosexuality. You've inadvertently endorsed my logic. Your goal was probably to try to dominate the discussion by creating castration anxiety, but asserting my masculinity was not my goal.
That's what I like to call scientific discipline. Checkpoint met!:o)
Sexual attraction is driven by genetics, it's connected to the reproduction system a species utilizes to assist in genetic diversity. Are you saying that the birds which choose based on plumage are just choosing based entirely on cosmetic traits as well? Same thing.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#71125 Jan 16, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
That camp has never produced viable theory - their hypotheses are never borne out.
Meh. Like I said, it was years ago.

Is there a more current theory?

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71126 Jan 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
anonymous, even if, no change that, when homosexual marriage is legally recognized in your state no one will force you to marry a "homo". So you can quit worrying.
Why are you so opposed to the concept?
Because he thinks it's a disease and could be contagious.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Louisiana Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jimmy Swaggart Ministries Faces New Scandal (Aug '11) Aug 25 rev paul 453
News Following Lafayette theater shooting, 'Trainwre... Aug 8 Quirky 89
News Amite mayor pays $270,000 to settle Medicare ch... (Aug '08) Aug 7 Chuck Pulliam 2
News Wal-Mart Stole Jamie Lynn Spears Breast-Feeding... (Sep '08) Aug 2 diana 26
News Southeastern Louisiana University Sorority Memb... (Apr '08) Jul 30 No more AKAs 370
News Governor orders investigation of Planned Parent... Jul 30 Go Blue Forever 1
News 2016 hopefuls react to Obamacare ruling Jul '15 O Pluribus NSA 32
More from around the web