Born Gay? Legit or not.

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
PtldPlatypus said:
Sure--if you operate under the assumption that macro-evolution is factual, and you operate under the assumption that the miniscule sample size provided by recorded history, observable nature, and explored strata provides a comprehensive look at the panoply of life on earth, then sure, you can infer that.

Or, you could operate under the notion that those assumptions are uncertain, and then the conclusion becomes uncertain as well. I prefer the "agnostic" approach on this one.
Click to expand...

I'm right there with you on that one. Creationism as well, although I do find evolution much more likely than the Adam and Eve stuff, which is completely unbelievable for those of us without faith.
 
PapaG said:
I don't think Minstrel understands that the "Theory of Evolution" is actually still a work-in-progress, and that new theories are either added to it to help explain things, or dropped from it (origin of life apparently no longer is a part of it ... didn't know that one ;) ) in order to continue to explain it.

Does evolution exist? IMO, clearly it does at some level. Are there massive holes in the theory? Of course, which is why scientists continue to research it.

Saying the 'science is settled' is base-level stuff, though.

I
Click to expand...

Yep and there is no question that the possibility of evolution could be factual. But thinking that evolution is "settled" is like saying the Blazers have won 20 titles in the last 30+ years.
 
PapaG said:
I'm right there with you on that one. Creationism as well, although I do find evolution much more likely than the Adam and Eve stuff, which is completely unbelievable for those of us without faith.
Click to expand...

That's a decent approach, IMO. I can seriously respect that way of thinking. What I can't except are people that are so close minded that they refuse to listen to the other side. We have that on both ends of the spectrum.
 
Minstrel said:
It doesn't. Evolution isn't a theory of where life came from, it's about the origin of species, not life.
Click to expand...

The two go hand in hand. All life had to derive from some sort of living organism. If you can't explain where that organism came from, the entire theory comes into question.



I agree that accepting any scientific theory unquestioned is a mistake, which is why I've said several times that there's nothing wrong with legitimate challenges to evolution. Asking questions that aren't considered problems with the theory within the scientific community isn't really a "legitimate challenge."
Click to expand...

Curious as to when you started speaking for the "scientific community". Not being able to answer something, and ignoring it as a part of the theory, doesn't seem very scientific to me.

You do understand that there are many components, hypotheses, and tangential theories comprising the so-called "Theory of Evolution" that you seem to be stuck on, right?
 
Minstrel said:
I agree that accepting any scientific theory unquestioned is a mistake, which is why I've said several times that there's nothing wrong with legitimate challenges to evolution. Asking questions that aren't considered problems with the theory within the scientific community isn't really a "legitimate challenge."
Click to expand...

But this is where I disagree with you. Just because the scientific community agrees that the theory is sound doesn't make that theory sound. If you don't have observable evidence to prove a theory is sound; then you are just making an educated guess.

Maybe evolution really isn't a theory. Maybe it's just an agreement of many educated people. Until we have recorded documentation that genetic mutations occur and species can macroly evolve; then you can make claims that "evolution is settled" or specific parts of evolutional theory is settled. So far, that isn;t the case in modern science.
 
Let's not leave any theory unchallenged! Once again, bask in the warm glow of Intelligent Falling, wherein you are gently pressed to the surface of the earth by His loving hand.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/

jbmus.jpg
 
PapaG said:
The two go hand in hand. All life had to derive from some sort of living organism. If you can't explain where that organism came from, the entire theory comes into question.
Click to expand...

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Sure--if you operate under the assumption that macro-evolution is incontrovertible, and you operate under the assumption that the miniscule sample size provided by recorded history, observable nature, and explored strata provides a comprehensive look at the panoply of life on earth, then sure, you can infer that.

Or, you could operate under the notion that those assumptions are uncertain, and then the conclusion becomes uncertain as well. I prefer the "agnostic" approach on this one.
Click to expand...


if you want take a theory that is supported by mountains of evidence from all aspects of the natural sciences and accepted almost unanimously by the world's entire scientific community, reaching a level of consensus shared by nothing that has ever been proven wrong, and call it an assumption, then you might as well be agnostic about the earth revolving around the sun. there is no intellectually valid agnostic position on common descent, or on the vast majority of species that have ever lived now being extinct. we can just as easily and safely deduce the truth of these things from the evidence available as we can anything else in science.

the exact percentage of extinct species doesn't really have relevance to what the point was, anyway. the contention was that if natural selection were true we would expect to see numerous species failing and going extinct. obviously we DO see no less than hundreds of thousands of species going extinct, both currently and in the fossil record.
 
crowTrobot said:
if you want take a theory that is supported by mountains of evidence from all aspects of the natural sciences and accepted almost unanimously by the world's entire scientific community, reaching a level of consensus shared by nothing that has ever been proven wrong, and call it an assumption, then you might as well be agnostic about the earth revolving around the sun. there is no intellectually valid agnostic position on common descent, or on the vast majority of species that have ever lived now being extinct. we can just as easily and safely deduce the truth of these things from the evidence available as we can anything else in science.

the exact percentage of extinct species doesn't really have relevance to what the point was, anyway. the contention was that if natural selection were true we would expect to see numerous species failing and going extinct. obviously we DO see no less than hundreds of thousands of species going extinct, both currently and in the fossil record.
Click to expand...

Tell me more about this "revolving around the sun" theory... Are you considering all possibilities there? Have you considered Intelligent Revolution?
 
crowTrobot said:
iwe can just as easily and safely deduce the truth of these things from the evidence available as we can anything else in science.
.
Click to expand...

That's so far from the truth, I don't even know where to begin. Since you seem to actually believe that pile of bullshit, I won't even try, though.

I will say that the earth revolving around the sun has been observed, though. There is no need to be agnostic about it.

I mean, were you trying to be funny when you wrote your post?

You're just really, really bad at science.
 
crowTrobot said:
there is no intellectually valid agnostic position on common descent, or on the vast majority of species that have ever lived now being extinct.
Click to expand...

See, statements such as these demonstrate to me the pointlessness of continuing this conversation. The closed-mindedness is astounding and frustrating.
 
PapaG said:
You're just really, really bad at science.
Click to expand...

As long as we're calling scientific credentials into question, can we get your CV, PapaG? In what field did you get your degrees? Are you published?
 
PapaG said:
The two go hand in hand. All life had to derive from some sort of living organism. If you can't explain where that organism came from, the entire theory comes into question.
Click to expand...

Why would it? We know life came into existence, because life exists now. All evolution talks about is how life divided into species. How life came to exist in the first place isn't what evolution attempts to explain.

Not being able to answer something, and ignoring it as a part of the theory, doesn't seem very scientific to me.
Click to expand...

Einstein's theory of gravity doesn't explain how life came into existence either. The reason is because that's not what the theory is about. Requiring a theory to explain things that it doesn't regard is an odd requirement to have.
 
TripTango said:
As long as we're calling scientific credentials into question, can we get your CV, PapaG? In what field did you get your degrees? Are you published?
Click to expand...

I have a B.S. for my ungrad. Still, it doesn't even take that to know the difference between an evolving theory of evolution compared to observed science that is based on know facts (such as orbiting, and how it relates to gravity).

What's your CV, other than making snarky comments in this thread w/out offering any substance?
 
Minstrel said:
Einstein's theory of gravity doesn't explain how life came into existence either. The reason is because that's not what the theory is about. Requiring a theory to explain things that it doesn't regard is an odd requirement to have.
Click to expand...

I'll assume you're being willfully obtuse at this point. Later.
 
magnifier661 said:
But this is where I disagree with you. Just because the scientific community agrees that the theory is sound doesn't make that theory sound.
Click to expand...

No, just because there's consensus doesn't mean it is sound. But then, where do we draw the line at what constitutes a real criticism? Find any scientific principle and I can "create" a question about it, if standards of adhering to measured science aren't necessary. That isn't hard. What I was saying is that the people who understand the theory best don't believe that transitory systems ("half an eye," "half a respiratory system") are unexplained by evolution.

Maybe evolution really isn't a theory.
Click to expand...

It really is a theory, in that it has met the standards of evidence and predictive power of a theory. If you mean that maybe it isn't true, that's within the realm if possibility. All of science is a model of what we've observed and measured. Better models replace worse models. Until a superior model is developed, evolution will be the accepted one. If a superior model is developed, evolution (or whatever parts of evolution that the new model replaces) will be discarded.
 
Last edited:
PapaG said:
That's so far from the truth, I don't even know where to begin. Since you seem to actually believe that pile of bullshit, I won't even try, though.

I will say that the earth revolving around the sun has been observed, though. There is no need to be agnostic about it.

I mean, were you trying to be funny when you wrote your post?

You're just really, really bad at science.
Click to expand...



evolution has been observed. there's no need to be agnostic about it.
 
PapaG said:
I have a B.S. for my ungrad. Still, it doesn't even take that to know the difference between an evolving theory of evolution compared to observed science that is based on know facts (such as orbiting, and how it relates to gravity).

What's your CV, other than making snarky comments in this thread w/out offering any substance?
Click to expand...

BS and MS in physics, current PhD candidate. Published twice so far, once as first author. Multiple presentations at major scientific conferences around the country. Also, (for what it's worth) MANY posts of substance in the various other science-related threads on this very OT forum.

I've got nothing but respect for your basketball takes, but it doesn't seem like you are in a position to call someone else "bad at science".
 
SlyPokerDog knows less about science than a 10th grader yet tries to act like he knows the most on this board. The ignorance of the religious knows no bounds.

Also PapaG is the greatest scientist to ever live, whatever he questions cannot be answered

You're all ridiculous
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PtldPlatypus said:
See, statements such as these demonstrate to me the pointlessness of continuing this conversation. The closed-mindedness is astounding and frustrating.
Click to expand...

i'm stating facts. the level of evidence and scientific consensus for common descent and majority of species being extinct is equal to that for the earth revolving around the sun. the former involves no more assumption on the part of scientists than the latter.

unless you buy into creationist propaganda misrepresenting the situation, which you arleady cut and pasted from.
 
PapaG said:
The problem is that the "gay gene" is anti-evolution, at least in terms of natural selection and advancement of a species via procreation. That's the dirty secret that nobody wants to bring up. Mankind has overcome that problem with science, though, meaning that a genetic anomaly can flourish. I suppose it could be argued that this science is a part of the evolutionary process, though, and could even be extended to the animal world, where man could artificially impregnate gay animals to keep a genetic variance alive.
Click to expand...

Man, go from denying that being gay is natural, to saying being gay is against natural selection, to denying that natural selection exists!

This whole thread is bogus. I mean, a person may seriously wonder how being born gay squares with natural selection. A serious person might ....

Go to a library or bookstore and read up on evolution of human sexuality and sexual variation in the animal world;
Contact a professor of evolutionary biology and ask for his/her views and a suggested reading list for lay persons;
Go online to any of the very good science blogs run by actual scientists, which include many on evolutionary biology, and pose the question.

A serious person does NOT go to a sports board full of self-proclaimed homophobes and science denier and say "gee, being gay can't be natural because in my totally inexpert opinion based on no facts that would contradict natural seletion which in my inexpert opinion never happened anywhere". A person who does that is just looking for validation for homophobia. You know "I'm not a bigot, it's just that I proved being gay is unnatural by posting on a sports board".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top