or it might mean you are moronic and have made a fallacy of composition associated with the replicators and the organisms...since homosexuality is not a hereditary trait, its wax and wane associated with the normal variation in any generation (F) is not due to selection, but rather the variation associated with any biological population, of course, of multicellular Eukaryota, specifically animals, who have genes capable of undergoing vertical transfer. After all, the percentage of homosexual organisms in a population tends to remain quite constant, the reason for this is simply that the endocrine differences associated with organisms exists for reasons of variation. The variation does not wane because it is not hereditary variation, which by definition, is the necessary process of evolution, the inhereting of variation. If it was hereditary it would be eliminated very quickly, which is where you confusion lies and the reason you should think before you post.

Physiologists and developmental biologists have established that homosexuality plays a critical part in the struggle for resources in animals. Children struggling for resources from their parents in this case. According to prenatal endocrine theory the bearing of first children underlies fundamental bioendocrinology changes in the mother's sex hormones which make it more likely that the next child will be homosexual, and so on with the next child. This gives the eldest children a leg-up in the struggle for existence. The formula derived from the theory, however, has problems since if we take it to its logical extension, the 12th male child of a single mother has a 100% chance of being homosexual due to the successive in utero alterations associated with the evo-devo mechanics that change the in utero endocrine patterns which make the next child more likely to be homosexual. The existence of such organisms, then, plays a critical role in the struggle for resources, since it gives the first children a greater advantage in gleaning resources from their parents. However, this is merely an intrinsic in uter function of animals, not a hereditary trait, so your thinking is violently false.

Or you could learn about evolutionary bio first:

• “Appears Designed Is A Contradiction in Terms”: The Fundamentals of Biological Evolution

Concrete example:  There's a famous pair of gay penguins in the Central Park Zoo (they've since broken up, but they were together for years).  A straight penguin pair had an extra egg one time, so the keepers gave the extra egg, which would have died otherwise, to the gay penguin pair.  The gay penguins adopted the egg and raised the penguin chick to maturity, thus adding a breeding female to their population who would have otherwise died.

The very fact that the population of non-straight individuals is more or less constant across populations of different animals (including humans) is evidence that it has an adaptive function in evolutionary terms. 

You have to get used to it. Do you know how many fucking idiots, vacuous, empty idiots and morons and I have to argue against? 98 percent of people I "argue" with about evolution cannot even tell me the three principles of evolution. You learn that in grade school. To those people I simply say: Don't argue. You'll end up hurting yourself, also you should hire someone to supervise you in case you undo the child lock on the gate at the top of the stairs, or something of that like".

These people make my inner misanthrope give a Sisphyean laugh. We are pushing a rock up a steel hill of religious moronicism, people who have no ability to think, who sound so sure of themselves despite not having a clue what they talk about. Ever noticed there is an inverse relationship between how sure people are and how little they know?

Worse than that... I've noticed that there's a direct correlation between people who are sure that scientists are sure of their position and people who are sure that you have to be sure to say you are right.

 Evolution, schmevolution.  What we're seeing here is the pathos of a man in leather pants trying to reconcile his theism with his alternative lifestyle.  Poor self-loather.

I amazed that the thread starter's paragraph had nothing to do with the name of the thread. Lux must think that everyone thinks the same as him. He should go read a book that isn't named the "Holy Bible". Then maybe he could actually think of dreaming about debating us with real knowledge.

Dang, Magilum.... yur purty smart.

(cough.. cough... er...)

Dude.  Very well said.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That is all. 

Firstly, the word "Darwinist" is never used in the scientific lexicon. Second of all, the word "outdated" implies...well, it rather implies something is outdated. Evolution is not an outdated theory. Every discipline of science has building blocks, principles upon which the whole discipline is based, which, if overturned, produce paradigm shifts. Currently, in chemistry, these are atomic theory, moles, and periodicity, in physics, relativistic kinematics, quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, and in biology...genetics, cell theory, and evolution. Evolutionary biology is a cutting edge discpline which recombines developmental biology, genetics, ecology, proteomics, computational biology etc.

How were we supposed to know your post was just a joke? Just say it if that was the case. There is truly no way of knowing how serious your opponent is being in this regard, since the argument you put forth I am sure has actually been used by creationists, given the level of idiocy associated with those who propogate it. Given the arrogant and self-assured tone I have come to associate with one who has studied evolution for approximately 45 seconds, there was absolutely no way for me to tell the level of seriousness expressed therein. So I read it as I would any other associated argument against evolution, that of one who has studied the subject for 45 seconds. It is better to be arrogant for knowing, than to be arrogant for being ignorant. If you didn't want the OP to be taken so seriously, just say it. But you must understand that we do get arguments like that from people who are serious, so how could we possibly have known?

The frightening reality is that public understanding of this particular scientific discipline is so appalling that it is very difficult to tell what is satire and what is not, because people do amaze by coming up with incredibly stupid arguments. If someone told me that gravity was false and we need to replace it with intelligent falling theory, and that gravity leads to moral decay in schools, because it is a secular theory, I would recognize it quickly as satire. If someone told me that evolution is not true because Hitler used it as justification for the Holocaust...there would be no way to tell whether or not they were satirizing morons or actually were morons, so you can't blame us for assuming the worst, that you were serious...

As ridiculous as the post was, I thought it was obvious, maybe only to me. I've never been that good at comedy. And I realize that "darwinist" isn't  scientific term, but it is a term used by the ID camp to describe evolutionists.

My apologies for being slow on the uptake.

I should remember to not post when the cold meds are kicking in. 

No, do you realize just how many scientists have lost their jobs or tenure because there are certain aspects of evolution that they challenged? believe it or not, there are many scientists who believe in God, and believe that there is evidence in nature of a designer.

The scientific community has a monopoly on science?  Is this another joke?

As far as I know ID is not a competing theory, its bullshit thats being forced down the throats of the U.S. public by radical religious people.

A remarkably BAD case for tenure.  And then he got the ID camp to throw mass phone calls / E-mails at the university to try and strong arm his position.

This is why atheists in general seem so abrasive when it comes to discussing religion with the religious.  You believe what you want and disregard, or do not bother to obtain the facts.  The fact that he is an educated person and believes in ID is enough, in my opinion, to deny him tenure, but they have plenty of other legitimate reasons for denying him.

But If they are trained in the method of their field of employment...they will not be foolish enough to claim this evidence is "scientific". After all, nothing would be more embarassing for a scientist than to demonstrate not knowing the scientific method... 

Here we go again...

If Creationism/ID is a competing scientific theory, what predictions does it make (future discoveries), and what applications does it have?

Two theories -- which is more likely?

1. There is a conspiracy among all the scientists in the world. It crosses all national borders, all ethnicities, all religions. 99% of the scientists in the world are in on it. They got together one day and decided that they don't want the world to know about god, so they intentionally and deliberately squelch and suppress every experiment conducted by ID scientists, despite the fact that virtually all of these ID guys live in the U.S. and have free access to the internet, where they could post their entire experiments for public viewing.

Furthermore, they somehow publicly censure all of the intellligent scientists working on ID, such that the ones who do get into the public eye can't even answer a simple question like, "What kind of experiments do ID scientists do?"

Furthermore, all the scientists in the world have managed to come up with their own theory that is not evolution, yet allows all of the biological sciences to function, despite their reliance on the predictions of evolution for the last hundred years.

Oddly, there is not a single shred of evidence for this theory.  Not a single unshredded memo.  Not a voicemail.  Not one directive from whatever massively powerful underground organization would be required to pull off such an incredible act of worldwide sedition.  The U.S. government, which has been intent on passing religiously inspired laws for the past 30 years, has made no statements about this massive conspiracy.  No secret memos from congressmen have surfaced.  Nothing.  Not a scrap of evidence of a WORLD WIDE conspiracy involving HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.

OR...

2. Prior to 9/11, there was a concerted effort between the U.S. government and several other governments, terrorist cell groups, and construction companies in the U.S. Without anybody in the whole building noticing, construction crews went in and selectively weakened the structural supports for both twin towers, despite 24 hour surveillance of the building. The surveillance companies, the night watchman, the surveillance companies and night watchmen for all neighboring buildings, several governments, and the entire FBI were in on the conspiracy. They did this so that when Saudi terrorists flew planes into the buildings, it wouldn't just blow up half the buildings -- the buildings would collapse. This whole conspiracy was concocted and executed despite the fact that the simple act of flying the planes into the buildings would be enough political justification for the subsequent U.S. led war.

 Oddly, I find it easier to believe number two, and I recognize what a bunch of hooey it is.  But, if you made me choose, two is less unlikely.   How's that for a little perspective?

I guess that's the latest strategy: Throw something out there; if it gets soundly refuted, say it was just a joke.

I think this is related to the "shifting the goalposts" fallacy. Let's call it the "I'm not sayin'...I'm just sayin'" fallacy.

    Hmm let me give you this simple answer to the abrasiveness and atheists-witch hunt as you say.  Stupid statement like yours, in a forum of atheists vs theists not in general conversation and humor, should be and must be met with the strong retorts, absolute humilation and showing you, your complete ignorance on the topic and how stupid and very very little critical thinking went into making such a moronic statement. If you do not like it, stop saying/posting stupid things and use just a little bit more critical thinking, research and knowledge, than what you have shown. Otherwise most people will respond accordingly to such stupid statements....got it? very simple to understand.

That's my mom's favorite argument. Doesn't work for her either.

When I first read this, i couldn't stop laughing. People CHOOSE to be gay. Just as i CHOOSE to go to say, McDonalds for lunch. It has nothing to do with evolution in any way as far as i see it. I belive that everyone finds someone that they get along with well. In some cases, that leads to homosexuality, but for fucks sake. Don't drag Evolution into your bullshit. Think about what your saying before you pollute our forum. Thank you.

From another forum that I visited for a while, I reference Poe's Law.  Any attempt at parody in regards to creationism, ID, or Creation Science is indistinguishable from a possible serious claim by a creationism\ID\CS supporter.

Correlaries:

1) Evolution supporters and scientist will feel the need to refute said parody out of a need to promote understanding of science.

2) Some creationist will actually rally behind said parody as the greatest new argument for their cause.

I've seen it before, and it happens again. 

You are suggesting that Homosexuality is a birth defect, or worse, a disease. When you say Homosexuality is not a choice, you are saying that people are "born" with it, and therefore, MUST adhere to the path they are born with, much like a debilitating disease, in which a person must live with it, without the choice of NOT having the debilitating disease.

 This is by far, worse. Why? Because youve just branded Homosexuals with the exact brand that they ABSOLUTELY hate to be branded with. Youve made the assumption that a choice does not exist, that they have no choice. They were born with it.

 Of course, the many homosexuals who have turned Straight, is a contradiction to your claims.

 Then what about Bisexuals? Were they born both homo and heterosexualy? Or perhaps they were born with it? Is this a pre-existing Condition? Is there a defect in their DNA structure? A disease? Virus? 

I completely agree. There is nothing wrong with a homosexual person. However, saying that the "choice" of being a homosexual or not is akin to sexual intolerance, is completely over the bounds.

And what youve written is analogous to the sort of stuff Theists on this forum use constantly: Ad hominem attacks and misconceptions. Homosexuality may be a choice, it may not. We dont have the conclusive evidence to say either way. If you knew that modern science has not found out the reason for Homosexuality, then you would also know that the debate is open. Although i am not saying that Homosexuality is definately an issue of choice, I am saying that it is completely possible that choice plays an important role in whether someone becomes a homosexual. 

I see nothing in Thomathy's reply that makes a qualitative statement about the nature of the genetic feature. By your reasoning, anything that places one in the minority of genetic quirks could be called a birth defect: left-handedness, type O blood, perfect pitch, etc. In saying that a genetic cause implies a defect necessarily, you're making a qualitative statement yourself, though I don't think you intend to. And by your reasoning, I don't see how it's less offensive to call it a choice, once you've already made the determination that it would, if genetic, be something you'd view as negative.

To say that "homosexuals have turned heterosexual" glosses over a couple important points: the degree to which they were gay in the first place, and the degree to which they are sincere in a reversal of their previous lifestyle. There are people all over the map of sexual orientation, and even gender identity, so a black and white representation is ill-suited. Because of the immense stigma on homosexuality (and bisexuality) and gender dysphoria, there is far more pressure to "turn straight" than to "choose to be gay" (with all the issues it implies in many cultures), so it can't be considered by itself.