Anonymous Participant
-
Posts
110 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Anonymous Participant
-
-
1 hour ago, Daecon said:
Is that the same as the Liberal and/or Gay agenda?
The so called LGBT+?? agenda IS indeed a moral relativistic agenda that weakens the human resistance to being dominated. It also has another obvious agenda of population control by lowering the birth rate (and increasing the mortality rate) among the target population, whites. 1 out of 5 homosexuals in the US is said to be infected with the virus that causes AIDS according to CDC studies, and sexually transmitted diseases are over 60 times as prevalent overall. 2 out of 10 transsexuals end their own lives, and now both of these groups are allowed to adopt children. Children raised in homosexual environments are something like 6 times as likley to be "gay" themselves. Who really benefits from it, that's what you need to ask yourself. As for the liberal agenda being one in the same, if the coat fits and there are no others left in the closet, it's yours, out it on. Obviously conservative means holding on to the tried and true morality of the past, and liberal challenges morality, it IS moral relativism
-1 -
33 minutes ago, iNow said:
Proof is for math, not science.
Perhaps, but what also isn't "for science" is running your mouth about so called facts that you have no evidence of and claiming you do, or deriding a critic because he says you're wrong.
33 minutes ago, iNow said:Proof is for math, not science.
I have a thought for you to ponder. Steven Hawking has allegedly came out in opposition to the concept of intelligent design, citing his doubt that any superior intelligence even notices our existence. He doesn't actually talk, he "speaks" through an electronic wheelchair that supposedly has a computer that can generate a voice from his thoughts, which are input into the device through subtle movements of his hand. he has a disease that should have killed him 2 decades ago and how convenient it is he can't actually speak IMO. This disease leads to a total lack of physical coordination, so how does mr Hawking have such an extensive vocabulary with involuntary movements that I can't even detect?
. he is one of the few noteworthy scientists in history who has openly espoused such a belief in the non-existence of a creator. Most real scientists understand it's not a venue for discussion in science.... What if it isn't really his ideas? How would you know? Have you ever examined his amazing miraculous wheelchair and heard a realistic explanation of how he interfaces with it? (me either, and I have my doubts!)
-1 -
25 minutes ago, iNow said:
So, you claim knowledge of a designer with no evidence and now you claim knowledge of what I do and do not know, as if you have access to my mind and experiences. Do you have any other skills I should know about? Are you available for party tricks?
I have SPECIFICALLY stated that I DO NOT seek to explain the nature of a creator or have nay knowledge thereof.
You ARE NOT certain how the term came into existence. I can say this with absolute certainty because I saw it being used as far back as the late 70's in conversation , Pual Harvey mentioned it on radio in the same period. it goes back to at least the 1800's:
[Snip]
https://evolutionnews.org/2014/06/on_the_origin_o_5/
Charles Darwin himself referred to “intelligent design” in a 1861 letter:
One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed; yet when I look to each individual organism, I can see no evidence of this.1
In fact, the term was in use throughout the 19th century. A search of Google books from prior to 1900 confirms this, with multiple instances.2 Here’s one from 1847 in Scientific American:
And where must we look for this fountain but to the great store-house of nature — the innumerable and diversified objects there were presented to our view give evidence of infinite skill and intelligent design in their adaptation to each other and to the nature of man.3
It is not a new concept, it is a relatively new THEORY in science, with a lot of support from respected scientists,. How it came to represent a particular theory and what that theory actually is raises debate because it has been misrepresented intentionally by organized atheist-nihilist activists intent on removing any mention of it from academia and specifically the public school system .The reference you gave of a particular example of its use by substituting it for creation in a book is not proof of it's origin. Apparently you don't understand what proof is.
Have a NICE day
What I have seen on this board thus far is a lot of bluster, and claims of knowledge but very little evidence of it. How anyone can claim they KNOW the intelligent design theory is invalid as science and look another straight in the face and claim adherence to scientific principals of investigation baffles me. I think they're just unintelligent and suffering from some sort of belief enhanced delusion.
"one ounce of independent thought is worth 2 tons of education"
What most of you do not understand is that the atheist/nihilist agenda is being promoted by people who are actually Luciferian deists themselves. You're a tool, nothing more.
Their intent is to make people more pliable to moral relativistic ideas that make their control more complete. If it were allowed to run it's course things like pedophilia and euthanasia of weak or problematic children or even extermination of entire races of people are inevitable. Many of you would never have live to adulthood under a system of moral relativism .
0 -
5 minutes ago, iNow said:
Just the originators of the idea and authors of their textbooks then?
Intelligent design has been a pervasive belief among all noteworthy scientists in the history of the intellectual discipline that is science. It was never given a label because there was no need to, there was an almost universal consensus that precluded the need for debate on the subject in science. It wasn't until the atheist agenda seized control of science and converted it into some kind of new age religion that the debate began in earnest.
I am not certain who created the specific label "intelligent design", and neither are you. NOR DOES IT MATTER. It is a succinct nomenclature regardless of who came up with it.
0 -
1 minute ago, iNow said:
Again, some creationists and coreligionists are obviously proponents of intelligent design, but not all proponents of intelligent design are creationists or coreligionists. The existence of non-scientists withing the ranks of intelligent design proponents is no different than the existence of non scientists supporting relativity.
0 -
2 minutes ago, iNow said:
What empiricism supports the existence of a creator?
Intelligent design does not in of itself define a creator, nor does it attempt to. Not where real scientists are concerned. It simply states that there is an intelligent arrangement. How it came into being is another idea entirely independent of it's supposed reality, it is not necessary to prove the existence of a "creator" to support intelligent design theory. because we cannot yet comprehend what this intelligence is does not really matter, I think if we ever did we would ourselves define God.
The existence or non existence of a "creator" are both un-falsifiable, and therefore are both non-scientific ideas. Both are unsupportable assertions based on belief, which as you should know has no place in real science. Science is supposed to take us where the evidence leads, not force us down a particular path,
Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
Definitely not. The scientific theory of intelligent design is an effort to empirically determine whether or not the apparently omnipresent design in nature acknowledged by virtually all serious scientists is indeed and intelligent design and therefore the product of an intelligent cause, or is it instead the result of an un-ordered process such as some disordered selection acting on random variations. Creationism starts with a religious belied and tries to reconcile the findings of science to a presupposed supernatural belief (not science) . Since Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and has the goal of determining what conclusions can can be drawn from that evidence, it is indeed valid science and therefore a valid scientific theory. As opposed to creationism, the theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern science can isolate whether the intelligence detected through science is somehow supernatural. Some proponents of intelligent design are creationists, but certainly not all.
Honest criticism of intelligent design by real scientists always acknowledges the difference between intelligent design and creationism, and those that don't always have a clear atheist agenda.
0 -
11 minutes ago, beecee said:
Not at all. The problem exists with your fanaticism and extreme unsupported views. Let me state it again...Evolution is as close to being a fact as anyone could wish for, with outstanding amounts of evidence that you will never invalidate.
OK, that's nice, you certainly though have an agenda and an axe to grind, for the reasons I have already stated.
1) I believe the basic premise of the theory of evolution is correct. I also also believe based on empirical facts that it's existence as a valid , likley correct theory supports intelligent design. Evolution and intelligent design are wholly compatible, but not holy compatible.
2) the only agenda I have is empiricism as a basis of scientific inquiry, absent of preconceived beliefs on religious ideas which are not falsifiable and therefore non scientific
It seems likely as we continue in this debate that eventually the proponents of the "non intelligent design presupposition" of modern science are going to reveal their agenda, and perhaps that is why it is such a censored and un-debated subject, because there is an underlying agenda controlling scientific inquiry .. There is one obvious fact in all of this, and that is to believe in intelligent design does not necessarily include a religious belief, but a presupposition that is wrong clearly does.
0 -
What is not surprising is how many so called scientists that are adamant about denying intelligent design and censoring it forcibly in science are also "moral relativists" or secular humanists who have a predisposition to moral degeneracy and opposition to long accepted social constructs of morality and ethics such as the importance of the family, the sanctity of individual human life and the adherence to concepts of right and wrong. It would seem that the underlying agenda is attacking and destroying traditional ideas of morality and ethics. As result of this agenda we now have deviant , mentally ill men sharing the restroom with little girls, little children getting sex reassignment therapy, sexual deviants adopting and raising children, and abortion for the purposes of birth control. These things are clearly wrong and harmful, but if you remove the principals of morality and ethical behavior right and wrong no longer matter, and pure evil rules
12 minutes ago, Daecon said:I have a question: If your ideas were somehow wrong, what would have to happen in order to show this and prove your ideas are wrong?
If your answer is something along the lines of "nothing", then what you're doing isn't science.
Intelligent design is probably the most falsifiable theory in science. Out of the entire body of known science facts and laws, all you have to do is demonstrate one that proves there is no intelligent design in the order of the universe. Because you cannot does not mean it isn't falsifiable, it means you can't prove it wrong.
0 -
1 minute ago, iNow said:
You didn't bother attacking the sources they cited within to the actual studies. You're off your game.
Why should I bother? What difference would it make? The point is you cannot use clearly biased "studies" as proof of Wikipedia's credibility. They are all well known to be part of the same secular humanist (atheist-nihilist) agenda, it's whats known as a "circle jerk".
0 -
2 minutes ago, iNow said:
I am LITERALLY ROTFLMFAO!
The Washington Post?Using the encyclopedia Britannica as a benchmark? There's no secular humanist agenda there, is there?
Wow, I can't believe how ignorant some people can seem when they try to support nonsensical ideas.
-2 -
12 minutes ago, iNow said:
Specifically:
Isn't that the big bang theory?
LMAO!
12 minutes ago, iNow said:Specifically:
That is such a great example of empirical proof....I'm CONVINCED NOW!
not
0 -
1 minute ago, DeoxyRiboRobert said:
Mutations can be beneficial to the environment and numerous examples are available online. For example, here's probably the best example of a mutation causing a benefit in Phenotype allowing for better survivability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
In the event you aren't totally interested in reading a wikipedia article for an hour to understand what's trying to state I'll abbreviate it as best I can: There was an area wherein there was lots of Lichen (Green-moss looking thing) and lots of photosynthetic (therefore green) trees. This environment was primarily green, therefore moths as close to the green colour of trees and lichen had the best ability to survive, and therefore went on to reproduce and survive. However, this changed when rapid industrialisation appeared causing the Lichen and other photosynthetic plants to die from the pollution. Therefore there's no longer this green environment for the moth to camo itself with. Through mutations a black variation of this previously grey-green moth was produced and it had a vastly superior chance of surviving in an environment where (due to pollution) things were black.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria - Nylonase production is a result of a bacterial cell which allowed bacteria to effectively live in a pond near a factory that used nylon in it's product. This is a form of a beneficial mutation.
Or here's one on an London underground mosquito http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160323-the-unique-mosquito-that-lives-in-the-london-underground
The problem with your treatise is that there is no real evidence that an actual mutation occurred, and that the moths DNA didn't already include the traits in a recessive state for the black variation. It is much more likely that like the domestic swine example, the DNA adaptation is an intelligent response to environmental factors that is already present in the existing DNA. The "Wikipedia" article DOES NOT prove a beneficial mutation occurred, it doesn't prove a mutation occurred. ALos, if I were you I would not use Wikipedia as a source for evidence or proof, since it is a user edited source with dubious credibility. Basically anyone can post anything they want to it and if someone doesn't call them on it it stays.
0 -
I asked a question with this thread. I didn't make an assertion. I provided anecdotal evidence that perhaps at least with some people who believe they understand the scientific method and what science is are actually driven by religious faith based ideas that limit their ability to consider possibilities that conflict with their BELIEFS. There is no need to consider the existence of a personal God to entertain the possibility of intelligent design, and there is nothing inherently superstitious about such a belief.
1 minute ago, studiot said:I have it!
There are (or used to be) certain radio /TV call-in shows where the presenters made a specific point of insullting or brow-beating the callers.
The OP has escaped from radio GAGA where he was trained in these arts.
Who is brow beating who? Do you know what the psychological phenomenon called "projection" is?
10 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:It is unlikely that mutations are the driving force behind evolution, since no random mutation has ever been shown to result in a beneficial quality that makes an organism more fit to it's enviroment. It is more likely that evolution is an intelligent response built into DNA that allows for adaptations. Take for example the domesticated swine, released into the wild within 2 generations it has reverted to the wild state, with tusks and hairy body. It's built into the DNA to be able to adapt.
0 -
1 minute ago, DeoxyRiboRobert said:
You do realise I'm talking about massive amounts of natural selection compiled with mutations causing evolution to the extent of chimp-like creature (E,g common ancestor between humans and apes) not just simply "he who survives breeds" logic that you're pointing out.
It is unlikely that mutations are the driving force behind evolution, since no mutation has ever been shown to result in a beneficial quality that makes an organism more fit to it's enviroment. It is more likely that evolution is an intelligent response built into DNA that allows for adaptations. Take for example the domesticated swine, released into the wild within 2 generations it has reverted to the wild state, with tusks and hairy body. It's built into the DNA to be able to adapt.
0 -
2 minutes ago, beecee said:
Evolution is a fact. The methodology of how life first arose is not yet known, but evidence does support that the contents that we are made of are simply created in the belly of stars. Life? Abiogenisis although not yet evidenced seems quite likely. Chemical reaction my friend.
You have a reading comprehension problem.
14 minutes ago, DeoxyRiboRobert said:I think that the vast majority of confusion around whether Science is or isn't a religion stems entirely from the lack of scientific literacy in modern society and the inability for people to either access or understand scientific studies or receive an education within science. It's incredibly obvious to people like myself that science is clearly not a religion, it's a form of deriving the truth wherein we use the scientific method to differentiate the aforementioned truth from falsehoods.
So when we take a look at things like Evolution, they can sound completely crazy and wild to people who lack a fundamentally basic understanding of animal Biology. For us, the concept of amino acids being deleted, inserted or replaced causing in changes to an organism's genetic makeup to then put it into the filter of natural selection for millions of years resulting in us eventually, is quite understandable. Whereas to someone who doesn't understand this process, it can sound magical and almost religious.
This also applies to other methods of science but I don't particularly have the knowledge to comment on them. In essence I would recommend people to try and read through scientific literature without any biases and i think they'll understand how far science is from any kind of religion.1 minute ago, beecee said:I'm stating accepted scientific evidence that can easily be found on any reputable link. You have SFA, other then your desire to convert us evil Atheists.
I have no desire to convert you, I just want to see your religious convictions and beliefs removed from science as a limitation, because it has no place in it.
0 -
1 minute ago, DeoxyRiboRobert said:
The last time I checked, DNA is far from evidence for intelligent design. All it takes is for a bacterial cell to form once in the millions of galaxies in our solar system for there to be the possibility of evolution to cause them to form complicated life forms after a few million years.
By the way, I'd like to share this letter to you from Albert Einstein on the subject of god, he wasn't quite as "Pro-intelligent design" as you seem to be suggesting.
The scientists you quote are clearly not referencing the same kind of intelligent design I think that you are. Most of them viewed God as just simply, the natural laws of the universe and by that extent, the universe itself.
You might need to read my words a little more carefully, while ignoring the claims made about what i said. I believe essentially the identical same thing that Albert did. I believe intelligence is inherent in the arrangement of the universe, period. I do not believe in any classical rendition of a personal God, I believe that such belief is mainly based on fear of death and an inability to deal with that eventuality..
0 -
1 minute ago, beecee said:
Scientific theories do not deal in proof, for the second time, and so far scientific theory has explained the evolution of spacetime the universe from t+10-43 seconds, and has reasonable speculation as to how the universe arose from nothing.
Now please support your claims...
I see. i have to show evidence and proof and you do not. That's religion
0 -
Just now, beecee said:
You have not supplied one iota of scientific evidence to be refuted, other then the usual hand waving and empty rhetoric, no matter how often you chose to deny that fact. Perhaps since tomorrow is Sunday, you may be believed and accepted in your local church.
DNA and Evolution, lets start with those. When you prove you can't refute it I will move on to more examples. thus far you've only denied I presented proof. It is impossible to deny information is intelligence and DNA preserves and transmits and allows an organism to construct itself accordingly. There is no doubt that evolution is an INTELLIGENT response to environmental factors through modification of that DNA.
There is no need to believe in a "God" (or disbelieve in one) to see that.
0 -
1 minute ago, beecee said:
Any ID is unscientific and of course any scientific theory does not deal in "proof"' as god botherers are always apt to demand. And your useless, crusade continues.
Why? Show me proof intelligent design is unscientific. Be specific.
0 -
2 minutes ago, DeoxyRiboRobert said:
I think that the vast majority of confusion around whether Science is or isn't a religion stems entirely from the lack of scientific literacy in modern society and the inability for people to either access or understand scientific studies or receive an education within science. It's incredibly obvious to people like myself that science is clearly not a religion, it's a form of deriving the truth wherein we use the scientific method to differentiate the aforementioned truth from falsehoods.
So when we take a look at things like Evolution, they can sound completely crazy and wild to people who lack a fundamentally basic understanding of animal Biology. For us, the concept of amino acids being deleted, inserted or replaced causing in changes to an organism's genetic makeup to then put it into the filter of natural selection for millions of years resulting in us eventually, is quite understandable. Whereas to someone who doesn't understand this process, it can sound magical and almost religious.
This also applies to other methods of science but I don't particularly have the knowledge to comment on them. In essence I would recommend people to try and read through scientific literature without any biases and i think they'll understand how far science is from any kind of religion.There is nothing supernatural about "natural selection", anyone who has lived in different neighborhoods can attest that survival of the fittest is a reality,
LMAO!
0 -
Just now, Phi for All said:
To be clear, locking threads because they break the rules we've developed over the last 15 years isn't censorship. Unless someone's being unnecessarily foul, we usually lock threads because of what people aren't saying.
In this case, it was because "just look around you" is not the kind of reply we want when we ask for evidence.
So why was the specific evidence I referenced removed from those locked threads? Isn't that blatant censorship?
If you deny DNA and evolution are both evidence of intelligent design YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST, you are coreligionist atheist. DNA is information and it is information that is used to construct something through intelligent interpretation of that information
0 -
I would like to take this opportunity to state categorically that none of the evidence I have presented supporting intelligent design has been refuted, No attempt has been made to do so, just the same old worn out tactic of denial
0 -
4 minutes ago, beecee said:
What you erroneously assert, actually defies what is logically defined as religion or science.
Any God, and/or existence of some organized consciousness, (which are inherently and logically the same thing) or any belief in the supernatural, is unscientific by definition. The scientific methodology prevails because it is the best system we have, and relies on empirical evidence and data.
Supernatural or paranormal beliefs are by definition unscientific and cannot be showed to be valid, one way or the other.
No, that's a total furphy, and simply evidence of the evangelistic approach that IDers and other god botherers push quite hypocritically as in essence, it applies to themselves. Obviously the impetus behind these evangelistic hypocritical crusades, stems from the fact that science has driven the myth of any creator, deity or ID, into near oblivion, based on empirical evidence.
ID is not any theory to do with science period. It is a non scientific scenario by definition and is logically precluded at least up to t+10-43 seconds, and at best remains ssspeculative beyond that...but a QGT may even remove that faint distant hope in the future.
So, now you are playing the victim card? This is afterall, first and foremost a science forum where the scientific methodology, logically takes pride of place. Your censorship was attributed to you ignoring that fact.
The belief in intelligent design is not inherently supernatural or a belief in a "God". The existence of an intelligent arrangement is not necessarily supernatural, show your proof that it is.
Intelligent design is a valid theory because it has evidence to support it that does not rely on the belief or non belief in a God
Precluding it from being science on that basis is unscientific, and your religious agenda is self evident.
0 -
7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:
It's natural vs supernatural. Science isn't saying "no" to the supernatural, it's saying "Hey, not the right tool for the job." No religious beliefs needed, so science is not morphing into a new religion.
What's morping is your definition of both science and religion. One is becoming so broad its meaningless, and the other is purposely narrow to drive your agenda in asking the question.
You generalize and assume far too much, and many things that have been corrected by others yet ignored by you. Your arguments suffer from this.
You'll probably have to leave soon since you can't seem to understand that we don't allow people to make assertions with no support the way you do. It's against our rules, because it's a really, really stupid way to discuss science. You don't get to claim things here without support, and you don't understand what support in science means, so you keep shitting on our forum and screaming when we try to clean it up. You are NOT worth the trouble you cause, and your ideas are baseless until you can support them rationally.
What is stopping you from backing up your ideas with more than wavy hands and screaming?
There is ABSOLUTELY nothing inherently "supernatural" about intelligent design theory. That ssupposition is false and relies on faulty reasoning and logic. An intelligence inherent in the design of the universe can be empirically studied and supported with volumes of evidence, IT IS SCIENCE in it's purest form.
What assertions have I made without proof? Specifically? When have I actually been corrected? Be specific and show your evidence that I was indeed corrected.
What is stopping you from backing your ideas without censorship, hand waving and screaming over me?
Why can't intelligent design be rationally discussed in this forum and the evidence of it supported without emotional irrational responses? Because it is actually an atheist pseudoscience forum? Because what you believe is a religion and I am "crapping on it"?
What you are doing is no different than any other religious fanatic, supporting your BELIEFS with forced conformity
0
Has Science Morphed Into A New Religion Unto Itself?
in Religion
Posted · Edited by Anonymous Participant
Actually my goal is to force you the realization that what you think is science is in fact a new religion, and I abhor religious restraints being placed upon intellectual disciplines like science. We don't approach science with any preconceived notions about what we expect to find and staying within those parameters, and we don't exclude theories or hypothesis because they challenge our own religious beliefs, in your case atheism.
I asked a question to induce thought and debate on the subject, and the result has been exposure of the fact that at least some people who call themselves scientifically literate are approaching the discipline within the context of a religious belief. The two are not compatible.
Science has not led us to the conclusion that the universe is a random happenstance, an agenda within it be portrayed as science has attempted to place that crown of thorns on the head of science.
. The ideas that espouse this belief are much more laughable and childish than the genesis version of creation, which I find to be nothign more than a reasonable child's fairy tale personally. The idea that the universe just sprang forth from nothing and created itself is not an adult, intelligent view, it is a pseudo intellectual view, as is abiogenisis.
As scientists we approach ideas with probability based on evidence, and generally the simplest explainations are considered the more acceptable ones according to occams razor.
The probability of abiogenesis resulting in the double helix DNA code through random happenstance has been calculated by credible biochemists to be something on the order of 1x10^-150. It's a theory without any empirical evidence, a non theory, as is the BB. There is no real explanation how life came into existence, the theory that it sprang forth from rocks is the origin of the abiogenisis belief. Another idea that I was exposed to in the public schools through required reading was the idea that lightning struck a mud puddle filled with organic compounds (Frankenstein?) and life sprang forth. No explanation, just a stab in the dark really, it isn't a theory.
Big Bang evidence discarded
It has just recently been admitted by NASA that the so called background radiation of the BB predicted by the BB theory detected by research satellites turned out to be coming from cosmic dust:.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/01/curtain-falls-controversial-big-bang-result
As predictably as the heroine's death in an opera, the biggest claim in cosmology in years has finally officially unraveled. Last March, cosmologists working with a specialized telescope at the South Pole called BICEP2 claimed direct evidence that in the first fraction of a second after the big bang, the universe underwent a bizarre exponential growth spurt called inflation. The signs came in their study of the big bang’s afterglow, the cosmic microwave background (CMB). But now, in a joint analysis with cosmologists working with the European Space Agency's (ESA's) Planck spacecraft, BICEP researchers take back that claim and report no such signs of inflation, according to a press release issued by ESA.
Like Mimi in Giacomo Puccini's opera La Bohème, the BICEP claim seemed doomed from early in the drama. "I would have been surprised if it had turned out otherwise," says Suzanne Staggs, an observational cosmologist at Princeton University. In September, the Planck team released data that suggested the BICEP signal was largely, if not entirely, an artifact of dust in our galaxy, which emits microwaves of its own.
That is just an overpowering retort, you have me convinced!!
WTF are you even babbling about anyway?
Let me guess, you're "gay" as well as atheist? SO you DO have an agenda driven preconceived notion to bring to science, don't you? No need for morality or right and wrong if there is no purpose to our existence, is there? See where I'm coming from? I KNOW where you are coming from, your beliefs in science conform to your dealing with your own unnatural and what most consider deviant sexual habits and justifying them to others within the context of moral relativism
. look, I don't care who you "do it" with as long as it is a consenting adult and you don't promote it to impressionable children using deceptive brainwashing tactics, keep sex behind closed doors where it belongs and not marching in the streets shoving it down peoples throats.
Have you ever noticed a "gya pride" parade is always replete with objects, symbols and themes designed to be extremely attractive to children? unicorns, rainbows, and balloons may create a false image of what being "gay" really is in a child's impressionable mind, don't you think? How many kids do you think they would attract with the truth, a high incidence of violence, anal incontinence and disease FI?
AN AMORAL AGENDA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REAL SCIENCE
Why can't you just say it , you're a HOMOSEXUAL, you prefer sex with other men. Let the kids hear the truth and decide if they like it. Most children are instinctively repulsed and disgusted by the idea. they have to be tricked into accepting it, or in many cases FORCED. We are told by activists that homosexuality in nature is normal but I've never once seen a single youtube video of one animal "cornholing" another it just doesn't happen because animals act on natural instincts. A human being LEARNS this behavior, he's not born wanting to do it.
If it had, it would be on youtube (lmao!). There IS a video of a chimp forcing a toad to engage in oral sex, BTW, but no cornholing in the natural world, because it isn't natural.
I see every day kids being brainwashed to believe a "gay" person is just someone who loves people of the same sex.
BULLCRAP.
A homosexual is someone who engages in sexual relations with people of the same sex, all kids love people of the same sex one would hope, don't you think (or know) that is intentionally confusing them? Doesn't it open the door to pederasts in the minds of kids? Why is NAMBLA linked to the homosexual activist movement intrinsically, from the very beginning?
Look, we both know there are two conflicting ideas here, one of us believes there is a purpose to our existence, and one of us believes there isn't. We both have our reasons for believing or wanting to believe that...BUT, neither of those BELIEFS has any place in science. We let the chips fall where they may, science isn't a predetermined destination we are traveling to, it is a journey filled with wonder, not knowing whee it will lead!