Hero

there are a lot of theories in science. this is a silly argument. people make theories based on previous knoweledge. i know that everything occurs by a chemical equation, therefore my theory is "life is nothing more than a chemical equation that humans have yet to see and observe."

when those elements are combined with water, they simply become ionized and the bonds between the barium and hydroxide are ripped apart.

there a lot of things in science that are not observable. that doesn't mean that they dont exist, it simply means that you have opened a new area of study. be a free thinker.

That is one perspective/opinion.

 

Life has to be more than a simple chemical equation as that would mean that the equation is Non-Chaotic and is at Equilibrium.

 

Life Is Chaotic and Equilibrium is achieved with death.

hence the part where i said, "personally." how is life "chaotic?" and how do you know equilibrium is achieved by death? the equation of "Life" could just be a beginning sequence followed by other sequences or it could be using elements that humans have never seen nor understand.

just throwing the idea out there since everything in life is nothing more than a chemical equation.

Has anyone seen Saved![/u']? From what I've heard, it makes fun of conservative religion dealing with homosexuality. And it's supposed to be incredibly funny.

religious people are so funny! they get all worked up about these things. take pictures!

An organism's fitness' date=' or ability to reproduce a viable offspring(that is itself capable of reproduction) can only be considered a failure in terms of an evolutionary perspective. Not in it's physiological state!

[/quote']

well then the evolutionary perspective is what i was hitting on. no one mentioned it yet, so i did. biological failure speaks for itself...if you dont reproduce, according to evolutionary terms, you would have failed your biological purpose. not that it would bother anyone anyhow.

 

What about those animals or humans that are fully capable of reproduction(they are non-sterile or homosexual) but simply CHOOSE not to reproduce. Does that also make them a biological failure.

 

yes is does. why is that such a horrible thing to say or think?

 

Why would "love" (whatever its definition) not be seen in the animal world ?

There are species of birds that stick with the same mate all their life' date=' clearly they must be driven by something other then just the need to reproduce here i guess. [/quote']

animals dont contain the emotion "love." it either comes out of instinct or loyalty. they are good examples of love, (the examples of ducks ect you gave) but through research-it is not. i think it's a stupid argument.

 

"Homosexuals can't reproduce" is not true at all' date=' and any argument based on it is wishful thinking, particularly since reproductive success has not been an individual fitness indicator for humanity for thousands of years.[/quote']

 

such hateful words...calm down! and since when does sperm=sperm or egg=egg? of course they can Raise children, but one they are not their own, or it is not one of the two parents-and it did not occur in the natural homosexual "environment." even though fitness hasn't been an indictor for success in "thousands of years," i believe it still has a place in this argument. the argument was "is homosexuality a deffect," and certainly going off the observations in the biological and evolutionary field-one can conclude that homosexuality is indeed a genetic flaw.

Biology is supposed to be a science. then...

Which is the approved life definition "by the science"?

i was taught that life is defined (according to science at least) by genetic material. the first form of excepted life in the evolutionary process were "Prebiologicals," and they were also the first animate matter that contained genetic material. RNA.

---

personally, i believe that "life" is defined by a chemical equation that we cannot see. everything in life is carried out and exists by means of a chemical equation, so "life" is just another chemical equation which humans have yet to understand.

even more simply stated; if a creature does not reproduce, he is a biological failure. so in that sense, yes, homosexuality is a genetic deffect. it is observed in nature that the main goal in each organism is to survive and reproduce. even if an animal expresses homosexuality, they are still attempting to preform the very acts that are supposed to lead to reproduction. "love" is not a factor in the animal world (and if someone wants to argue that, that's for another time in another topic) so a reasonable deduction would be that the animal is confused. and yes, the confusion can come from abnormal amounts of hormones of the opposite gender. these are chemical deffects and are the same deffects found in humans.

People are very good in interpretting things afterwards. Take Nostradamous for example. Its very easy to twist the words he used to make it fit into history. Like the "Hitle" (I think)' date=' a river. Easy modification to create Hitler. But that doesnt mean it was right. The same thing goed for the bible .."The HOLY book". People want to believe in it because they don't know anything else or don't want to know/think. But hey who knows.... maybe I'll turn Cinderella into my goddess someday and live my life as a cleaner because.. thats how its written.

 

Finding codes in books, I think, is total nonsense.[/quote']

 

it's actually a tad bit deeper than that. i dont really think it's a smart way to spend time...but it is interesting none the less.

the people used numbering codes like the fiberacci(sp) sequence (just an example) picking out the letter that the code suggested. after doing this to entire chapters-they actually got perfectly flowing sentances telling of Hitlers killing of the jews, etc. There are books on this..i think one is called the "omega code," but i never went further.