Moontanman

Trike, I was composing a response, but now I'll simply ask you:

 

What are your definitions of heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual?

ewmon, I happen to have a very close relationship with a homosexual man, he is my son, homosexuality is not a mental illness, it is not an on-off, black-white, right-wrong thing either. Early sexual awareness has nothing to do with homosexuality, and all people are capable of responding sexually to any other person, it's the desire to have sex with someone of the same sex that makes you homosexual not an inability to have sex with someone of the opposite sex.

You can have sex with and respond sexually to anyone, humans are highly sexual beings, some are repressed in some way by society or religion but wanting to have sex with someone is far more important than being able to. If suddenly by some unknown means every human on the planet suddenly became homosexual the human race would go on but the reality is that human sexuality is not an on off switch it is a rheostat, a very few are almost completely homosexual or heterosexual but by far most are some where in between.

Ok, good point, I'll start a new thread, I love speculations, they are so .... speculative

I think science can answer moral questions but like the morals of differing societies morals based in science might indeed not satisfy the moral expectations of everyone.

At one time traveling to the moon was science fiction, huge volumes of material could have been quoted proving such a thing was totally impossible.

Time travel is highly improbable but when it comes down to actually claiming something is imposable I shy away from that absolute...

I know I'm right, just wait till they come , then you'll be sorry!I know I'm right, just wait till they come , then you'll be sorry!I know I'm right, just wait till they come , then you'll be sorry!I know I'm right, just wait till they come , then you'll be sorry!

The ambulance slowly pulls away....

Don't worry, he won't eat my brain, I think his holy book tells him not to eat people (apparently God gave us plants and animals for food, not people for food. We can stone people, crucify them, burn the at the stake, and enforce our will upon them through violence, take people as slaves, and destroy entire civilizations, but eating them is a no no ) All jokes aside, I know how to counter and explain some of the common "Irreducible Complexity" arguments, like the ones dealing with the eye and bacterial flagellum, but I haven't heard this one before (about kinesin), don't know much about it, and can't find any information on the evolution of kinesin with a google search (it's tough to find...) I have debunked most of his supposed "evidence" against evolution in some detail, but this one particular thing is causing me trouble because I cannot find specific information about it's evolution. He, being the YEC that he is, takes my lack of knowledge on that subject as some supreme victory, even though I destroyed all of his other misconceptions about evolution lol. But yeah... information on the evolution of kinesin is tough to find, thats one of the only things I haven't been able to go into detail with him on. It's so difficult to talk to YEC's... they are so biased...

Sadly even if you could provide irrefutable evidence to the contrary he would simply come up with something else or refuse to believe your evidence. Not being able to explain how something evolved is not evidence it had to be created, it's just evidence we have figured it out yet. YECs seize on any area that is not well defined and use it to further their own agenda.

Arguing with YECs is always a loosing proposition simply because they do not care about the truth only the DOGMA.

They ignore the many cases of irrefutable evidence that shows them to be wrong and concentrate on the few places where science is still advancing but hasn't quite solved the issue.

Mr. Skeptic, I am havign problems with the videos, I can't run thm so I don't know if any of what is offered is worth watching.

This one might be interesting...

http://www.searchforvideo.com/watchclip/?id=3847531

Hello, a friend of mine (a Young Earth Creationist:doh:) is trying to convert me and tell me that motor proteins are irreducibly complex, and I don't know enough about it to refute him (I am not really much of a science guy.) He says that the kinesins move along microtubule cables, and that it couldn't have come about by evolution. Can someone explain to me how this thing evolved so I can shut him up? He keeps insisting that since I cannot explain this, that evolution is my religion, and I am getting tired of it. Thanks.

Run right now, go to the most secure place you can find, if he catches you he will eat your brain, seriously dude google is great source of information on the subject and avoid creationist sites, they care not for reality. BTW irreducible complexity is not true for any part of or process in biology. Irreducible Complexity is a logical fallacy used by creationists to muddy the water when they don't want you to see the truth.

Also, exactly what you mean by an arrogant fundamental Christian is unclear to me. It could be related to my "severe lack of comprehension"

 

Many images do come to mind though including 700 Clubbers, the Charles Stanleys, the Jimmy Swaggerts, the John Hagees, the TD Jakes of the world.... the Popes/Cardinals/Bishops/Priests, Evangelicals, Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, the Holy Rollers, Tea Bagers who happen to be Christian, .... or all "Christians" besides those who happen to be professors or students at ivy league schools of divinity and/or psycho babbling non-denominational, new age Christians that are afraid to offend anyone.....

 

Is it one of these arrogant scoundrels?

If so which?

You have a pretty good list going already! I know all Christians are not arrogant scoundrels but your list is hard to argue with for the most part.

Children are sexual beings. It is a well-known fact -- and mainstream American society readily accepts -- that little children explore their bodies and those of other children, and they might even masturbate. But, any behavior at any age is not okay. Kindergarteners having sex is not okay.

Why are you fixated on kindergärtners? i said all through my childhood.

Let's hope China doesn't feel the same about the US.

 

 

So, what to do when too big to fail finally does? Get to work.

WOW sounds like where I used to work,

Ok, I'm familiar with that concept, i feel that life has evolved to fit the universe instead of the universe being fine tuned for life. Another set of constants might allow for types of life we can't imagine.

Alright, if we HAVE to play this game...

 

'They' are escaped Atlanteans...

Yup make believe is lots of fun....

Merged post follows:

Believe it or not i have heard the "they" come from under the ocean theories too.

Honestly if they live under the ocean it's highly unlikely they evolved there so we are still left with the original questions.

"They" almost certainly have to come from

#1 Another star system, at least originally

#2 A past civilization that colonized the solar system but died out completely on the earth, Intelligent dinosaurs anyone?

#3 time travelers.

#4 alternate worlds or dimensions

Has there actually been calculations done, or is fine tuning all baseless speculation?

Um, fine tuning what ydoaPs?

In some parts of South America coca leaves are used as a chew!

I have a deep and abiding sympathy and concern for everyone's life, and the inherent need for people to live their lives honestly. However, here’s my scientific two cents’ worth … IMO ...

I'll give mine as well.

Procreation. Homosexuality and heterosexuality differ in that homosexuals cannot be created homosexually nor can they procreate homosexually. For all the reasons to engage in sexual activity, homosexuality parallels heterosexuality except for procreation. In this sense, homosexuals and homosexuality are literally offshoots of heterosexuals and heterosexuality and depend upon them, but not vice versa.

Believe it or not homosexuals can indeed have sex with the opposite sex so this ignores reality completely.

Gender ratio. Scientifically, humans conceive roughly 130 to 150 males per 100 females conceived. During the fetal stage, many more males are lost to spontaneous abortions than females (males are apparently more difficult to “make” than females). This results in about 105 males born per 100 females. Due to disease and accident, by the time they reach procreative age, there are very close to 100 breeding males per 100 breeding females. This is naturally logical apparently for equal access to procreation and/or adult companionship. If nature/evolution intended for the existence of homosexuality, it would need to affect both genders equally, otherwise it would disturb the apparent purpose of equal access (for example, resulting in 90 breeding males per 95 breeding females, etc). Statistics (even those conducted by pro-gay groups) show that homosexuality does not affect both genders equally. However, the inequality of more gay men than lesbian women would coincide with the theory that the male population has a larger sigma (ie, more are mentally gifted and more are mentally challenged) than females. I do believe that biological causes exist for homosexuality, but I don't know that they necessarily make homosexuality normal or acceptable.

Do you have access to these statistics? I want to believe you but I'd like to see something other than your assertions.

Five years old. To me, this shows a significant variation with at least some homosexuals who have claimed that they knew they were gay when they were about five years old. I was a kid once (really!), and I clearly remember being five years old and younger. Back then, I knew that boys and girls differed, but I had no desire of any sort for either. Little kids may talk about growing up to be a man or a woman or a mommy or a daddy (and they might confuse their gender in this way), but I sincerely do not believe that normal children have desires of any sort related to sexuality. So, the idea that “homosexuality is simply the same as heterosexuality except for a different gender as an amorous target” does not make perfect sense to me.

This is totally anecdotal and has no real meaning. I can also remember back to five years old and beyond, i was a total horn dog and chased little girls with total abandon all through my childhood.

Consenting adults. The idea of “consenting adults” is not a carte blanche excuse in most modern societies. Societies form very strong preferences surrounding what they allow as consenting adult sexual behavior. Most modern societies prohibit incest, prostitution, polygamy, polyandry, etc, and they frown upon pornography, mistresses, fetishes, BDSM, erotic asphyxiation, bestiality, necrophilia, etc … all engaged in by consenting adults.

What does the morality of religions and or societies have to do with this? Some societies consider it moral to kill your sister or daughter if she wears reveling clothing or marries outside your religion, morality is not a way to judge anyone.

Age of consent. Societies seem to establish sexual age of consent based on procreative and health reasons (that is, 12-year-olds can procreate but shouldn’t because they are still developing children, who cannot yet care for or support a baby, a pregnancy damages the girl’s health, etc). With homosexuality, such natural concerns don’t exist. For example, 12-year-old homosexuals engaging in sexual behavior with each other or adults. And the age of consent becomes fuzzy, artificial or, again, borrowed from heterosexuals.

Again this has no bearing on anything, homosexuals are part of the same society as heterosexuals it's no surprise they have similar rules and morals.

Mr. Skeptic, so far no films that would pass the test for me or you but these sightings are very troubling if for no other reason for the way they were seen on radar and by people whose testimony could easily put either one of use in jail or maybe even on death row with less evidence than this.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread546470/pg1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westall_UFO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-Landrum_incident

Which you essentially do in post 95. Yes, given the assumption that alien craft are very unlikely, photos of such are likely to be fake. Much like I usually dismiss photos of presidents in bikinis as fake without so much as examining them.

That's not a fair comparison and you know it. The director of the CIA in a lingerie is unlikely but at one time unknown to the world it was very true occurrence.

Just to clarify: sightings by a UFO convention don't count. It would be extremely unlikely for an alien to show up just exactly in front of a large group of people who were looking for them.

I think I've shown that I am not talking about stuff like that. I take this seriously enough to comb through stuff that is likely to be tarnished.

It would convince me. And yes, technology does occasionally break, and flying things occasionally get shot down.

yes that is possible but not likely, as I've said I live under the flight path of an airport, so far no pieces of airplanes have fallen off. Even though dozens of planes land every day, I'd like to think an advanced alien space craft would be even more reliable.

Or a whole specimen. Again, it would convince me. The thing about hard proof is that it is hard...

Yeah it's hard not to mention unreasonable.

Any examples? Remember that clear photographic evidence is also a component (ie, the craft has visible technological features).

I'll give it my best google shot

And if the aliens are based in our solar system they must have a base here. Otherwise, I can't really see aliens coming all this way just to fly around a bit.

Now on that we are in total agreement.

However, photographs are easy to imagine. I've seen several photos where things appear to be something they most definitely are not.

Yes and photos that are obviously some sort of strange craft are assumed to be fake no matter how good they are. As a matter of fact the better the photos are the more they are assumed to be fake.

Well of course UFOs represent unknowns, it's right in the name. But what would it take to convince me that they're aliens? How about one of these:

One of them has been shown many times, sightings by large groups of people have occurred and there are films of these sightings, always assumed to be faked or hoaxes.

1) A piece of alien technology. Technology, not just a new alloy, unless the alloy is made of non-terrestrial material (verifiable via isotope ratios).

You expect a piece to fall off an alien space craft?

2) A piece of alien biology.

You expect an alien to shed an arm or leg and leave it behind ?

3) A clear photograph or video, together with a large (100 or so) crowd of witnesses confirming that they saw it too.

That has already been produced several times, it's always debunked by skeptics as too good to be true or a mass hallucination caused by some sort of hoax. Such mass sightings are dismissed out of hand as quickly as individual sightings.

4) An alien colony (eg using solar power out in space, or on a planet or asteroid).

This is not impossible but so far no such thing has been found. I have some high hopes for the infrared telescopes but I'm not sure the places in the solar system they might be are being looked at seriously.

I'm offended. Are you saying we don't have fertile imaginations? That in reality people do not imagine things?

Ok, point taken, i generally view imaginations as being personal to the person having them, if it is the same thing being imagined independently by different people over large periods of time I have to think of it as some sort of mental thing (not crazy or flaw) that many people have in common. Like sleep paralysis, I have it, my mom has it and so do my sons. Only once have seen beings around me during that time, my mom sees demons with some regularity, so far my son only has out of body experiences as do I most of the time.

I know the experiences are not real, so does my son, my mom I'm not so sure about, her religious views seem to be confirmed by the experiences.

UFOs could indeed be some sort of stuttering of the brain if not for the photos and group sightings. Imagination is hard to photograph, I know the hard core skeptic refuse to believe any photo can be real but their refusal to believe does not make them all fakes any more than belief makes them real.

My take on this so far is that, as i have said many times so far, IF UFOs are real the most likely source is aliens already colonizing our solar system via artificial colonies.

I think the evidence is powerful that UFOs represent some real unknowns, exactly what the unknowns are has yet to be determined but it would be nice to know what would it take to make the skeptics believe UFOs are real?

What would it take?

Billy Meier is a case of either absolute proof or total Bullshit, not much room in the middle at all. The photos of his that have been tested seemed to show they are fakes but then again he says the photos were altered by intelligence agents to make them look like fakes....

I've on a down hill slide into the grave, wanna trade places?

#5 a fertile imagination

Ah, no, we are saying if they are here, not assuming they are not.

Neat! Is this one a different species as the type that prefers saucers?

You got me, it lookes like a winged flying penis to me.

I sincerely have no clue as to where they came from... They 'could' come from Titan, the dark side of the moon, or one of our deepest oceans. There is literally ZERO evidence to start speculating.

 

My only point is that there's no need to 'require' that they posses the ability to travel inter-stellar distances to get here, as they've always been 'here'/in the neighborhood.

If we allow that there is enough evidence to show they are here then there is enough evidence to at least speculate where they do not come from. to say they could come from Titan is very hard to allow for, we know the conditions on titan do not allow to creatures even close to the creatures we see in historical documents or in UFO mythology.

"They" almost certainly have to come from

#1 Another star system, at least originally

#2 A past civilization that colonized the solar system but died out completely on the earth, Intelligent dinosaurs anyone?

#3 time travelers.

#4 alternate worlds or dimensions.

Any other suggestions?

Another point that needs to be made is that the U-238 that is left over in waste can be used in breeder reactors to make fissile material as well.