Jump to content
thomas t

Suspicion Against Scientists?

Recommended Posts

On ‎11‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 9:09 AM, one.opinion said:

No one enjoys having their work questioned, particularly by people that have no idea what they are talking about.

Not talking about their work, per se, but their claims which don't pan out, but we are still expected to defer to them  as "experts" even when their claims and predictions clearly don't pan out.  

Quote

But scientists are used to having their conclusions questioned by others that have actual data that shows when a scientific conclusion has been wrong. Longstanding assumptions in science have been discarded repeatedly when new data shows that the assumptions were in error. It may take some time for the paradigm to be shifted, but new data has a great track record for changing scientific assumption.

Actually the scientific community has already decided what it will and will not accept as "science"  and scientists who hold to the creationist model are routinely mocked and their research funding is cut and they are pretty much driven out of mainstream science.   This isn't about the obvious flux that occurs over time in any a scientific discipline.   It is about the obvious way that the atheistic worldview that permeates the scientific community rejects good science when it presents evidence that flies in the face of the atheistic, evolutionist worldview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, thomas t said:

Hi Cletus,

please, could you please prove your point that every single study in this field has used manipulated or falsified data, or no controls were used?

Please go ahead, cite every single study about it, and I will name studies if you fail to cite all of them, and then specify which data it was that they falsified, and please provide what you think the correct data is. Name sources.

A mere "do your homework" is not enough to back up this bold statement. "google this and that" won't  either.

please be precise and detail which study that is you're talking about providing a link.

Then please specify who stripped the author of that study of his crediblity. And please tell us how that study was dismissed and provide the facts necessary for dismissing a study.

You came up with your story, please back it up, thank you.

 

By the way I'm not talking about homosexuality but about the failure to back up claims.

 

Regards,

Thomas

 

If you do not like the response do your homework then quit responding to me.  do you realize how many years i have been keeping up with this, all of whats been published in scientific journals, magazines, and even more how much the gay agenda people are pushing this to try and make it acceptable in socioty and bury any evidence against their cause?

Here is one reference... one.  I am not here to spoon feed you, if you want to know the truth... do your homework.   does this reference show data was manipulated?  no, but it does show that it can not be replicated in a lab.  However, His lab assistant came out and admitted it.  it was quoted and published.  I read it.  he was stripped of his credibility but somehow he is still doing studies.  the man dean hammer even said if he couldnt prove homosexuality was genetic he would quit doing science.  since then... not one study done to prove homosexuality is genetic can be replicated in labs and along the way more proof that data was manipulated, made up, whatever has surfaced.  I do not lie and i do not slander people. 

if you want more info than whats on here you need to purchase a subscription to AAAS.  dont even ask for me to post that because it would be a violation of copyright stuff.  there is enough there for you to get a foundation to... do your own homework. 

And by the way, this article is being very "fair and professional" to mr. hammer.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/284/5414/571

I do not care if this satisfies your need for proof.  elementary kids know the name of dean hammer because they are teaching the kids he is responsible for proving homosexuality is genetic, and guess what... the human genome has been mapped... no gay gene to be found.  article above shows his findings are not replicated in labs, not even once.  

I say again, not one single study that "proves"  homosexuality is genetic can be replicated in a lab.  not a one.  so go ahead and post up all the studies you want, i am quite familiar with them, and if you have enough time to look all that up you have time to look into this....  none are honest and if you understand the scientific method, and how science actually works then when its 100% none can be replicated, its beyond shadow of doubt, they lied. 

I simply do not have time to go back and find around ten plus years of documents and articles if they are all even still up.  the study from dean hammer was from the 90's. 

you will do yourself a great service to invest the time to look at both sides of the coin.  you seem to only invest time to look at one side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Cletus said:

do you realize how many years i have been keeping up with this, all of whats been published in scientific journals, magazines

This is honestly a topic of science I haven’t followed much. What do you know about twin studies that have been done in homosexuality. That’s about the best control imaginable in genetics studies of humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

This is honestly a topic of science I haven’t followed much. What do you know about twin studies that have been done in homosexuality. That’s about the best control imaginable in genetics studies of humans.

I have detailed notes somewhere that is hand written and pages and pages and pages long. I do not know where they are off hand, but i have posted on this site details about it.  its been some years back.   but what I remember is first, it cant be replicated in a lab, and either data was falsified and or manipulated.  i forget off the top of my head the names of those doing the study.  and what I am saying now is based off memory.  there were some sets of twins that disproved the study... but they manipulated the data.  Do I have a link to reference this to?  no, not right now. 

when we look at real science we have x chromosomes and y chromosomes.  x is female and y is male.  i think xx means the creature is female, xy means its male.  these cells are in our dna.  they are found in every single solitary cell in our entire body.  every muscle, tendon, synapse, organ, toe nail, you name it every single cell is assigned to either male or female... just as Gods written word tells us, male and female He made them.  there is no way any one is gay because of genetics.  its a spirit.  the whole reason the gay agenda pushes for i was born that way is because of how the law is written for civil rights... there are three prerequisites.  the third being you were born that way.  this law was written before genetics were used in law or in courts.  in the book "after the ball" which outlines the agenda and plan for the gay agenda one of the things said is to keep saying i was born that way... i was born that way.  they want it to be genetic so they can say ah-ha you hateful bible thumpers you are discriminating us.  when in reality, in 1000 years from now when they are tormented day and night they will look back and say, why did i not listen?  it is truly love to tell them they are heading to the worst imaginable place if they dont turn to Jesus.  i do not think we should thump our bibles tho.  I do believe we should tell them in the right Spirit, capital S.  And I have seen a man repent when God laid it on my heart at a church meeting someone wasnt right.  this man wept infront of complete strangers, repented, and months later i visited an old church i used to go to.  He was a deacon there.  God does love them and Jesus died for them.  and the truth is the spirit of lust is not just for homosexuals.  heterosexuals struggle too.  Spiritual adultery is Spiritual adultery.  its idolatry. 

I tell you of a certainty, if there be any study that says homosexuality is genetic, either they lied, OR God lied when He said He looked and saw all He made was good... which do you think it is?  thats right, even saying being gay is genetic is calling God a liar.  even when man fell the curse was woman gets pain in childbirth and man has to work hard (shortened version)... nothing about being gay there either.  its a spirit. which is also why many shrinks want to label it as a mental disorder... they dont have The Spirit of love power and a sound mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Cletus said:

when we look at real science we have x chromosomes and y chromosomes.  x is female and y is male.  i think xx means the creature is female, xy means its male.

The biology isn’t quite that simple. In humans and other mammals, the “default” gender is female. Male development requires the specific expression of the Sry gene. If the gene is deleted or altered, it is entirely possible for a person with an XY combination of chromosomes to develop as female reproductively, but with some male secondary characteristics. Additionally, although it isn’t common, some individuals are born with both male and female reproductive organs. There are many other conditions like androgen insensitivity and nomdisjunction if the sex chromosomes that further complicate gender development. Now, most homosexuals do not exhibit these rarer characteristics, but the biology and development of gender is very complex and many things can go wrong. It is not always a simple issue of what chromosomes you are born with.

It is not an unreasonable step to think that biology may also impact sexual orientation. Now, the choice of right and wrong actions is still available, but I believe biology very well could leave some individuals more prone to homosexual behavior. That’s why I was curious about the twin studies. That could reveal a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

The biology isn’t quite that simple. In humans and other mammals, the “default” gender is female. Male development requires the specific expression of the Sry gene. If the gene is deleted or altered, it is entirely possible for a person with an XY combination of chromosomes to develop as female reproductively, but with some male secondary characteristics. Additionally, although it isn’t common, some individuals are born with both male and female reproductive organs. There are many other conditions like androgen insensitivity and nomdisjunction if the sex chromosomes that further complicate gender development. Now, most homosexuals do not exhibit these rarer characteristics, but the biology and development of gender is very complex and many things can go wrong. It is not always a simple issue of what chromosomes you are born with.

It is not an unreasonable step to think that biology may also impact sexual orientation. Now, the choice of right and wrong actions is still available, but I believe biology very well could leave some individuals more prone to homosexual behavior. That’s why I was curious about the twin studies. That could reveal a lot.

exactly what is deleting or altering these genes you are speaking of?  sounds like its being made to be more complicated by "scientists" to prove a point to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, Cletus said:

exactly what is deleting or altering these genes you are speaking of?

Mutations occur in the DNA all the time. Some mistakes can be small-scale and only change a single DNA “letter”, but sometimes mutations occur that make large-scale deletions.

7 minutes ago, Cletus said:

sounds like its being made to be more complicated by "scientists" to prove a point to me.

I’m sorry, but I’m not understanding what you are saying here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×