Transsexuals and Religion

[As I was saying]

This is the link that provides the evidence. Click the words. The existence of the ability to successfully test genetics for indicators that a person will be gay is evidence that people are born homosexual. However, the discussion of homosexuality is off topic. The discussion should be focused on transsexuals and religion.

Desperation is as desperation is. If that link provides evidence I am a monkey's uncle. Before making claims like that do read it first. Take a look at the following comments..............

Known as epigenetics, these changes are thought to occur in the womb

Scientists claim they can predict whether someone is gay or straight with up to 70 per cent accuracy by looking at their DNA.

NOTE: claim they can....making a claim is NOT evidence.

The findings do not show whether a test would show whether a child would grow up to be gay or not – as the research was carried out on adults.

NOTE: The findings DO NOT SHOW.....but you said they did!!

Identical twins usually – but not always – have the same sexuality. This finding has led scientists to believe there is a genetic component to being gay.

NOTE: This finding has led scientists to believe......I thought christians were castigated because they believe.

The study involved 37 pairs of twins in which one brother was homosexual and the other heterosexual, and 10 pairs in which both were homosexual.

NOTE: If you are born homosexual because it is in the genes, all twins who were homosexual would both be because they share the same DNA.

The researchers, who are due to present their findings at the American Society of Human Genetics 2015 Annual Meeting in Baltimore, say they found distinct patterns of methylation on the DNA that seem to be associated with homosexuality.

NOTE:....THAT SEEM to be associated. Since when has scientific proof been based on what seems?

However, epigenetic changes tend to occur in the womb or shortly after birth due to the influence of the environment.

NOTE: due to the INFLUENCE OF THE ENVIRONMENT...didn't know the DNA was the environment.

However the small study needs replicating before any talk of prediction is realistic.'

NOTE: However the SMALL study...before.....talk of prediction is REALISTIC. Small study. YOu know the sort of thing researchers avoid to save being rubbished.

'While there is strong evidence in general for a biological basis for homosexuality my personal impression has always been one of a multiple contributory factors, including life experiences.'

NOTE: My personal impression...MULTIPLE CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS INCLUDING LIFE EXPERIENCES. How does DNA become life experiences?

Gil McVean, professor of statistical genetics at Oxford University, said: 'Without validation of the result in an independent data set it is not really possible to know whether there is any substance in this claim.'

NOTE:....whether there is any SUBSTANCE in this claim.

Gay and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said: ‘This research claims to be able to predict sexual orientation with 'up to' 70 per cent accuracy. This doesn't sound entirely convincing or reliable.

NOTE: This doesn't sound entirely CONVINCING OR RELIABLE and that is from one of your own.

If that is the best you can do to argue your case, I would suggest that you retire very quickly and learn how to do it without embarrassing yourself. And I didn't bring up the subject matter. Someone else did so you had better talk to them not me.

 

[As I was saying]

This is the link that provides the evidence. Click the words. The existence of the ability to successfully test genetics for indicators that a person will be gay is evidence that people are born homosexual. However, the discussion of homosexuality is off topic. The discussion should be focused on transsexuals and religion.

First this so called link proves that you lied when you said you had provided evidence as this is the first time the link has been posted. Apology please.

Second, if this is evidence I am a monkey's uncle. I would suggest you read what it says before you start pontificating about it and throwing it up as evidence [sic]. Here are some comments from it unaltered....

Known as epigenetics, these changes are thought to occur in the womb

Scientists claim they can predict whether someone is gay or straight with up to 70 per cent accuracy by looking at their DNA.

NOTE: Scientists CLAIM......I can claim I am the pope but that does not make it so.

The findings do not show whether a test would show whether a child would grow up to be gay or not – as the research was carried out on adults.

NOTE: The findings DO NOT SHOW...But you said they did!!

Identical twins usually – but not always – have the same sexuality. This finding has led scientists to believe there is a genetic component to being gay.

NOTE: Led scientists to BELIEVE....christians believe but we are told that is not good enough.

The study involved 37 pairs of twins in which one brother was homosexual and the other heterosexual, and 10 pairs in which both were homosexual.

NOTE: If homosexuality was in the genes or DNA, identical twins would have the same sexuality.

The researchers, who are due to present their findings at the American Society of Human Genetics 2015 Annual Meeting in Baltimore, say they found distinct patterns of methylation on the DNA that seem to be associated with homosexuality.

NOTE: ...that SEEM TO BE...When has "seemed to be" ever been evidence?

However, epigenetic changes tend to occur in the womb or shortly after birth due to the influence of the environment.

NOTE: ..due to the influence of the ENVIRONMENT. Since when has DNA been the environment?

However the small study needs replication before any talk of prediction is realistic.'

NOTE:...however the SMALL STUDY...is never accepted as evidence in anything.

'While there is strong evidence in general for a biological basis for homosexuality my personal impression has always been one of a multiple contributory factors, including life experiences.'

NOTE: ..including LIFE EXPERIENCES. Doesn't sound to me that it is proven DNA is the way to go.

Gil McVean, professor of statistical genetics at Oxford University, said: 'Without validation of the result in an independent data set it is not really possible to know whether there is any substance in this claim.'

NOTE: ....any substance in this claim. So we prove something without any substance to back us up.

Gay and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said: ‘This research claims to be able to predict sexual orientation with 'up to' 70 per cent accuracy. This doesn't sound entirely convincing or reliable.

NOTE: This doesn't sound ENTIRELY CONVINCING and that is from one of your own.

Soooooooooooo, you need to stop shooting from the lip just to make an unprovable point and do your homework so as to prevent yourself from looking so foolish. If you continue to post this sort of pseudo evidence I will continue to tear it to pieces.

 

[Dave-W]

The existence of the ability to successfully test genetics for indicators that a person will be gay is evidence that people are born homosexual.

Genetic makeup says nothing about whether the person is demonized by a homosexual spirit in utero.

 

[Cute Tink]

If that is the best you can do to argue your case, I would suggest that you retire very quickly and learn how to do it without embarrassing yourself. And I didn't bring up the subject matter. Someone else did so you had better talk to them not me.

Not the best I can do. You asked for evidence, not proof. You can take apart the article all you like. I really don't care. There are other things I could look up that were even more supportive, but, whether you like it or not, that's all the effort I am going to bother with when you refuse to do the same.

Also whether you like it or not, the topic of this discussion is "transsexuals and religion", not homosexuality. I will not be posting any further on the topic of homosexuality in this thread.

 

[Cute Tink]

Genetic makeup says nothing about whether the person is demonized by a homosexual spirit in utero.

"Demonized" is something that lacks any convincing evidence, particularly when the people questioned about it refuse to provide anything other than their own claimed experience.

 

[Dave-W]

"Demonized" is something that lacks any convincing evidence, particularly when the people questioned about it refuse to provide anything other than their own claimed experience.

What would you take as "evidence?" Spirits, almost by definition, will not register on any kind of physical instrument.

 

[Cute Tink]

What would you take as "evidence?" Spirits, almost by definition, will not register on any kind of physical instrument.

There are people who claim to be able to detect spirits with physical instruments.

My issue with accepting the idea that "demons" are responsible for sexual orientation is partially the lack of evidence and partially the fact that there is a much simpler explanation that seems to be working just fine.

There are no indications of anything approaching demonic possession (that I've heard about) from any of the people I know.

 

[As I was saying]

Not the best I can do. You asked for evidence, not proof. You can take apart the article all you like. I really don't care. There are other things I could look up that were even more supportive, but, whether you like it or not, that's all the effort I am going to bother with when you refuse to do the same.

Also whether you like it or not, the topic of this discussion is "transsexuals and religion", not homosexuality. I will not be posting any further on the topic of homosexuality in this thread.

Point one. Let me paraphrase it for you. I can't say anything to deny what you said is the truth and I mucked up big time using that link and I am livid that I have no answer to your assessment of the article. And I hate it when I can't goad you into doing what I want you to do.

Point two. Nobody asked you to enter the discussion on homosexuality. The topic was posted by someone else and I was responding to what THEY said. If you don't like it I suggest you take up your bat and ball and run.

 

[Cute Tink]

Point one. Let me paraphrase it for you. I can't say anything to deny what you said is the truth and I mucked up big time using that link and I am livid that I have no answer to your assessment of the article. And I hate it when I can't goad you into doing what I want you to do.

Point two. Nobody asked you to enter the discussion on homosexuality. The topic was posted by someone else and I was responding to what THEY said. If you don't like it I suggest you take up your bat and ball and run.

I didn't say you were responsible for me engaging in the discussion. I felt compelled to note that it was off topic, however, since I am a CF Ambassador.

 

[As I was saying]

I didn't say you were responsible for me engaging in the discussion. I felt compelled to note that it was off topic, however, since I am a CF Ambassador.

And I am the King of Siam.

 

[katerinah1947]

Desperation is as desperation is. If that link provides evidence I am a monkey's uncle. Before making claims like that do read it first. Take a look at the following comments..............

Known as epigenetics, these changes are thought to occur in the womb

Scientists claim they can predict whether someone is gay or straight with up to 70 per cent accuracy by looking at their DNA.

NOTE: claim they can....making a claim is NOT evidence.

The findings do not show whether a test would show whether a child would grow up to be gay or not – as the research was carried out on adults.

NOTE: The findings DO NOT SHOW.....but you said they did!!

Identical twins usually – but not always – have the same sexuality. This finding has led scientists to believe there is a genetic component to being gay.

NOTE: This finding has led scientists to believe......I thought christians were castigated because they believe.

The study involved 37 pairs of twins in which one brother was homosexual and the other heterosexual, and 10 pairs in which both were homosexual.

NOTE: If you are born homosexual because it is in the genes, all twins who were homosexual would both be because they share the same DNA.

The researchers, who are due to present their findings at the American Society of Human Genetics 2015 Annual Meeting in Baltimore, say they found distinct patterns of methylation on the DNA that seem to be associated with homosexuality.

NOTE:....THAT SEEM to be associated. Since when has scientific proof been based on what seems?

However, epigenetic changes tend to occur in the womb or shortly after birth due to the influence of the environment.

NOTE: due to the INFLUENCE OF THE ENVIRONMENT...didn't know the DNA was the environment.

However the small study needs replicating before any talk of prediction is realistic.'

NOTE: However the SMALL study...before.....talk of prediction is REALISTIC. Small study. YOu know the sort of thing researchers avoid to save being rubbished.

'While there is strong evidence in general for a biological basis for homosexuality my personal impression has always been one of a multiple contributory factors, including life experiences.'

NOTE: My personal impression...MULTIPLE CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS INCLUDING LIFE EXPERIENCES. How does DNA become life experiences?

Gil McVean, professor of statistical genetics at Oxford University, said: 'Without validation of the result in an independent data set it is not really possible to know whether there is any substance in this claim.'

NOTE:....whether there is any SUBSTANCE in this claim.

Gay and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said: ‘This research claims to be able to predict sexual orientation with 'up to' 70 per cent accuracy. This doesn't sound entirely convincing or reliable.

NOTE: This doesn't sound entirely CONVINCING OR RELIABLE and that is from one of your own.

If that is the best you can do to argue your case, I would suggest that you retire very quickly and learn how to do it without embarrassing yourself. And I didn't bring up the subject matter. Someone else did so you had better talk to them not me.

Hi,

Your interpretation of the results is wrong. What you are attempting to do, is to use what you know of the human language, and apply it to the way they are using ideas like claim. You can do that, and like you have done, completely get the studies wrong.

They are speaking esoterically.

They are speaking the way researchers do to other researchers.

And, you have made a classic error of using your non esoteric understandings, as the actual understandings that are said.

Those postings above are in normal non scientific parlance, Absolute proof that homosexuality is a result, not a choice. Scientists don't talk the way you do.

And you are still greatly off topic.

LOVE,

 

[As I was saying]

Hi,

Your interpretation of the results is wrong. What you are attempting to do, is to use what you know of the human language, and apply it to the way they are using ideas like claim. You can do that, and like you have done, completely get the studies wrong.They are speaking esoterically.They are speaking the way researchers do to other researchers.And, you have made a classic error of using your non esoteric understandings, as the actual understandings that are said.Those postings above are in normal non scientific parlance, Absolute proof that homosexuality is a result, not a choice. Scientists don't talk the way you do.And you are still greatly off topic.LOVE,

My interpretation of the results are right for the simple reason that the person who posted the link could not refute any of them. When that happens you know you are right. When you have worked for two years counselling those with an unwanted same sex attraction as I have then you can tell me what is right and what is wrong.

And as I have made a study of studies of this topic I was responding esoterically.

 

[katerinah1947]

Desperation is as desperation is. If that link provides evidence I am a monkey's uncle. Before making claims like that do read it first. Take a look at the following comments..............

Known as epigenetics, these changes are thought to occur in the womb

Scientists claim they can predict whether someone is gay or straight with up to 70 per cent accuracy by looking at their DNA.



NOTE: This doesn't sound entirely CONVINCING OR RELIABLE and that is from one of your own.

Hi,

To be able to predict the outcome of something at a 70% is amazing, in science. When I was working in the field, of one of my associates said that, I expect full tenured Professorship for him/her next. Also, I can just guarantee you that no matter what happens in the economy, that person will be sought out by everyone, for the ability to have proven that.

To not convince someone who is not a scientist, or not technical, is rather an expectation, rather than a common occurance.

No one listens to scientists, until years and years later, normally. Hopefully years and years later, if that study stands, and is backed up by others, it will be believed by everyone. I will wait and see.

In the meantime, what I never expected to see on a Transgender and Religion Thread, is that study on off topic subject, but the results are rather astounding, if they hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Personal scrutiny by Some amateurs is as waste of time, as they don't have the training and discipline, to handle science. Other amateurs are a total contribution, to whatever they work in.

LOVE,

 

[As I was saying]

Hi,

To be able to predict the outcome of something at a 70% is amazing, in science. When I was working in the field, of one of my associates said that, I expect full tenured Professorship for him/her next. Also, I can just guarantee you that no matter what happens in the economy, that person will be sought out by everyone, for the ability to have proven that.To not convince someone who is not a scientist, or not technical, is rather an expectation, rather than a common occurance.No one listens to scientists, until years and years later, normally. Hopefully years and years later, if that study stands, and is backed up by others, it will be believed by everyone. I will wait and see.In the meantime, what I never expected to see on a Transgender and Religion Thread, is that study on off topic subject, but the results are rather astounding, if they hold up to scientific scrutiny.Personal scrutiny by Some amateurs is as waste of time, as they don't have the training and discipline, to handle science. Other amateurs are a total contribution, to whatever they work in.LOVE,

I have no idea what you are talking about and its relevance to the topic.

 

[katerinah1947]

My interpretation of the results are right for the simple reason that the person who posted the link could not refute any of them. When that happens you know you are right. When you have worked for two years counselling those with an unwanted same sex attraction as I have then you can tell me what is right and what is wrong.

And as I have made a study of studies of this topic I was responding esoterically.

Hi,

BSEE equivalent in Semiconductors, with three honorary Doctorates in the same field, for accomplishments. I am a scientist.

To have a .70 Correlation Constant on an rsquared chart, is amazing. The last time, I saw that was for an engineering friend of mine. He could not get others like you to budge either. My Boss told me to do something for him. I did. Then he sent me in to that meeting. The meeting unbeknown to me, was going on for six months.

I arrived. I listened. He had a .70 Corrlation for the effect everyone wondered about. He was angry. I did not know why. I spoke up: "I did what he did. I did it a different way. I agree with him."

They all asked me what I did to prove or disprove that person's theory with the .70 Correlation, and I told them. I then told them that I was unprepared to give them my results that day.

The next meeting came. I presented my resuts, the meeting was over for good. The .70 Correlation guy was right.

You state much. Prove some of it. You only make assertions. It is now time for you to present your proofs, of exorcisms, and such. Else, it is time for you back off.

LOVE,

 

[As I was saying]

Genetic makeup says nothing about whether the person is demonized by a homosexual spirit in utero.

So obvious Dave, but atheists can't understand anything outside of their little natural world.

 

[katerinah1947]

I have no idea what you are talking about and its relevance to the topic.

Hi,

If you have no idea what I said, then you do not have the background and the training to understand what that study said, and yet you say you do.

LOVE,

 

[As I was saying]

Hi,BSEE equivalent in Semiconductors, with three honorary Doctorates in the same field, for accomplishments. I am a scientist.To have a .70 Correlation Constant on an rsquared chart, is amazing. The last time, I saw that was for an engineering friend of mine. He could not get others like you to budge either. My Boss told me to do something for him. I did. Then he sent me in to that meeting. The meeting unbeknown to me, was going on for six months.I arrived. I listened. He had a .70 Corrlation for the effect everyone wondered about. He was angry. I did not know why. I spoke up: "I did what he did. I did it a different way. I agree with him."They all asked me what I did to prove or disprove that person's theory with the .70 Correlation, and I told them. I then told them that I was unprepared to give them my results that day.The next meeting came. I presented my resuts, the meeting was over for good. The .70 Correlation guy was right.You state much. Prove some of it. You only make assertions. It is now time for you to present your proofs, of exorcisms, and such. Else, it is time for you back off.LOVE,

It is time for you to stop printing all this mumbo jumbo and stick to the topic. You know, transsexuals and religion. And I will decide what I provide, not you so you need to back off. if you don't like my posts don't read them. Simple as that.

 

[As I was saying]

Hi,If you have no idea what I said, then you do not have the background and the training to understand what that study said, and yet you say you do.
LOVE,

You are getting to sound more like an atheist spiritualist medium every day.

 

[Cute Tink]