Teaching about Homosexuality in Schools (2)

[Beanieboy]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Teaching about Homosexuality in Schools"

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Evolution as seen in even the one link I gave is full of scientific holes that creationism answers much better. But the issue is the scientific evidence has major problems and it is the offense caused by the fact that creationism answers the issues better that causes any objection to be rejected.

Remember, I originally said evolution should be taught, what I object to is blind narrow mindedness and bigotry of the atheist anti-God brigade stifling any truth while I am paying for them to do so.

I agree. The hypothesis 'God did it' answers all the issues and accounts for all the holes, simply and swiftly. Unfortunately, however, it's not a scientific hypothesis.

 

[Archer93]

Re b&wpac4, post 1002

There's nothing in evolution that suggests any sort of path or plan either. It's about adapting for survival and is therefore shaped by the conditions that the species exists within.

Good point. I should have said

I'm not aware of anything in the theory of evolution that states that fruitflies can evolve into anything like a horse or any other type of mammal.

Maybe fruit flies could, under a (probably very odd) set of conditions, evolve into rocking-horse flies....
The Rocking-horse-fly — Illustration by John Tenniel to chapter 3, "Through the Looking Glass,"

 

[Phinehas2]

Art Vandelay,
No, if science indicates a creator then thats what the science indicates. There is no conflict between science and faith, either science is influenced by faith nor faith by science. It is the philosophy of science that isnt science and is in conflict with faith.
Einstein's cosmological constant remained a scientifc position unaffected by opposing faith positions, until a scientific disproval occured.
What we have a problem with is the philosophy of science.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

I am confused. Why is this thread about some guys (willfull?) inablity to understand what evolution is and not about teaching homosexuality in schools?

 

[b&wpac4]

I am confused. Why is this thread about some guys (willfull?) inablity to understand what evolution is and not about teaching homosexuality in schools?

Because teaching about homosexuality in school pretty much will get into teaching evolution, because both are seen by some people as "pushing beliefs onto children".

 

[Phinehas2]

Nonetheless, the evolutionary tree is unproven. There is nothing any more convincing in a slow generational mutation that can indicate fish became reptiles, the fossil record suggest otherwise as there are too few transitional fossils.

It's about adapting for survival and is therefore shaped by the conditions that the species exists within.

If it were about adapting for survival then if a species gradually mutated the orginal species would no longer exist, and if it were about some of the species mutating to evolve then it wouldnt be about survival.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I agree. The hypothesis 'God did it' answers all the issues and accounts for all the holes, simply and swiftly. Unfortunately, however, it's not a scientific hypothesis.

Which is why we call it "faith"

 

[b&wpac4]

If it were about adapting for survival then if a species gradually mutated the orginal species would no longer exist

It is about adapting and, usually, the original species does no longer exist.

 

[Phinehas2]

Because teaching about homosexuality in school pretty much will get into teaching evolution, because both are seen by some people as "pushing beliefs onto children".

This is true, education should be wider than this narrowmindedness. But there are obvious anatomical reasons why homosexuality can be seen as dysfunctional, and when one stands back from the theory of evolution one can see some reasons why it may be largely wrong. What we have is the same people who support homosexuality and evolution determined that only their views are taught.

 

[Phinehas2]

Whilst there is no accomodation for God creating in the discipline of science, that doesnt mean God didnt create. The phillosophy of science has got so offended that it wont now entertain any sceintific criticism to evolution if thre is a danger it might point to God's creation.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Because teaching about homosexuality in school pretty much will get into teaching evolution, because both are seen by some people as "pushing beliefs onto children".

I could see that if it was about that. But apparently the conversation went from "evolution/homosexuality in class" to "what does evolution say" which is not part of the topic.

while I understand peoples desire to derail the thread we should realize that willfull ignorance of evolution has been around 150 years and if this forum is anything to go by anyone that regulary posts here and still rejects is is not going to accept it after another 500 posts carefully disecting his failing arguements which are going to happen. It just derails a perfectly good thread.

So in the spirit of being ontopic..

What if homosexuality is taught as existing and the include how different groups of people think about that and their motivations? Seems to get the job done without pushing a ideology some people may fear exists.

 

[Beechwell]

If it could be shown that the genetic code of a fruit-fly can be transformed into the genetic code of a donkey, using only genetic changes/mutations that are directly observable (dna duplication, dna translocation, chromosomal aberrations...), would you accept that of proof that such an evolution is at least theoretically possible?

Of course.

Great
I admit I don't know that much about genetics, but I'll try to outline a basic proof here. Please correct me where I go wrong

If we reduce the problem to DNA for the moment, the difference between fruit-fly and donkey genetic information should be in
1) Sequence of amino acids within each chromosome
2) Number and shape of chromosomes.
So we'll just have to prove that both differences 1) and 2) can be annihilated by known mutations.

I think it is obvious that through deletion, duplication, inversion and translocation of individual nucleotide sequences within one strand of DNA one can transform any sequence into any other sequence consisting of the same amino acids. Simple deletion, duplication and translocation of individual nucleotides is already sufficient for this.
So point 1) should be no problem. Each dna sequence can be transormed into any other one using the same nucleotides.

We also know instances of additional chromosomes being created in chromosomal disorders (like Down syndrome). So the number of chromosomes can be changed as well.
I'm not quite sure about chromosomes changing shape, but at least the length and number of arms of a chromosome can change simply by deletion or translocation of large nucleotide sequences. I'm not sure we need more that than when staying within the kingdom of animals.

So, Phinehas: Any point so far you disagree on or find problematic?

 

[Phinehas2]

Sorry Beechwell, there are problems with what you have said. see my link.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Phinehas, read this link, learn about evolution, and then perhaps an intelligent discussion can be had. Currently this thread is just everyone attempting to correct your strawman, and you carefully ignoring everyone.

The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs

 

[Phinehas2]

Sithdoughnut,
Read the link I gave, and address. If you are not open to discussion then there is no point in debating with you.

 

[MariaRegina]

Mod hat on

Closing thread for a staff review

Mod hat off

 

[MariaRegina]

Mod Hat on

Reopening this thread.

Just a reminder: please try to stay on topic


From our Rules:


Off-topic
Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose;

submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion.


Mod Hat off​

 

[Robinsegg]

What if homosexuality is taught as existing and the include how different groups of people think about that and their motivations? Seems to get the job done without pushing a ideology some people may fear exists.

When age appropriate, that would be good. But in the case of the under-4th-grade crowd, could we keep it in the more "all kinds of families are ok" vein?
Rachel

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Art Vandelay,
No, if science indicates a creator then thats what the science indicates. There is no conflict between science and faith, either science is influenced by faith nor faith by science. It is the philosophy of science that isnt science and is in conflict with faith.
Einstein's cosmological constant remained a scientifc position unaffected by opposing faith positions, until a scientific disproval occured.
What we have a problem with is the philosophy of science.

Science cannot indicate a super-natural Creator since it is beyond the means of Science, whose domain of inquiry is confined to the natural world and all things within it. That is why Creationism can never be regarded as remotely scientific, for it postulates the existence of the super-natural. The super-natural being something beyond nature; ergo, beyond science's grasp. That doesn't mean we should disbelieve that there is a supernatural. But rather that we relinquish the delusion that Science can tell us anything about it. Personally, I believe that someone's faith must have a shaky foundation if he consistently searches for the validation of Science, whose purpose is only to verify things in world and not things beyond it. Attempting to confirm God's existence through Science essentially places God in the natural world which, some would argue, theologically destroys the concept of God by rendering him 'knowable' (by human means), and thus capable of being mastered.