Christian hate: Sarah Palin supports anti-gay Chick-fil-A

Christain hate. Whats that?

People that hate Christains or Christains that hate. Theres no such thing.

Studies on monozygotic twins:
Part 1 of 2

These are twins that resulted from the splitting of a single fertilized egg -- the zygote -- into two separate zygotes with identical genetic structure. It can happen at any time prior to about 14 days after conception. They are commonly called "identical twins." Studying these twins, researchers can determine whether a trait such as homosexuality is determined by the environment or by genetics or by a combination of both. The technique involves the study of pairs of identical twins who were separated at birth and raised in different families without later contact. Being identical twins, they would have the same genetic structure. But being raised independently in different families (often in different states), they would mature (at least after birth) and experience totally unrelated environments, family types, family sizes, parenting methods, level of abuse, etc. Fortunately, a U.S. university maintains an index of twins who were raised separately since birth.

Schizophrenia occurs in about 1% of the adult population. In previous decades, the disorder was believed to be caused by incompetent parenting. Studies of identical twins overturned this belief. They showed that if one twin was schizophrenic, the chances of the other twin having the disorder is 65%. This shows that schizophrenia has a very strong genetic component. 17 Decades ago, autism was also blamed on the parents. Identical twin studies turned up similar results: if one twin was autistic, there was a 68% chance that the other was also autistic. 17 Similarly the cause of homosexuality has been attributed to lack of bonding between a child and the same-sex parent. This belief has been abandoned by almost all mental health professionals. However, many religious conservatives still promote this principle. Studies of identical twins have shown that if one twin is gay, the other has about a 55% of also being gay. Again, there is a very strong genetic component at work.

Assume as a working assumption that 5% of adults are gay. A typical study would involve:

* The interview of perhaps 2,000 males, all of whom had separately raised monozygotic twins.
* The identification of about 100 gays.
* Tracking down the other twin in each case, to determine their sexual orientation.

Two possibilities are:

* There is no genetic basis for sexual orientation. That is, a statement by Parents and Friends of Ex-gays is correct: "To date, all information and studies involving genetics have proven homosexuality to be environmental, not genetic." Then one would expect close to 5% of the second twins would also be gay.
* A homosexual orientation is totally caused by genes. One would then expect that between 0 and 100% of the other twin would also be gay, depending upon a property of the gene called its "penetrance."

This type of test has been performed by various groups of researchers. The first such study found that 100% of the second twins were also gay. But this study was based on a very small sample size; the results it turned out to be a statistical fluke. Subsequent, larger, tests all reported that somewhat in excess of 50% of the second twins are also gay. This indicates that genes play a very significant role in determining sexual orientation. however, the number is not 100%. This indicates that environment plays a role in determining sexual orientation. It might be an event in the womb, or in early childhood. Other studies, explained below, show that a person's eventual sexual orientation is determined before they reach school age.

Studies on monozygotic twins:
Part 2 of 2

One problem with this and similar studies is that the researchers can ask what a person's orientation is, but not necessarily get a valid answer; a gay individual may be so firmly "in the closet" that they will not admit even to a stranger what their actual orientation is. Also, most studies classify subjects as either heterosexual or homosexual. A bisexual person might be involved with persons of the opposite gender and consider themselves to be heterosexual; their twin may also be bisexual but be involved with members of the same gender, and identify themselves as homosexual. Another problem is that identical twins share the same environment (their mother's womb) for the 9 months prior to birth. Thus, if there is a environmental factor which determines sexual orientation, it might work on the fetus before birth. This series of replicated studies proves beyond any doubt that at least male homosexuality is largely determined before birth. As the American Psychological Association's statement on homosexuality in 1994-JUL asserts: "Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth..."

17 Op cit, Matt Ridley, Pages 103 &104
18 [Note, the work cited is: Matt Ridley, "Nature via nurture: Genes, experience, and what makes us human," HarperCollins,(2003).]

Freebird USA wrote:

<quoted text> Where is the empirical evidence that homosexuality is innate? Can you guarantee all homosexuals are born that way and there exists no counter culture that chooses to be homosexual?

Happy now?

Naturally Wired wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes...lol
The gay community is always seeking approval and acceptance. If they don't get it, then they are trying to force it upon society. It's like they walk around with guilt and shame 24/7.

They are not forcing me to buy a gerbil. I don't care what they say.

Liam R wrote:

<quoted text>
Claiming that it is a sin, is in itself a sin. The Torah specifically commands the followers of the God of the Bible to NEVER add or subtract anything from the Laws.
If the Bible actually condemned homosexuality, then why does it celebrate the marriage of David and Johnathan?

You just as anyone else can interpet words to mean what you want them to mean. The birth of language doomed honesty.

Virginia Patriot wrote:

<quoted text>
Atheism is also a religious ideology.

Pure BS.

Virginia Patriot wrote:

Based on your response, you subscribe to Darwinism.
Evolution is not a fact. About once every two years, a discovery is made that requires the entire theory of evolution to be rewritten.

Once again, pure BS.

In the past 150 years since Darwin published, there has been NO evidence contrary to the Theory of Evolution.

What HAS been frequently revised is the proposed lines of descent for various species, including our own. So too the time line, as geology provided better and better data about the age of the Earth.

Virginia Patriot wrote:

In Cosmology, these discoveries are made much more frequently. Ironically, for ever discovery made, it only confirms what the Bible has said for thousands of years.

Really? Science has shown that the Earth really IS flat?

Virginia Patriot wrote:

From the order objects came into existence, to the way space and time is affected; From the dangers of immoral lifestyles (STDs, poverty, etc)....Science does not deny the existence of God; it only explains how God created existence.

Partially correct; the proper place of science is not to deny or confirm the existence of any of the Deities that humans have worshiped over the many years of our existence. Science deals ONLY with the natural world.

Virginia Patriot wrote:

Some people like yourself simply lacks the mental capacity to comprehend the complexities of creation; preferring to embrace the most elementary of explanations given to you by those within the field, and accepting such answers as final due to your limitations. However, you should understand that the majority of people are capable of much higher understanding and comprehension than that which you possess.

Bronze Age myths are a HIGHER understanding than decades of science that has been confirmed through multiple pathways? What are you smoking, and where can I get some?

Prep-for-Dep wrote:

<quoted text>
Changing the subject are we? Science uses carbon dating to age fossils. You stated fossils proved your beliefs.
So, answer my question.

Wrong!

Carbon dating can only be used for organic material that is less than 50,000 years old. By definition, fossils are no longer organic material.

However, the ignorant often refer to the term "carbon dating" when they are attempting to refer to any of several forms of radiometric dating.

Liam R wrote:

<quoted text>
Happy now?

Yes,a very intersting read.

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text> Here: http://bigbang.physics.tamu.edu/ Knock yourself out.
Atheism is the LACK of religious belief, dumbass. Science is not a religion, and the government certainly doesn't acknowledge atheism as a religion. Lay off the gasoline fumes.
And don't even TRY the "transitional fossils aren't really transitional" horseshit.
Spare me the "Piltdown man hoax horseshit," too. It changes NOTHING.
You have absolutely ZERO proof that a god "created" ANYTHING.

Of course, it was in fact the SCIENTISTS who discovered that the Piltdown Man was a hoax, and they did so precisely because it did not fit with the rest of evolutionary theory.
:)

Lililth_Satans_Wh_ore wrote:

<quoted text>hey souldent you be getting reedy for your rapture or some sh#t

What? No, that took place back while some of the people in Jesus's audience were still alive...

Prep-for-Dep wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't say the school system is supposed to reflect Christianity. I said 78% of this country is Christian, and the school system should reflect that.
In other words the school system should reflect that a 78% majority in this country is Christian. They should not be teaching anti Christian messages in a school that is majority Christian.

But even if 99.999% of this nation were xian, that STILL would not make their beliefs true.

Reality is not a popularity contest.

Prep-for-Dep wrote:

<quoted text>
Why should it cater to Homosexuals (10% of population), Blacks (12.6% of population), or Non-Christians (22% of population)?
My point has been, the government and school systems need to stay out of it all together.

Thomas Jefferson warned about the evils of democracy and the tyranny of the masses...

Freebird USA wrote:

Actually religion is legitimate subject matter for any school.

Lililth_Satans_Wh_ore wrote:

<quoted text>sorry mythical superstition isn't legitimate in any modern society

America would be a better place if more citizens understood about Islam, Judaism, and the other religions of the world.

Then too, understanding of many of the classic works of literature can only come with understanding of the Biblical references contained therein.

Besides, I was a xian until my (xian!) high school taught me about the Bible. Then I dropped it like a hot potato!

Liam R wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course, it was in fact the SCIENTISTS who discovered that the Piltdown Man was a hoax, and they did so precisely because it did not fit with the rest of evolutionary theory.
:)

What do you mean a Hoax . The Piltdown man is a distant ancestor of mine.

harvey wrote:

<quoted text>
More race-baiting and homophobia from the rancid Right...

"She" and her side is sounding more and more Russian all time.

They sound like they are reading from the playbook of the Moscow Patriarchate.

californio wrote:

<quoted text> What do you mean a Hoax . The Piltdown man is a distant ancestor of mine.

Your grandpa had an orangutan skull?

Liam R wrote:

<quoted text>
But even if 99.999% of this nation were xian, that STILL would not make their beliefs true.
Reality is not a popularity contest.

Whether or not their beliefs are true or not is not proveable at the present.

Liam R wrote:

<quoted text>
Teaching that homosexuality is a sin IS teaching hate.
True history? Okay...
1) This country was founded on SECULAR principles, some of which happen to overlap with xian principles. It was founded by men who knew all too well the EVILS of allowing ANY one religion to be in control.
2) There is NO evidence to support ANY of the claims of the Bible regarding the early history of the children of Israel prior to about the 7th century BCE.
Basic science? That means teaching the facts about evolution and its role in the shaping of life on this planet, and the fact that the Big Bang took place almost 15 billion years ago.

Science and Religion are not enemies. You will find both at every major university/college. The further you progress, the more you realize how they tie in together. Basically, Theology explains why God created existence whereas in Natural Science, it explains how God created existence.

The Theory of Evolution simply has too many discrepancies, anomalies and confirmed hoaxes to be taught as factual science. It is constantly changing; today's theorem is more closely representative to Lamarck's theory than it is Darwin's.(The Lamarck theory was the predecessor of Darwin's in case you are wondering). If you had graduated just 5 years ago, the theory that you are familar with has already been proved erroneous. Unlike Math, Chemistry and other sciences that remain constant, the theory of Evolution does not. This is why it has no business being taught in school. It serves no purpose and provides no benefit.

The big bang. The primary singularity of existence that existed before matter, space and time. All of existence came from this, and in the end, the singularity will be all that remains. The singularity is immune to all laws of the universe, which any scientific guess to as what this singularity is, would be "just as bizarre as theorizing that it is but a flying tree that produces an elephant as its fruit". Yet, the Bible has explained this singularity over 9,000 years ago. The Bible explains the order that creation came to be, from beginning to the finish. From a nothingness to space. Then the stars, the Earth, then the moon, then the oceans, plant life, animal...until the end in which man emerged. Even the make up of man.(The Bible says that God created man from the dust of the Earth. Science also says this). Even the Hubble Constant was explained in the Bible 5,000 years before scientific discovery confirmed it.

As I previously stated; science can do nothing more than to confirm the scriptures of the Bible.

Lastly, every State in America did have an official religion, and every one was of the protestant, gentile Christian faith.(Only the federal government was barred from recognizing such). Due to the tensions leading up to the Civil War did the States drop these State religions so that it would not become an influencing factor of whether to remain or secede from the Union.(In essence, it was a "last ditch effort" to retain the Union).

Liam R wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong!
Carbon dating can only be used for organic material that is less than 50,000 years old. By definition, fossils are no longer organic material.
However, the ignorant often refer to the term "carbon dating" when they are attempting to refer to any of several forms of radiometric dating.

The exoskeleton from the spiny lobster found in Australia has been observed to fossilize in just over one year. Therefore the fossilization of organic matter does not necessarily represent a different era.
A chicken bone buried in the shale bottom of a mountain creek in Virginia was left for 9 months, Yet the Carbon 14 isotopes reveal that it had been dead over 2,000 years. A living mollusk was tested, yet it revealed that it had died 450 years prior. Carbon 14 testing has been proven to be the least accurate of all isotopes in dating matter, yet it is still the one most commonly used.(Carbon 14 is simply too easily contaminated for it to be regarded dependable.)