Can gay people be 'straightened out'?

Synchronise watches, how long will it take for the bigots to COME OUT?

Iris Robinsons views are watered down hatred, and her timing is crass. Is this what fundamental Christianity does for you? What an indictment.

Indeed G-D! You can always rely on good ol' Iris to say something really stupid.

Not so long ago she said "integrated education is sectarian"! roll that one over several times in your mind. It was that bad that even other DUPer's said "hold on Iris!". The way she goes on she does sound a bit punch-drunk.

This lady made an idiotic statement. She clearly has no idea what she's talking about.

That said, the statement from the Royal College of Psychiatrists would have been better made by limiting what they said to their field of expertise - psychiatry - and avoiding talking about rights and political issues.

Only in Northern Ireland would this degree of ignorant homophobia receive a high oxygen level of publicity.

Nothing to say except, yes, it's stupid, and as a Christian I almost feel guilt by association when someone says something this ill-informed and unfeeling.

OK, so we have the position of the Royal College of Psychiatry. Time for the General Medical Council to get involved? This is absolutely shocking. But rather unsurprising, coming from Mrs Robinson. I wonder does Jesus *really* love her more than she will know?

Hate to disagree on the Northern Ireland comment.
I was surprised that this didn't come from the USA. Sounds just like one of our narrow minded hateful homophobic bible thumper's.

Posters 1-8 reprobate minds.

Why? the Bible tells us so.

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient

Christians who believe gay sex acts to be sinful (a view consistent with the Bible's teaching) need to be more honest in their analysis.

Gay sex acts may not, in the opinion of The Royal College of Psychiatrists, be an expression of a psychiatric disorder. The Bible doesn't say that they are, whatever Mrs Robinson's views on the matter. But they are, according to the Bible, an expression of a life lived in opposition to God's ways.

If a practicing homosexual came to believe this (that their acts were sinful), they would then be justified in seeking help to stop committing them. Ultimately, for the Christian, this help would come from the Bible, the person's faith in Christ and the support of the church community.

Having been involved over the years in helping several men make this journey of their own volition, I feel confident in the ability of the gospel itself to effect meaningful and lasting change in this (or any other) area of a person's life.

Hmmmm... When 'The puritan' started posting, I thought it was Billy reborn. Some had the same impression. Our new poster Posttenebraslux makes me think Billy may be born-again-again on this blog. Does anyone else think that may be him again?

Brian: "Only in Northern Ireland would this degree of ignorant homophobia receive a high oxygen level of publicity."

Hardly, Brian. Th story has been given publicity all across the UK.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I reckon this debate is not really about sexuality at all. To me it is more about whether or not God is allowed to have any wise and paternal authority in our lives.


Do we realistically expect that our opinions will never be overruled by a all-knowing compassionate God? That does not prejudge what his view is or is not on this issue BTW.


Some interesting quotes from Dr Millar over on "Belfast Today" which I sympathise with;-

"As a therapist, I have to say that it's like anything there are some people who engage in therapy and they just find the change process too difficult.

"I think we have to look at ways of supporting people if that is the case which is why I think that within the churches we have to be more gracious in regards to people because it isn't a choice?"


Several questions;-

Kinsey, Tatchell and wikipedia on "homosexuality" affirm that sexuality changes for many people throughout life. That being the case, how do we know that the people Dr Miller was helping were not going through the process of chance anyway? If we can provide support for people "coming out", why not provide support for people "going back in?" Would that not be discrimination on grounds of sexuality?

My last post contained a summary of quotes from the previous edition of Encylopaedia Britannican on "homosexuality", which appeared to support Dr Miller's assertions about studies on this subject.

PB

SECOND TIME LUCKY?

FYI Peter Tatchell rejected the conclusion of "Born Gay" because he knows so many gay people who have turned straight.

The wiki entry on homosexuality affirms that sexuality changes throughout many people's lifetime. A valid question might be, how do we distinguish between those people who are not changing and those people who are changing and should mental health support not be given to all of them regardless of what direction they are moving in?

The campaign to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness began in the US with the American Psychiatric Association in 1973. However this decision was taken by this trade guild based on a vote and not on the basis of new evidence. Many other similar bodies followed the APA after this.

Regarding the question of medical evidence for change of sexuality, Dr Miller says there is much evidence which is not acceptable to discuss nowadays. This appears to be reflected in Encyclopaedia Britannica. The previous edition cited much respected research which supported Dr Miller but the latest edition has removed it but without refutation of explanation.

The following is a summary of the content of the previous EB edition;-

There is no scientific evidence to conclude anyone is born gay - or for that matter heterosexual! EB says there is “a substantial body of evidence” to suggest that humans are born with the potential to become hetero, homo, bi or a-sexual. “Preferences unfold during the experiences of childhood and adolescence”.

Findings by anthropologists Clellan S. Ford and Frank A. Beach in Patterns of Sexual Behavior (1951) do not support the notion that homosexuality is a product of biology. In studying 76 different societies they found no record of exclusive homosexuality, though it was practised occasionally in adolescent ritual by men who went on to live heterosexual lives: “Polarizations to homosexuality and to heterosexuality appear to be a product of individual civilizations.”

Some investigators found elevated or diminished gonadal hormone levels in some homosexual men and women as compared with those of heterosexuals androgen may have changed the organization of brain pathways, thereby making some individuals less susceptible to postnatal programming toward heterosexuality. There is some evidence that suggests possible “predispositions” to sexuality, but these “do not preordain homosexual or heterosexual preferences; postnatal events can override this influence.”

Psychotherapist Irving Bieber and others found that troubled gays who came for treatment often had a distant father, leaving their patients to model their sexuality on their mothers, a view shared by Freud. However others reported this was not always present in the background of gay men.

Another likely influence is self labelling. Here, a person finds they have homosexual imagery “which may be quite a common occurrence” and then label themselves as homosexual and “polarize themselves away from heterosexuality”.

Milton Diamond and Arno Karlen in Sexual Decisions (1980) said some male homosexuals may then develop effeminate mannerisms: “Individuals with low self-esteem from childhood trauma might be particularly susceptible to such labelling”.

Marcel Saghir and Eli Robins, in their Male and Female Homosexuality (1973), found those who are not at ease with the opposite sex or are concerned about sexual performance may find homosexual activity easier; “The repeated conditioning of pleasure with ***** eventually results in the ********* becoming more unvarying, and polarization [away from heterosexuality] is further enhanced.”

The two conflicting viewpoints about homosexuality, as normal or deviant behaviour, remain in many professional texts of the subject and in the minds of mental health professionals and laypersons alike. “Most Psychologists in the 19th and 20th centuries classified homosexuality as a form of mental illness”.

The gay life-style is not a mirror image of heterosexuality. Bell and Weinberg Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (1978) found over three times as many gay men ordered their lives around sex or lived in open “marriages” as were in monogamous relationships. A further eighteen per cent were not happy with being gay.

Masters and Johnson's Homosexuality in Perspective (1979) found that 20 percent of male and female homosexuals were distressed with their sexuality. They found that short-term psychotherapy was effective in permanently bringing 72 per cent of them to heterosexuality.
END OF EB SUMMARY

PB

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

No Pb, it is not about a god or 'his' authority but about whether it was wise of a local MLA and wife of the first minister publicly to say that homosexuality is physically disgusting and needs psychiatric treatment to 'cure' it.

Her disgraceful comments were particularly repugnant in the wake of a vicious homophobic attack which left a young man in hospital with broken ribs. Once again, as throughout the Troubles, we have a link between poisonous words and poisonous actions.

If many gays in NI are unhappy, it is in no small way a result of such bigotry and intolerance, much of it backed up by so-called biblical scholarship which went out with the ark.

I accept what reddenm said in #8. In #5 I should have said: "Only in Northern Ireland and certain parts of America would this degree of ignorant homophobia receive a high oxygen level of publicity". I accept, as Augustine says (#12), that it has received publicity across the UK, but I think largely from the point of view of disgust. In NI it is presented as 'equal to' the 'gay is good' perspective.

Don't forget that Ian Paisley Junior recently made similar remarks, and his father led a 'save Ulster from sodomy' campaign to oppose the legalisation of homosexuality.

Although the majority of people in NI are probably more tolerant, the born-again Christian element dominates the thinking of the DUP and therefore punches above its weight, and the media oblige it.

The latter, of course, will say: "we're only reporting it; don't blame the messenger". But they said that throughout the Troubles and therefore failed to challenge the status quo to any significant extent. I am quite sure that the media in the UK as a whole would not 'balance' a homophobic viewpoint with its opposite in the way that it has been done in NI in recent days.

In post 19 Brian suggests that gay folk are only unhappy because people of faith condemn their sexuality.

I have heard the argument that even in very liberal countries where homosexuality has long been approved that gay people have mental health problems way above the national average.

Can anyone cite any figures on this issue, one way or the other?

Does anyone know of a society in history in which homosexuality flourished which was not a society in decline?

PB

PB are you the one hitting the complaint button about these posts? Is it because you have been placed on pre-mod yourself?

I read Brian's post before it "disappeared" and saw nothing objectionable-this is all getting very pathetic.

DD

You appear to be attributing to me supernatural powers to influence the moderators.

I am sure they would not be snipping your comments if they were not offensive.

But then again, you should really take that up with them, not me.

PB

PB

"You appear to be attributing to me supernatural powers to influence the moderators."

Not at all, nothing "supernatural" about it. This board is retroactively moderated meaning that a post is put up for moderation only if a complaint is received(unless you are suggesting a ghost did it:-/). I simply asked if you were the person who was hitting the complaint button-it was a simple question but I should know by now that I only get prevarication and bluster from you in response to a seemingly simple question. So did you hit the "complain" button?

"I am sure they would not be snipping your comments if they were not offensive."

Likewise PB(who is on pre-mod) and has had quite a lot of posts removed yourself!

"But then again, you should really take that up with them, not me."

Oh don't worry I will PB and I hope Brian will too. Personally speaking I never complain about posts. If I see a post I disagree with I prefer to engage the poster in debate. Someone who continually hits the "complain" button does display a rather pathetic, fundamentalist attitude in that they will not hear disagreement and prefer to stifle open debate. I suppose I should count myself lucky because 500 odd years ago I would have been burnt at the stake!

Regards in a non-unlawful, harassing, abusive, threatening, obscene, sexually explicit, racially offensive, or otherwise objectionable material way.

DD

Pb:

In the elusive #19 I did NOT say that gay people are only unhappy because people of faith condemn their sexuality. The second half of this statement is itself a misrepresentation, but it is the word 'only' that is quite misleading and has been slipped in by you. I suggested that homophobic attacks might be ONE of the reasons for unhappiness. And let's face it, if you were pilloried, threatened or beaten up, you mightn't feel too happy about it yourself.

As for your comment about homosexuality flourishing only in societies in decline, the most obvious rebuttal is Elizabethan England, a Golden Age, when Homosexuality was rife, yet it was the age of Shakespeare (himself a homosexual) and England's triumph over Spain.

Brian,

I read your post in M19 and for the life of me I did not see what was so "objectionable" about it. I do hope that if you receive a post from the mods that you will take it up from them and I will support you.

According to PB there does seem to be some "supernatural" presence on this thread which mostly objects to posts to PB(although my m18 was not addressed to PB). Perhaps this presence is PB's guardian angel!?

Good point about Elizabethan England, and moreover when Greek and Roman civilizations were at their peak , homosexuality was flourishing. One need only look at Hadrian and Trajan two Emperors who were both gay and the empire was at it's peak.

Regards

DD

Ps. Brian I must stress that my reply to you was meant in a in a non-unlawful, harassing, abusive, threatening, obscene, sexually explicit, racially offensive, or otherwise objectionable material way.

Hi Peter,

"Hmmmm... When 'The puritan' started posting, I thought it was Billy reborn. Some had the same impression. Our new poster Posttenebraslux makes me think Billy may be born-again-again on this blog. Does anyone else think that may be him again?"

I did post a reply to your thoughts in M14 but it mysteriously disappeared, must be some sort of supernatural presence that PB mentioned-perhaps this was the evidence for the supernatural that was promised to us but was never forthcoming. Anyway the post does remind me of Puritan/Billy/Christian Hippy-very abusive(he does call us reprobates-funny how this supernatural presence does not object to personal insults) and does display the same deep interest in homosexual matters.

In any case Peter I must stress to you that my reply to you is meant in a totally non-unlawful, harassing, abusive, threatening, obscene, sexually explicit, racially offensive, or otherwise objectionable material way.

Deepest regards

DD

I think the question is easily answered by looking at the mirror image of it. Could a straight person become gay? Speaking only from persnal experience, I'd have to say it is impossible. So many changes would have to be made to my brain that I would not be the same person. It seems the inverse is true and we now have scientific medical evidence in the structure of the human brain to explain why. The only reason I even brought this up is to point out how stupid it is to beileve what you read in the Bible. Why should the ingorance and intolerance displayed on this subject be any more invalid than everything else the primitives who wrote it put in it? The Catholic Church understood during the inquisition of the heretics that to find one loose chink in the dogma of a theology which claims an unwavering infalable explanation of the entire universe and existance is to bring the entire ediface crashing down. That is why they were and remain so angry at Galileo. He offered evidence that anyone who cared to could easily check for themselves.

At this point centuries later when we have some real knowledge, there are those like iris Robinson who for some unexplainable reason cling to the intellectual rubble of the Bible. It is they who are in need of psychiatric therapy but I have no idea if that therapy would be any more effective than what she and her kind advocate for homosexuals. After all, her tenacity to her indisputedly discredited views may be a sign of her own incurable mental disorder.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

PB

"The wiki entry on homosexuality affirms that sexuality changes throughout many people's lifetime. A valid question might be, how do we distinguish between those people who are not changing and those people who are changing and should mental health support not be given to all of them regardless of what direction they are moving in?"

Since you raised this subject about sexuality changing. I was wondering would you consider the possibility of your own sexuality changing? I believe this is fair comment since you raised the subject and I do not wish to infer anything.

Regards

DD

Dylan_Dog
This is one time I would not trust even one word Wiki says. Anyone can change it to whatever poltical agenda suits them. The only way to understand it is to go to authoritative medical sources and I'm not taking about the buch of assorted screwballs like McIntosh and Wilder-Smith you read about or are referenced in these blogs. There is genuine respected research, why don't you go and dig it up and report back. There are clearly biochemical explanations which relate directly to brain structure. These are factors nobody has control over.

Hi MarcusAureliusII

I am actually with you on this one. PB raised the Wiki article in M16 and since he cited it, I am simply interested to know (since he seemingly accepts the Wiki article) if he believes it is possible that his own sexuality could change.

Marcus

I agree with you that wiki is unreliable in and of itself but the authorities it quotes are usually useful, as in this entry on malleability of homosexuality.


You talk of biochemical explanations that "nobody has control over" but this is speculation and conjecture as I understand it.

I understand this argument does not distinguish between chemical cause or effect in this context but I am open to see your sources.


Can you show me any authoritative peer reviewed paper which explains conclusively what causes homosexuality and that it is 100 per cent fixed?

It is my understanding that such a thing does not exist.


PB

That's an interesting development: peab requiring peer reviewed literature to substantiate a scientific claim. A big step forward for a fundamentalist YEC after pbs numerous links to Answers in Genesis pages etc.

Ok peab, glad you upped your standards. Perhaps I could suggest the same criteria for various claims you've made in the past. I. e. where is your peer reviewed literature on the variable light speed used by fundamentalist YECs to explain light from billions of years away reaching us, faster than light speed travel that you mentioned, the changing fundamental physical constants as excuse to maintain the YEC view, QM undermining evolution, rapid oil formation, something to substantiate your criticisms against the validity of radiometric dating, something to substantiate the claim of a lack of transitional fossils in view of counter evidence presented to you.

And finally, apart from all the above items that would help somewhatto undo the old universe view, could you adhere to DDs often-repeated request and produce positive evidence for YEC, in authoritative peer-reviewed form please?

Peter

Well Pete

you are the big gun in scientific papers - can you come up with one if marcus can't?

PB

Hello peab,

Psychiatry is not my field and I didn't raise the issue. So I'll leave that one between you and Mark.

I would be happy though to exchange views with you on YEC issues. I notice you didn't answer any of the string of areas I mentioned in post 33. All areas in which you've made far-reaching claims in the past. Would you now be consistent and present peer-reviewed literature for all those? In the other thread you even criticised William Crawley for not presenting peer reviewed literature and you complained about different standards being applied to different people. It would be several consistency birds with one stone if you now applied the same standard to yourself that you demand of others and produced the peer-reviewed scientific literature in all those areas.

Peter

PB

I see you are up to your old prevarication and bluster yet again.

It is very odd and dare I say hypocritical for you to demand peer-reviewed evidence when you could not produce any yourself for Biblical creationism.

I did ask you a question in m29

and I was wondering was it you who repeatedly hit the 'complain' button?

I must stress that I am NOT asking in a demanding way(this is just to cut you off from your constant refrain to answering questions) but in a respectful and humble way.

Regards

DD

I don't think this was peer reviewed. I'm not embarking on a research project.

https://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/95/950310Arc5328.html


"Analysis of DNA markers on the X chromosomes of sibling pairs has further narrowed the search to a region called XQ28. It consists of hundreds of genes and is located near the tip of the X chromosome. However, there is some indication that genes located elsewhere may have a similar effect on sexual orientation,"

"there is some evidence that the brains of homosexuals may be different from those of heterosexual men and women. The differences have been found in the hypothalamus, which controls eating, drinking, temperature regulation and sexual behavior. Studies done in the Netherlands and in Southern California have found such differences in several areas within the hypothalamus. One region, the midsagittal area of the anterior commissure, is larger in females than in males, but also appears to be larger in homosexual males. Another area, the suprachiasmatic nucleus, which controls circadian rhythm, is larger in heterosexual males and females than it is in homosexuals."

You won't find any of this in your bibles. The people who wrote it wouldn't know a chromosome from a moon rock.

You'll have to do your own hunting. I don't have the time or interest but it's all out there, tons of it.

To be honest the question of whether or not a gay person can change their sexuality takes us away from the obvious fact that Iris Robinson is an intolerant religious fanatic.

Even if it is the case that sexuality is fluid, this makes absolutely no difference in terms of what Robinson has said. These people would have every right to chose whatever sexuality they desired. The fact is simply that Robinson is a bigot.

Peter all your questions have been discussed at length on other threads.


Some of mine outstanding too for YOU;-

What was the first cause of the universe?
Where did matter come from?
How did life begin?
What is life?
Where did conscience come from?
What is conscience?
Why are scientific laws stable?
What are the chances of the universe coming together in such a way as to consistently support life on earth?
What happens your consciousness / personality after death?
How do you define 'supernatural' in a non arbitrary way which allows for scientific breakthroughs beyond current understanding of nature?
How did Kelvin base the TSLOT on the bible?




If William can even substiate his comments with mainstream reference works that will be good enough for me.
Enc Britannica tears him to shreads as it is.


On the next thread another poster accuses him of serious bias in what he says on fluidity of sexuality.

later

PB

PS DD you are like the criminal caught by the police who engages in a witchhunt; "who shopped me for my criminal activity?" he asks.

A better question for him, of course, is why am I committing criminal acts in the first place? but his mentality is such that his only thought is anger/vengence and he cant/wont reflect on this question.

Peter all your questions have been discussed at length on other threads.


Some of mine outstanding too for YOU;-

What was the first cause of the universe?
Where did matter come from?
How did life begin?
What is life?
Where did conscience come from?
What is conscience?
Why are scientific laws stable?
What are the chances of the universe coming together in such a way as to consistently support life on earth?
What happens your consciousness / personality after death?
How do you define 'supernatural' in a non arbitrary way which allows for scientific breakthroughs beyond current understanding of nature?
How did Kelvin base the TSLOT on the bible?




If William can even substiate his comments with mainstream reference works that will be good enough for me.
Enc Britannica tears him to shreads as it is.


On the next thread another poster accuses him of serious bias in what he says on fluidity of sexuality.

later

PB

PS DD you are like the criminal caught by the police who engages in a witchhunt; "who shopped me for my criminal activity?" he asks.

A better question for him, of course, is why am I committing criminal acts in the first place? but his mentality is such that his only thought is anger/vengence and he cant/wont reflect on this question.

PB

You are getting all worked up PB(mild)-you also seem to be suffering from multiple personality disorder. Have you been banned in your original form? Are you posting another name to get around your ban for posting offensive posts?

Please PB(original or otherwise)do not take your obvious frustrations out on me. I think that this may be the result of your fundamentalist mentality.

Your bluster and prevarication and your lack of peer-reviewed papers on questions posed are again noted.

Kindest regards

DD

ps. Peter did indeed answer your "questions" on religion...evolution thread. Indeed PB it is more than a tad hypocritical for you to demand answers when there are some very *simple* questions (to stunning points you have made). Moreover there are many *simple* questions that you have run away from for the past year and a half. Indeed you challenged me to post the untruths you have posted-which I did-but I only got hot air from you..then you ran away. They can be found on the religion...social evil thread.

I must stress that my reply to you was meant in a in a non-unlawful, harassing, abusive, threatening, obscene, sexually explicit, racially offensive, or otherwise objectionable material way.

PB, which of Will's comments is upsetting you so much in this post? Which comment needs substantiation?

A of C

Not in this post - in his latest post he suggests that sexuality is inhernet and fixed.

DD can you discuss that at all?

PB

Hello peab,

"Peter all your questions have been discussed at length on other threads."

You have made far-reaching statements on these subjects, but usually only backing them up (if at all) with tired old AiG pages. As you are now so eager to demand peer-reviewed scientific literature from everyone, how about applying that to yourself? Where is your peer-reviewed scientific literature on variable light speed, faster than light speed travel, the changing fundamental physical constants, QM undermining evolution, rapid oil formation, your criticisms against the validity of radiometric dating, the claim of a lack of transitional fossils in view of counter evidence presented to you? I've asked several time snow in this thread alone. After asking about it on other threads. As have others. Where is it peab, do you have anything to offer other than a total blank on the matter?


I won't pretend that science has all the answers on things like conscious thinking. But by not assuming a fundamentalist position of 'Goddunnit' on everything and instead admitting there are unanswered questions, some people realize there are things to investigate. That's how we learn peab.

And finally it would be interesting to learn the answer to DDs question. You assert pretty staunchly that a persons sexuality is not fixed. As DD asks, is that true for you too then? Could you imagine ever leaving the Titans?

Peter

PB you have misunderstood what Will has said. He has not said that homosexuality is fixed. He has written a comment on this on the other post. Perhaps an apology to Will for misrepresenting his view would be in order?

PB

"Peter all your questions have been discussed at length on other threads."

I almost missed this, they may have been discussed but not by you. All we got as ever was prevarication and bluster-and they were such simple questions!

Indeed PB on this thread at m146

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/04/is_religion_a_social_evil.html

You ask me to tell you the lies that I believe you told-which I gave you a very small selection. However I am afraid that we did not get past the first one!

Indeed here it is...

"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

Now could you back this stunning statement up with one peer-reviewed paper? I have only asked you about 20 times(and I mean that without exaggeration!). You see PB it is very hypocritical of you to demand peer-reviewed evidence when you cannot back it up yourself! More so sine on many occasions you have displayed your shameful ignorance by totally dismissing the peer-review system!

Now...

"Not in this post - in his latest post he suggests that sexuality is inhernet and fixed.

DD can you discuss that at all?"

Maybe when you can talk about how fluid and changeable your own sexuality is? Please note I do not mean this question to you to infer anything insulting and abusive. I believe that it is fair comment since you raise the point.

Regards

DD

A of C

Do not expect an apology from PB. Unfortunately he is of the fundamentalist mindset and as such he is never wrong except...when he invariably is.

Regards

DD

PB

Where you the poster who fingered me? (to the mods)

Regards

DD

being gay is not something that should be discourage...

it is not a lifestyle...

being obese, lazy and or uneducated is a choice.

DD and Peter

it is thought provoking that the majority of your comments on this blog focus on me.

I can only conclude that my analysis of the issues we have disussed over time as got under your skin that much.

In essence the factual conclusion of them was this;-

* Modern science was created as a form of worship by scientists with a biblical worldview during the scientific revolution.

* They saw science as the study of the uniformity of natural causes and a subset of a supernatural world.

* This is still a valid description of science today, as science cannot give an objective definition of "supernatural" in order to exclude it.

* Lastly, the founding fathers of modern science saw God as the essential Grand Theory of Everything ie the first cause of the universe, the reason for stability of scientific laws and the origin of matter, life and conscience etc etc.

* This hypothesis is just as strong and viable today as it was then.


I think the reason Peter and you are so sore is that you simply cant hide from these facts.



kinds regards
PB

Dear PB(and I am glad that you are off pre-mod)

"it is thought provoking that the majority of your comments on this blog focus on me."

Well PB it is because you raise such important scientific questions and then when asked to back them up...you run away!

"I can only conclude that my analysis of the issues we have disussed over time as got under your skin that much."

Not at all PB, I would say that we got under your skin ;-). Indeed your posts betray how impossible and fun it is to try and discuss matters in a rational matter with a religious fundamentalist.

Indeed the factual conclusion of our discussions with you can only conclude that:-

Biblical creationism is a load of dishonest codswallop-of which you have provided many, many examples for which I must again thank you.

As to your "points" well so what, they were answered before, and you know things have moved on plus you did finally admit that your definition of "supernatural" was whatever Protestant fundamentalism says it is. Please remember PB that even if your "points" are true it does not hide the fact that Biblical creationism is utter balderdash.

"Modern science was created as a form of worship by scientists with a biblical worldview during the scientific revolution."

It does not make the Biblical worldview correct(as you have so successfully demonstrated on so many occasions), indeed it was the evidence based reasoning that gave us evolution and the old age of the earth. Don't forget that a lot of scientists faced fury from those of a Biblical based viewpoint eg., Galileo and the Bible-believing Geo-centrists. But do not worry PB intelligent Christians do not have a problem with evolution/science-scientists like Francis Collins-have you ever heard of him? as he would seem to undermine your argument :-/


I did mention you running away before-in m46 I raised the point that...

Indeed PB on this thread at m146

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/04/is_religion_a_social_evil.html

You asked me to tell you the lies that I believe you told-which I gave you a very small selection. However I am afraid that we did not get past the first one!(just more prevarication and bluster)

Indeed here it is...

"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

Now could you back this stunning statement up with one peer-reviewed paper? I have only asked you about 20 times(and I mean that without exaggeration!). Now I say that this statement is without truth(and I am being kind to you here), this example illustrates how difficult it is deal with the fundamentalist mindset which is always RIGHT! Now PB I would love for you to prove me wrong(this is how normal debate works-not just hitting the complain button when someone disagrees with your narrow worldview)-just give me one(just one !) measly little peer-reviewed paper that would back up your claims.

I think the reason that you are so sore PB is that myself, Peter and others(of all faiths and none)is that you cannot hide from the fact that we have exposed your dishonest arguments and and sent your cognitive dissonance into overload!

But personally speaking I do forgive you as you are gods gift to atheism.

Kindest regards

DD

ps. Was it you who constantly hit the complain button?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

(will I just save you the time PB?)

DD


Can you define "fundamentalist"?

I clearly aint one. Try it.

I have discussed the QM matter with Klaver at length and he was flummoxed;-

Can you provide any evidence to support the idea that reality is made up or 9 - 10 dimensions DD?

QM's string theory stands on this assertion and Klaver couldnt stand it up.

Therefore my provocative polemic is not without justification; If there is no evidence to prove the existence of these 9-10 dimensions do we consider string real science or not?

Over to you DD.


BTW, if you read carefully you will see that I never mentioned creationism in this thread.

Contrary to what Klaver said I have always said I never found the evidence for a young earth convincing.

I have stated numerous times I think the creationism/evolution debate is a red herring, as you are well aware.

The real point is whether the creation and stability of the universe, matter and life can be explained without a creator. It doesnt.


You could also do well to consider why it appears you have hit the record for the number of posts censored.

The supreme irony is that you are oblivious to the fact that whoever hits the complain button, it is only posts which play the man and not the ball that get pulled.

So if you concenrtated on debating the issue and left out the insults, the moderators could NEVER pull your posts.

something to think about DD.

PB

DD

incidentally, I think the reason I am on pre-mod was because I repeatedly tried to copy and paste verbatim comments made by you and Peter on posts 218-219 here;-


https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/09/the_evolution_of_a_debate_at_s_1.html


It would be very interesting to see if you might be able to repost your comments now!

;-)

PB

PB

Good to see you back and full of prevarication and bluster as normal!-some things never change!

OH PB-you certainly are a fundamentalist-you never admit you are wrong(even when you invariably are), reason and rationale go out the window and the cognitive dissonance is just incredible!

Well the prevarication and bluster is indeed noted! Those points are addressed to Peter so I will leave them to him since he is a quantum physicist and you obviously know more about it than he does!

However

"I have discussed the QM matter with Klaver at length and he was flummoxed;- "

I don't think so, perhaps he was "flummoxed" by your inane questions and wilful ignorance.

Now...

Indeed PB on this thread at m146

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/04/is_religion_a_social_evil.html

You asked me to tell you the lies that I believe you told-which I gave you a very small selection. However I am afraid that we did not get past the first one!(just more prevarication and bluster)

Indeed here it is...

"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

PB it is very simple-either this statement is true or it is not-I say it is not-so could you give me the scientific evidence to back it up?

Over to you PB!

"Contrary to what Klaver said I have always said I never found the evidence for a young earth convincing."

Though you did repeatedly use AIG "arguments" and you have been asked to clarify your position but nothing was forthcoming.

"The real point is whether the creation and stability of the universe, matter and life can be explained without a creator. It doesnt."

But it can, and science has blown Biblical creationism out of the water. To be honest with you PB I can see why you are shying away from creationism as you did show on many(nay every) occasion what dishonest twaddle it is-for which I must again thank you.

"You could also do well to consider why it appears you have hit the record for the number of posts censored."

have you been keeping count PB? I didn't know you cared! You may also do well to consider that you were placed on pre-mod/banned and had to resort to posting under multiple identities-so perhaps you should remove the moat from thine own eye before you cast the first stone at other people-it is so hypocritical PB.

"The supreme irony is that you are oblivious to the fact that whoever hits the complain button, it is only posts which play the man and not the ball that get pulled."

So was it you who hit the complain button? Personally I prefer to work things out in a civilised manner-indeed not all my posts got pulled some got re-instated.

Indeed PB stick to the issues-so why not attempt to get that one paper which would back up your stunning views on QM-then perhaps we can work through the many other falsehoods you have told on this blog.

Something to think about PB

Kindest regards

DD

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

PB

Re: your comments about "playing the ball"-I feel I must refer you to what other Christians have been saying about you-though it gives me no pleasure to do so.

Jovial PTL replied to you in thread

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/06/have_you_committed_an_abominat.html

I am a traditional conservative Christian PB but you are not doing that view many favours with your comments on here. Play the ball, not the man. If you are going to attack Crawley, at least don't strip him of his doctors degree!! I would rather you didn't push the debate into personal comments at all, this is all too serious for that. Remember - "Truth with love!!"

And Augustine of Cripo(who is an evangelical Christian) states "PB, I know I am wasting my time trying to reason with you about this, but I will foolishly try in any case."

I could also add more but you have made some comments in the past concerning how people respond to you-John Wright sums it up best when he states..."hate speech", PB, do you really think that's what it is? I think they're attacking your arguments, not you as a person. And it isn't done from hate, it's done from intense disagreement on the issues."

Not many people are agreeing with you PB.

Kindest regards

DD

Incidentally PB,

To be honest it is a bit of a waste of time asking questions about string theory and QM to me(after all you are self-proclaimed expert in these areas and indeed in all branches of science!). However I have referred you on many occasions to post on dedicated science message boards and did post the links many times(I will not do this now as it is of course a complete waste of time -though it is fun!-in trying to deal with someone with a fundamentalist mindest)-if you were sincere and honest you would have done this.

Anyway I am off to watch the Euro footie final! what about you PB will you be watching? do we have something in common?

Regards

DD

Ah my sweet peab,

I see you're up to your old ways again of putting comments in old threads. No hope of getting in the last word from a lost position peab, all long-time poster know you too well for that.

"it is thought provoking that the majority of your comments on this blog focus on me."

Well, you need more correcting that all other posters on this blog put together. Fortunately I get lots of help, not just from atheists but also from christians who clearly distance themselves from you. See e.g. the christians DD quotes against you.

I'm glad you concede that the supernatural has no place in science. That is a step forward for a self-professed fundamentalist YEC like you.

"I think the reason Peter and you are so sore is that you simply cant hide from these facts."

DD and I aren't sore, were well used to your rough love by now. Just like the Titans.


I also saw your science-related comments in the other post. You wrote

"I have discussed the QM matter with Klaver at length and he was flummoxed;-"

No you haven't discussed it anything. You merely made the error of stating that QM was undermining science. One of your worst errors in the debates on this blog, as I'm sure you remember, given how often you have been shamed over it.

"Can you provide any evidence to support the idea that reality is made up or 9 - 10 dimensions DD?"

The experimental verification through measurements of gravitational lensing has been pointed out to you many times.

"QM's string theory stands on this assertion and Klaver couldnt stand it up."

QM's string theory? Peab, don't you even know that you're merging the names of two theories into one? Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....

"Therefore my provocative polemic is not without justification; If there is no evidence to prove the existence of these 9-10 dimensions do we consider string real science or not?"

See the answer on gravitational lensing again.

greets to you peab, and since they might well be the last ones before I leave Belfast, I'll make it very special ones,

xXXXX
Peter

nice try DD / peter but you are not getting off that easy.


The challenge was to repaste the comments from posts 218 and 219


not to try and spin your way out with indirect quotations.


go ahead both of you, lets see you try


Peter lots of bluster, but still no proof whatsoever of the 9-10 dimensions of string theory.

still waiting


;-)

PB

DD

ref post 57


I think I can see that one the one hand my posts in question could have certainly been more gracious.

However on the other hand Christ and Paul throughout the NT often had stern words for teachers of errer etc and they werent soft soaped words either!

no sir!!!!!

I have previously apologised to Will for lack of grace and I can do so again without hesitation. sorry william.

However, I have a quick look at the posts and come to this conclusion.


The posters who criticised me either also agreed with the points I was raising or failed to address them at all!!

This was

1) primarily that William was incorrectly implying that the church had to take on board the entire OT law verbatim and.

2) his clumsy use of the term fundamentalist to tar his oppoenents in this debate.

This 2) was done by him in a post and not on the main intro.

William did not respond to either point, please note.

Someone also accused me of stripping him of his doctorate, which I never did.

he does not sign as Dr nor is he normally addressed as such here.

But the fact that he has the full training of a presbyterian minister and a doctors degree underlines the fact that he is well aware of the above fallacious devices he has used to forward his argument.

I dont apologise for repeating either of these points because they are both 100 % true.

I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise.

William is v learned and intelligent so I would like to see him open the debate up to the full of his ability in this regard.


Now as for playing the man and not the ball... well DD you appear to be a mile in front for the number of posts which the mods have censored.

And guess what, they only censor posts which play the man and not the ball!

Nice of you to inquire but not into football. what about rugby?


PB

PB

Prevarication and bluster noted yet again and PB you are not getting off that easy.

PB on this thread at m146

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/04/is_religion_a_social_evil.html

You asked me to tell you the lies that I believe you told-which I gave you a very small selection. However I am afraid that we did not get past the first one!(just more prevarication and bluster)

Indeed here it is...

"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

PB it is very simple-either this statement is true or it is not-I say it is not-so could you give me the scientific evidence to back it up?

Over to you PB!

PB

I would encourage you to take heed of what your fellow Christians are saying about you.

"Now as for playing the man and not the ball... well DD you appear to be a mile in front for the number of posts which the mods have censored.

And guess what, they only censor posts which play the man and not the ball!"

Well PB it is lovely that you care and take such a deep interest in me-however you were the poster placed on pre-mod and who had to resort to using multiple identities in order to bypass your punishment. Moreover you really should remove the moat from thine own eye before throwing the first stones at others. I have no wish for you to attempt to bring me down to your level.

And...I see you are(or the supernatural diety you mentioned) is censoring posts again! M56-I kept a copy of the message and it certainly played the ball! PB what is the point in having a discussion-in which I answer your points but you continually hit the complain button!? It would be better if we could work this out like intelligent adults and if you see something you disagree with ask me about it-we could work it out!

I will put up the post again soon and perhaps you could tell me personally what is wrong with it. I am afraid that in attempting to "debate" with you illustrates the futility in attempting a discussion with someone with a fundamentalist mindset.

Don't like rugby PB-though have been to a few Ulster matches and they are good for the craic if nothing else!

Peter Klaver

just in case I miss you before you leave NI...

...all the best for your life and career.

It has been good to be asked tough questions!

kinds regards
PB



PS DD here is a hint; if you accuse someone of being dishonest or telling lies that is playing the man!

it is so serious you can sued for it in fact!

PB

"PS DD here is a hint; if you accuse someone of being dishonest or telling lies that is playing the man!

it is so serious you can sued for it in fact!"

thank you ever so much for the hint PB!

However I don't know why you are addressing this to me since I of course have "played the ball" in addressing comments you have made yourself. Such as here in this thread at m146

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/04/is_religion_a_social_evil.html

You asked me to tell you the lies that I believe you told-which I gave you a very small selection. However I am afraid that we did not get past the first one!(just more prevarication and bluster)

Indeed here it is...

"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

PB it is very simple-either this statement is true or it is not-I say it is not-so could you give me the scientific evidence to back it up?


You see PB your statement is without truth, it is bereft of facts, a falsehood or to put it into the vernacular-a lie. Now if your statement(notice playing the ball) was true you would of course be able to back it up but you cannot because it is a... lie.

To be fair to you PB, and I did say this before, I do believe that you intentionally set out to tell lies-however it is your fundamentalist faith that forces you to adopt positions without evidence such as Biblical creationism which force you into (perhaps unknowingly in your case) of telling falsehoods. Which results in full-scale cognitive dissonance.

Now PB there is no need to be nasty-just back up the statement with scientific evidence(since it is a science question) or at least admit that you got it wrong and we can move on.

quite funny DD - post 58

You asked me to prove what I am talking about but then say it is useless talking to you about QM and string theory because you are not a scientist.

I am afraid you are going to have to make up your mind which it is!

:-D

Ulster games are good craic alright BTW

PB


PS Pete - come on, cough up that evidence for the existence for the 9 dimensions which string theory says exist all through the universe Pete?

Has anyone ever seen one of these strings?

Just because there is *some* experimental evidence for the overall theory does not prove that tiny strings across 9 dimensions are the root of it all, as you well know...

;-)

Hi PB,

It does seem that you are on pre-mod again :-/

Anyway I was going to add to what it means to debate.

PB this is Will's BBC blog, Will posts topics which interest him-the rest of us reply. The topic of science is a topic which greatly interests a lot of us and science is basically about an explanation about how things work IOW it has to produce results.

You have posted numerous times on the subject of science, and myself and a great many others (of whatever persuasion) believe you have got it wrong. In a public debate forum such as this if you make a statement-and this is especially true in regards to science-you must be able to back it up.

Hence the reason why I ask-quite justly I believe-for you to back statements up such as your opinions on Quantum Mechanics in relation to evolution. All I am asking is for you to back it up-what is so wrong about that? The evidence shows that QM is not undermining evolution-if you have info to the contrary I and others would love to hear it. If you cannot provide it, then I am afraid that it does look like you have made a false/dishonest(call it what you will) statement. Can you imagine how it must look to the rest of us that you cannot back your statements up!

The reason why I am making myself clear here PB, is that I feel that you are gearing up for another Jihad against posts which have the temerity to disagree with you. The main problem I believe is your fundamentalist mindset which though you may believe sincerely that you are telling the "truth"-in what the rest of us like to call *reality* it does not quite look like that.

Why not quit the prevarication and answer the point I made in m65(and many other times) or at the very least admit you got it wrong.

Regards

DD

Forgive me PB you were on pre-mod and I did not see your reply until I posted previously.

"You asked me to prove what I am talking about but then say it is useless talking to you about QM and string theory because you are not a scientist."

Errr not at all PB I said it is pretty pointless asking me about string theory as I am not obviously the self-confessed expert that you are in what is known to be one of the most difficult subjects in science. Peter has gone over this subject with you before and I was stressing the point yet again that if you are really *sincere* in finding out more about science and how it works why not go and ask scientists working in related fields. I did post links on many occasions but do realise that this was a complete waste of my time because you are a fundamentalist and as such are never wrong-even when you invariably are.

Prevarication and bluster noted again PB.

Now...in this thread at m146

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/04/is_religion_a_social_evil.html

You asked me to tell you the lies that I believe you told-which I gave you a very small selection. However I am afraid that we did not get past the first one!(just more prevarication and bluster)

Indeed here it is...

"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

PB it is very simple-either this statement is true or it is not-I say it is not-so could you give me the scientific evidence to back it up?

Kindest regards

DD

My sweet peab,

"Peter lots of bluster, but still no proof whatsoever of the 9-10 dimensions of string theory.

still waiting"

Is it going to take you as long to read up on that measurement of gravitational lensing as it is sofar taking yopu to read up on transitional fossils? On the fossils, it's sofar over a year and a half. How many years and how many dozens of repeats before you read what is presented to you on gravitational lensing.

And still laughing at your 'QM string theory' btw.

Happy reading peab.

As ever yours,
xxXXXX
Peter

Oh dear, my dear peab,

I hadn't seen the next bit yet:

"PS Pete - come on, cough up that evidence for the existence for the 9 dimensions which string theory says exist all through the universe Pete?

Has anyone ever seen one of these strings?

Just because there is *some* experimental evidence for the overall theory does not prove that tiny strings across 9 dimensions are the root of it all, as you well know..."

The volume of evidence is admittedly still small. But even that puts it well ahead of creationism for which DD and I have time and time again asked positive evidence from you. Do you have even the minutest bit that puts it ahead of string theory? It's a bit rich of you to complain about string theory when that is still considered tentative because of its limited volume of evidence, when you are a complete and total fundamentalist YEC without any evidence.

greets,
Peter

PB/Orthodox Tradition

I am still waiting an answer to the point above!

Regards

DD

I'm sick of people who are homophobic using the Bible as a legitimate reason to be so. The look of horror on their faces humours me when I tell them that the Bible didn't descend from heaven in a golden light to be passed to the masses as the word of God. Why does that idea sound feasible while "A book written by man for man" gets laughed at? Iris hides behind this book and uses some obscure verse within it as a beacon of knowledge and inspiration for her own point of view of which she is entitled. She's homophobic and she wants to be homophobic. If your brain is programmed to accept this then its also programmed to accept sexism, racism and class. Iris feels easy to use these comments as they are the foundations of the community she's a part of. Honestly, if God is "displeased" with gay people then why did he create them in the first place, after all he created everything, didn't he?