Scientific cause of homosexuality

[soccerdad57]

Sorry, none of my cousins swing from trees.

I got a couple that would fit right in though

 

[Wads42]

Respectfully, I don’t understand your question.

Straw man response since I did not say that you said that God did not create the human soul. What I said was that I do not hold to the view that God created man (who has an eternal soul) from animals (which do not have eternal souls). In other words, Chimps are animals without eternal souls agreed? You appear to be suggesting that God used evolution to create mankind (who has eternal souls) from creatures. If one holds that theory, the next step is to ask, “how did God create the monkeys? What sub-creature (also not having an eternal soul) was used to create them?” Eventually, (using the theory of evolution) one can take this process back all the way to single cell creatures and say that man is a direct descendant of bacteria and/or archaea. I have no problem with some aspects of evolution; however, that ends when it comes to one kingdom evolving into a different kingdom altogether. Members of the animal kingdom can share certain physical aspects, but an animal will remain an animal, a plant will remain a plant, bacteria will remain bacteria… they will not evolve into man no matter how many eons pass.

Wads42: Don’t forget that the Linnaean classifications of living things is a purely human construct, in order to try and classify oranisms ratiinally. Within a Kingdom there is still random variations of phenotypic traits, which are the basis for continued evolution. All a Kingdom is, is a broad classification of roughly similar types (forms (species, whatever). No two leopards are identical, they have diiferent patterns , distrivution and colouring of their spots; likewise tigers etc.

And this I can agree on. However, you stated above that, “Me is created when a human [sperm] joins the [ovum].” Now, how did a male chimp get human sperm and a female chimp get a human ovum? By your statement, a human (“me”) requires human sperm and a human egg. At some point in the past, according to your theory, there must have been a male and female chimp walking around with these requirements and luckily they met.

Wads42:: Sperm and ova evolve as well, seeing as how they are just haploid versions of ordinary diploid body cells with half of the full quota of chromosomes. For instance, I personally am the result of a mutated sperm call from my elderly (63) father,-resulting in a deformity of my left arm (it is no great problem). So mutations DO occur in sperms and ova, and they produce phenotypic effects in the offspring,-which therefore show Ranfom Genetic Drift down the generations, and change their appearance: ie the Common Primate Ancestor has descendents, some of which are Chimp-like, and some are Human-like;–and we have the fossils to prove it; eg Australopithecus afarensis etc.
Try reading Richard dawkins; "The Ancestor’s Tale).

I apologize; I must have missed the explanation of how/why if chimps evolved into humans, why we still have chimps today.

Wads42: See above; and try and concentrate.

Okay, well for the record you and I are both technically pushing the line on the form rules then by posting off-topic posts. This isn’t supposed to be a thread on evolution as it relates to where man came from. For that reason, I will give in and should you decide to respond to this post, you may have the last word. I will not continue this discussion in this thread.

Wads42: Evolution IS where Man came from, so it is highly relevant.

Yes, it did appear here when you posted…

Since my cousins are not monkeys, I wanted to possibly clear up the misunderstanding. Also, since I did not wish to discuss the subject of evolution, I did not create a new thread to do so. It is the responsibility of the one who wishes to discuss such a topic (your original post suggests that you wish this) to create the thread.

Wads42: All living things are your cousins, including carrots. Some are closer than others. We all have the same DNA (with variations), so we are all related; quite apart from our bodily resemblance, eys, noses etc. Read the books instead of arguing with amateurs like me.

Generally, there is no problem discussing this topic. Assuming all parties are respectful and the topic is in the correct thread.

Interesting since the 1950 encyclical Humani generis condemned several of Teilhard’s opinions. But enough is enough. I will concede that if you wish to believe that your cousins are chimps, you can do so. I will continue to believe that God created man from dust, breathed life into him and infused an eternal soul in him from creation forward. God bless.

Wads42: Nice story, but just fiction, derived from the Sumerian Enuma Elish, and many other creation myths.
Sherlock Holmes is just fiction, but it resembles fact without being so,. Just enjoy it as a story, and nothing more,
We have the evidence!

 

[Wads42]

Medawar is a scientist as Teilhard but Teilhard was also a master in Philosophy and a master in Theology.
Now, you may see the difference.
You did not answer my question: do you have faith that after death, there is nothing? “There is nothing” makes no sense, is there is then it it not nothing, if it is nothing then there is not “there is”. Well we must talk somehow !!!
So, after death, you just evaporate, no?

Don’t forget, Science originally was called “Natural Philosophy”,-so they are the same sort of thing;but now science is organised thought, plus empirical evidence.
Otherwise there is no real difference; they are both the desire to find truth by systematic investigation.
I don’t have “faith” in anything; I observe scientific and philosophical conclusions and build a world-view based upon them,–always bearing in mind that it might be mistaken, and is in any case subject to ongoing updates.
The evidence is, that there is no evidence for a God or an eternal soul or individual survival of death. Obviously we collectively go on through our descendents and accomplishemts. When I was a medical student, the first thing the Dean of our hospital said to us was: "in all my years as a surgeon I have never come across the “soul”.
So I believe, based on lack of empirical evidence, and the illogicallity of the Mind (soul) surviving without the continued support of the physical brain–is that there is “nothing” after death. Of course we still do not know what “Nothing” is; I once gave a talk on “Nothing”, my children were confused by the title.
When you turn off the TV you don’t ask where the picture went do you?–it just ceaed to rxist; likewise the Mind.
There is continued confusion about “Nothing”, among philosophes and scientist. On the one hand we have Aristotle saying “Nothing comes from nothing”, and the Catholic Church saying “God created the Universe ex nihilo”; which is contradictory.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Respectfully, I don’t understand your question.

Straw man response since I did not say that you said that God did not create the human soul. What I said was that I do not hold to the view that God created man (who has an eternal soul) from animals (which do not have eternal souls). In other words, Chimps are animals without eternal souls agreed? You appear to be suggesting that God used evolution to create mankind (who has eternal souls) from creatures. If one holds that theory, the next step is to ask, “how did God create the monkeys? What sub-creature (also not having an eternal soul) was used to create them?” Eventually, (using the theory of evolution) one can take this process back all the way to single cell creatures and say that man is a direct descendant of bacteria and/or archaea. I have no problem with some aspects of evolution; however, that ends when it comes to one kingdom evolving into a different kingdom altogether. Members of the animal kingdom can share certain physical aspects, but an animal will remain an animal, a plant will remain a plant, bacteria will remain bacteria… they will not evolve into man no matter how many eons pass.

And this I can agree on. However, you stated above that, “Me is created when a human [sperm] joins the [ovum].” Now, how did a male chimp get human sperm and a female chimp get a human ovum? By your statement, a human (“me”) requires human sperm and a human egg. At some point in the past, according to your theory, there must have been a male and female chimp walking around with these requirements and luckily they met.

I apologize; I must have missed the explanation of how/why if chimps evolved into humans, why we still have chimps today.

Okay, well for the record you and I are both technically pushing the line on the form rules then by posting off-topic posts. This isn’t supposed to be a thread on evolution as it relates to where man came from. For that reason, I will give in and should you decide to respond to this post, you may have the last word. I will not continue this discussion in this thread.

Yes, it did appear here when you posted…

Since my cousins are not monkeys, I wanted to possibly clear up the misunderstanding. Also, since I did not wish to discuss the subject of evolution, I did not create a new thread to do so. It is the responsibility of the one who wishes to discuss such a topic (your original post suggests that you wish this) to create the thread.

Generally, there is no problem discussing this topic. Assuming all parties are respectful and the topic is in the correct thread.

Interesting since the 1950 encyclical Humani generis condemned several of Teilhard’s opinions. But enough is enough. I will concede that if you wish to believe that your cousins are chimps, you can do so. I will continue to believe that God created man from dust, breathed life into him and infused an eternal soul in him from creation forward. God bless.

You follow the German Principle: “If you can complicate to do not simplify”.
Let me not be German.
The Body was from apes.
All of a sudden, God Created man when took some apes and gave them human souls.
So, the body came from evolution, the soul came, comes, and will come from God.
The soul was, is and will be created when a human spermatozoa joins a human ovum.
It seems that God does not creates soul to apes any more.
Teilhard de Chardin was condemned by the Church. But it no more.
By th way, Galileo was persecuted too.
Sorry, if I am pushing the coundaries of the thread, sorry…
I think this matter of evolution is hot only in the States.
But I will follow Any Moderator’s instructions and advices.
I am good at following (superior) orders…
If you want to open another thread, please, if you want, invite me…

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I got a couple that would fit right in though

I love my cousins…they are nice thought they have a problem…they smell bad…
My wife cannot watch them: she says they seems human, not being humans…
I think you cannot answer but I would love to know why the “incognito” couple resembles apes…

 

[friendster324]

There are all sorts of dispositions people are “born” with that don’t give us a free pass to behave however we want. Some people are more quick-tempered. That doesn’t give them the right to be abusive. Some say that alcoholism is genetic. That doesn’t make it okay for those people to go out binge drinking.

We each have our crosses to bear. Some seem heavier than others. But God will give us the grace to persevere.

Great perspective. People seem to think that if it’s “natural” it’s good, but as you showed above, dispositions don’t negate the sinfulness of behavior.

 

[friendster324]

Nice story, but just fiction,

For those of us who accept evolution but also are believers, we still view this story as more than “just fiction.” Even if it is not a concrete explanation of the creation of the world, it is still inspired and teaches us truths about ourselves, the world, God, etc. There are “truths” to be gleaned from Genesis, even if we don’t take it literally.

 

[roothless]

Satan’s science will come up with anything if it gets people to sin.

They even try to “prove” that God does not exist.

God means everything!
Science means nothing!

People like you make me sad

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Don’t forget, Science originally was called “Natural Philosophy”,-so they are the same sort of thing;but now science is organised thought, plus empirical evidence.
Otherwise there is no real difference; they are both the desire to find truth by systematic investigation.
I don’t have “faith” in anything; I observe scientific and philosophical conclusions and build a world-view based upon them,–always bearing in mind that it might be mistaken, and is in any case subject to ongoing updates.
The evidence is, that there is no evidence for a God or an eternal soul or individual survival of death. Obviously we collectively go on through our descendents and accomplishemts. When I was a medical student, the first thing the Dean of our hospital said to us was: "in all my years as a surgeon I have never come across the “soul”.
So I believe, based on lack of empirical evidence, and the illogicallity of the Mind (soul) surviving without the continued support of the physical brain–is that there is “nothing” after death. Of course we still do not know what “Nothing” is; I once gave a talk on “Nothing”, my children were confused by the title.
When you turn off the TV you don’t ask where the picture went do you?–it just ceaed to rxist; likewise the Mind.
There is continued confusion about “Nothing”, among philosophes and scientist. On the one hand we have Aristotle saying “Nothing comes from nothing”, and the Catholic Church saying “God created the Universe ex nihilo”; which is contradictory.

Let me tell you that the quotation is not from your teacher but it is an ages old saying which came we do not know where from.
Easy: die your teacher see the air, the atom, the electron, the positron, the neutron, the bosom of Higgins, the frontiers of the Universe, the last particle? NO? They do not exist. So, “to see” seems a rather weak argument. the blinds do not see…yet…
Of course you have faith. “I don’t have “faith” in anything” is wrong. You BELIEVE that after death there is nothing. Can you prove it that after death there is nothing? If you cannnot prove, then you believe.
Atheists think that it is up to the believers to prove that there is. But I think that it is up to the non-believers also to prove that there is not. Science and Maths do that all the time !!!

“Catholic Church saying “God created the Universe ex nihilo”; which is contradictory.” Wo did not understand. Ex nihilo means that there was no Universe before the Universe, that the universe did not come from the Universe (though know it accepts that the Universe could be Infinite as long as it was created by God), it does not mean that there was nothing before the Universe.

Gosh. you think that the TV picture is on the TV? The TV picture does not exist! It is in your mind! What exists are only waves of radiation of various lenghts…

So, what is your solution for the Big Bang? If the Universe is in expansion according to the deviation to the red of the Galaxies (and the more far away, the more deviant is teh spectrum), due to the Doppler Effect, so it is inevitable the Big Bang. What was “before” the Big Bang? I know the answer that according to Einstein time and space came together. But, I have to talk, so “before”, what?

“illogicallity of the Mind (soul) surviving without the continued support of the physical brain” remember that that is a sentence without any proof. I wonder how I never had any monkey in my classes. Not one !

Imagination cannot conceive “nothing”. You cannot conceive that you disappear. Though you try your imagination refuses to accept. Read Carl Yung, the disciple of Freud and Gaston Bachelard, the French philosopher. Why do we write in the tombs: “Sleep in peace” or “rest in peace” and not " disappear into protons or electrons?

I give you this one: The biggest proof that you survive death is the fact that you are thinking on afterdeath. Refute this one.

 

[Wads42]

For those of us who accept evolution but also are believers, we still view this story as more than “just fiction.” Even if it is not a concrete explanation of the creation of the world, it is still inspired and teaches us truths about ourselves, the world, God, etc. There are “truths” to be gleaned from Genesis, even if we don’t take it literally.

Yes I won’t argue with that. Genesis and the rest of the OT and NT contains general wisdom and advice which we can read critically and maybe adopt, but without worshipping it as a list of instructions written in stone. It is rather like Dickens; still fiction, but also describing facts of life which occur generally, and an account of peoples’ experiences.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

You may. However, the Church does not specifically say that my cousins swing (or swung) in trees. And while the Church will agree with evolutionists that the Earth is older than 4,000 years old; it has not proclaimed that man started out as ameba or even as a chimp. In fact, the Church has not stated very much at all concerning the topic of my cousins swinging from trees. Ex cathedra or otherwise.

Tell you, the Church has not stated:

• how to wash dishes
• how to pilot a plane
• how to do heart surgery
• what is the difference between a tilobitis and a dynosaur
• what is a black hole
• the nature of the Big Bag
• how to solve the problem of the atmosphere heating
• how to find a vaccine for HIV
• how to cut a cake excatly in 3 pieces
• the bosom of Higgins
• how come a2+a2=2a2

So, why should speak about it?

 

[Wads42]

Tell you, the Church has not stated:

• how to wash dishes
• how to pilot a plane
• how to do heart surgery
• what is the difference between a tilobitis and a dynosaur
• what is a black hole
• the nature of the Big Bag
• how to solve the problem of the atmosphere heating
• how to find a vaccine for HIV
• how to cut a cake excatly in 3 pieces
• the bosom of Higgins
• how come a2+a2=2a2

So, why should speak about it?

The above are all scientific problems, and that is why the Church not being a Scientific Institute cannot and does not address them. Sadly though, they have not yet accepted that the interesting questions of the origin of the Universe, and of Life and of species,are also (now) scientific problems, and are therefore no business of the Church either, And yet they still purport to tell us that they know exactly the answers to these problems; (God-did-it).

 

[karebear92]

The above are all scientific problems, and that is why the Church not being a Scientific Institute cannot and does not address them. Sadly though, they have not yet accepted that the interesting questions of the origin of the Universe, and of Life and of species,are also (now) scientific problems, and are therefore no business of the Church either, And yet they still purport to tell us that they know exactly the answers to these problems; (God-did-it).

They don’t give the scientific reasons but the theological reasons. There is a difference. They don’t say, for example, that God said “let there be hydrogen, and there was hydrogen” and so on. It is theological truth that God created everything from nothing by Word. That is not scientific nor can it be proven scientifically.

 

[sw85]

This being my first post I hope I don’t fan the flames two much but I also figure I should ask what I am wondering so…

If science is able to find evidence that the cause for homosexuality is linked to fetal development and brain chemistry (that is it is NOT a choice) similar to heterosexuality does the Catholic Church’s position on it’s immorality stand.

Basically if it is no longer a choice, then how can it be a sin you must have free will in the matter to sin, which in this case you do not. The Church has maintained that sexuality is core to humans and different from say choosing what clothes to wear in the morning. With that is the Church able to say it is a sin and if so why?

The Church’s official stance is that the etiology of homosexuality is irrelevant to its morality, so no, it wouldn’t change anything.

Because sexual BEHAVIOR is always a choice, regardless of one’s innate desires.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

The above are all scientific problems, and that is why the Church not being a Scientific Institute cannot and does not address them. Sadly though, they have not yet accepted that the interesting questions of the origin of the Universe, and of Life and of species,are also (now) scientific problems, and are therefore no business of the Church either, And yet they still purport to tell us that they know exactly the answers to these problems; (God-did-it).

Do not jump into conclusions.
My answer was for another person about another subject.

Now, for you.
The fact that the Church did not speak about a2+a2=2a2 it does not mean that it has no right so speak about it.
Otherwise, everyone could speak about Science EXCEPT the Church. It would be funny, no?
Look, you are mixing things. What do scientists say about “God-did-it” ?
On the contrary of what you suppose, the scientist do not say that God did not create the Universe or the Species as you are trying to pretend.
The Scientists, the good one, do not care about this question.
Why?
Scientists lead with measurable things and you cannot put Go in a beaker. So, true scientists just leave the field for that is NOT their field.
The soul? Idem, not measurable.
The after-life? Not either.
The Scientists, when they speak about God, they speak as human beings not as scientists.
Though there are nice experiments that seem to prove that God exists:

1. 
   *]the Big Bang
   *]the theo-neuro-science of the brain.
   *]the statistics of the probabilities of the Solar system, the Earth, the life appearing on Earth: some statistcs seem to prove that Life in Earth is a miracle for it would be highly improbable: the O2, the DNA, the evotuion into man…
   
   You are not atheist, are you?