so I had chick-fil-a this morning

[.blank cd]

Where do you teach at? You think that you are smarter than all of the professors ar Princeton?

Dont worry about where I teach at. That's irrelevant. Just worry about the fact that you are scientifically inept.

Actually, you stated that there was a consensus among scientist that homosexuality was genetic.

Twisting my words again. I said exactly what the APA has stated. There are environmental, societal, and biological factors. You still have yet to come up with the definition of a biological factor. Probably cause when you recognize the correct definition, your entire argument will crumble on itself. Not that it already isn't.

I specifically gave you the APA's statement which showed you were 100% incorrect. Now, you say that you agree with their statement 100%. Looks like you changed your mind.

Havent changed my mind one bit. The difference between me and you is I understand what this means. You don't.

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." - APA

I have not dismissed it all. I have not had a chance to fully review all of the information that you posted in the other thread,a nd see if it has been vetted properly.

Exactly what I thought. Dismissed.

BTW - incase you were not aware, research takes time to complete. It's not usually a less than 5 year project. Life is not like the movies, problems are not solved in 2 hours.

Ohhhh is that how it works?

[David88vert]

Dont worry about where I teach at. That's irrelevant. Just worry about the fact that you are scientifically inept.

Twisting my words again. I said exactly what the APA has stated. There are environmental, societal, and biological factors. You still have yet to come up with the definition of a biological factor. Probably cause when you recognize the correct definition, your entire argument will crumble on itself. Not that it already isn't.

Havent changed my mind one bit. The difference between me and you is I understand what this means. You don't.

Exactly what I thought. Dismissed.

Ohhhh is that how it works?

Chemicals have an effect on biology and are categorized by real scientists as biological factors. You can use Google to check everything, since you don't understand. If you think that the scientists are incorrect, then you can explain it to them. Same with Princeton, why don't you call them up and tell them that they are scientifically inept? The fact is, you don't know anything about genetics, or even scientific definitions.

The APA was very clear, and stated there was no consensus. You stated that there was a consensus of a majority of scientists. You still can't admit you were wrong. That's ok, everyone else knows the truth.

You can live in denial, and believe what you want, and it doesn't matter if it is right or wrong. You are taking it blindly on faith, not in founded scientific fact. It is your religion, and that's ok. It's funny how you criticize Christians for their faith, but you are no different.