"Defending homosexual behavior"? Where, where?
I always find it amusing when people read so much between the lines that what is written on them serves as decorations at best.
I don't recall defending homosexuality in any of my posts; I've merely been pointing out flaws in vocabulary use and reasoning.
"Fact" is a dangerous word in science. Science is built on axioms, and a scientific theory is never proven right, only wrong. Evolution is not a fact: it is a set of reasoning that has thus far worked in predicting the -- for the lack of a better word -- "nature" of nature and whose elementary components have never yet been logically proven wrong based on the assumptions of the scientific method.
You're right that much of today's science is based on thoeries, as it always have been since the time of the Greek and Romans. Evidences do not make a theory true, but rather make it un-false.
Perhaps homosexuality is nature's way of keeping the population in check when conventional means have become ineffective. "Evidences" point to the observation that homosexual couples cannot natually produce babies, so it does indeed reduce the rate of reproduction. But is it "true"? Who knows -- that's something science won't tell you.
I always find it amusing when people read so much between the lines that what is written on them serves as decorations at best.
I don't recall defending homosexuality in any of my posts; I've merely been pointing out flaws in vocabulary use and reasoning.
"Fact" is a dangerous word in science. Science is built on axioms, and a scientific theory is never proven right, only wrong. Evolution is not a fact: it is a set of reasoning that has thus far worked in predicting the -- for the lack of a better word -- "nature" of nature and whose elementary components have never yet been logically proven wrong based on the assumptions of the scientific method.
You're right that much of today's science is based on thoeries, as it always have been since the time of the Greek and Romans. Evidences do not make a theory true, but rather make it un-false.
Perhaps homosexuality is nature's way of keeping the population in check when conventional means have become ineffective. "Evidences" point to the observation that homosexual couples cannot natually produce babies, so it does indeed reduce the rate of reproduction. But is it "true"? Who knows -- that's something science won't tell you.