Finally, a belated introduction

[13788]

rangersean: I've been hannging around for a couple weeks now and have felt welcomed, but I thought I might finally put my two cents in as a general introduction.

I live in the San Francisco Bay Area (California), and am a biologist and teacher. I basically grew up here, though I've lived around the country. Though I hope to afford my own place, I'm back living with my mom (sigh) and we're good housemates.

I've thoroughly enjoyed reading the posts here, am learning a lot (and laughing quite a bit too), and feel I'm really finding a 'home' here where I can talk about anything (I won't, but I feel like I can).

I'm 100% gay. I'm not here looking for partners. I find attracting sexual partners is not at all difficult (you'll never guess why). I'm definately tired of quickies and one-night stands. And in my ten years + on the internet have been offered more than my share of plane tickets, and have even had people try to plan their vacations around getting at my cock. (BIG sigh). So far I've managed to avoid them all.

Much much more important to me are friends (of any orientation or gender) that I can talk to, and that can talk to me.

That's some basics. Thanks for listening.

 

[13788]

fitandhung: hey man welcome

 

[Pecker]

I'm glad you've found LPSG and made it your home.

As a matter of fact, the place if full of homeys.

Pecker

When the skunk waddled in, the judge said, "Odor in the court!"

 

[HungArnold]

Welcome to the site.

 

[B_RoysToy]

Hi, rangersean:

You've been hanging, all right. Your avatar catches my attention every day, making me wanna reach out and touch!

I hope you enjoy that great S F weather and feel sorry for us Easterners freezing out balls off! I was in S F the summer of '01 and dearly love its weather. I certainly know why so many move there!

Welcome, Sean, I enjoy your contributions.

Luke

 

[13788]

HungJordan: Welcome rangersean.

 

[13788]

lksbigone: Rangersean. I can dig where your head's at! And, oh yeah, I like your attitude as well! Good luck at maintaining that balance.

 

[13788]

tomarctus: Rangersean, welcome to the group. There are lots of great people here to share with. I've enjoyed your posts quite a bit.

 

[jonb]

Biology, eh? I could've used you a couple months ago on the other LPSG during a thread on science and religion.

 

[13788]

rangersean: Thanks all.

jonb, That's an argument I've been having for decades.

 

[jonb]

Well, the scientific case for evolution speaks for itself: The only way to deny it is to deny heredity itself, or to claim a non-Mendelian form of heredity while simultaneously saying that all organisms have the exact same number and sex ratio of offspring. (As for speciation, the only way to deny that is vitalism.)

I was more speaking of the types of political pressures against teaching evolution. It's the new way for creationists to run things, by intimidating biology teachers.

 

[B_RoysToy]

I'm unable to find any conflict between religion and science. I think those who do are either too narrow in their religious believes or their science understanding (or some of both).

To some degree we are crippled in having to use our finite language to explain infinite thoughts and happenings. The Bible clearly states that from the 'beginning' there was God and God is love. We do understand 'love', b/c most of us have experienced it -- we're made that way.

There was a 'time' when no physical thing existed -- only the thing we call 'God', hence 'love'. This saw fit to create the physical, regardless of the method of creation. Evolution is a result of that creation. I see nothing about this 'theory' for a contradiction between science and religion.

I've never read anything stating this concept in so-many-words, but it is my way of thinking. Am I completely off-the-wall, rangersean, or is this a reasonable position to you? Thanks for your expected input.

Luke

 

[Pecker]

Luke, that is not only reasonable, it is very well stated.

 

[13788]

rangersean: oh, gosh.

The only thing, RoysToy, that doesn't jibe with science in your thought is the concept of the "this" that started it off.

Science, by definition, only deals with the physical universe, and those things that are measurable and at least theoretically repeatable. Therefore, it cannot and does not deal with what "love" is, or "god" or whatever you want to call it.

That's a "why" question and science only deals with "how" questions (even if some people accidentally missuse "why" as a substitute for "how" when speaking about science - I know I do this myself, you should always translate a scientists' "why" as "how").

 

[13788]

Inwood: Rangersean,

You know, a little spray starch and a hot iron will take that big crease out of those pants in no time.

Oh, by the way, howdy.

 

[Pecker]

[quote author=rangersean link=board=meetgreet;num=1075489046;start=0#13 date=01/31/04 at 17:57:49]oh, gosh.

The only thing, RoysToy, that doesn't jibe with science in your thought is the concept of the "this" that started it off.[/quote]

That's the nice thing about religion, Sean, it manages to quite nicely fill in the blanks until science can catch up.

Pecker

When chemists die we usually barium.

 

[B_RoysToy]

[quote author=Pecker link=board=meetgreet;num=1075489046;start=0#12 date=01/31/04 at 17:00:24]Luke, that is not only reasonable, it is very well stated.

[/quote]

Thank you, Pecker, I certainly consider your compliment
well worth the thought and time I put into my statements. It's meaningful to me.

Luke

 

[B_RoysToy]

Sean, I had a reply to your posting above the quote from Pecker, but it wasn't printed. I keep screwing up trying to quote correctly.

I'm sure you know the "this" refers back to "love" in the preceding sentence. Since science deals only with the physical as you pointed out, religion takes control before there was any physical. I believe the physical was a result of this non-physical love (I like to call God).

Be careful with that hot iron, my friend!

 

[13788]

rangersean: RoysToy,
Yes, I knew what the "this" was, but deliberately used that word because science can't say anything about it.