Transgender boy wins girls state wrestling title

[Tatterdemalion]

The boy may have changed his genitals and went through aggressive hormone treatments. He is STILL and ALWAYS will be a male, scientifically, biologically, biblically.

Talk about sleeping through English class:

"The boy may have changed ... and went through ..." is incorrect grammar.  Correct grammar is: "The boy may have changed ... and gone through ..."

This response is a shining example of how to destroy your own argument in one fell swoop. Correcting grammar mistakes instead of the argument itself means that you don't know how to refute that argument.

 

[FSSL]

This response is a shining example of how to destroy your own argument in one fell swoop. Correcting grammar mistakes instead of the argument itself means that you don't know how to refute that argument.

Bingo! Even when his correction is over a non-mistake.

 

[Route_70]

The boy may have changed his genitals and went through aggressive hormone treatments. He is STILL and ALWAYS will be a male, scientifically, biologically, biblically.

Talk about sleeping through English class:

"The boy may have changed ... and went through ..." is incorrect grammar.  Correct grammar is: "The boy may have changed ... and gone through ..."

This response is a shining example of how to destroy your own argument in one fell swoop. Correcting grammar mistakes instead of the argument itself means that you don't know how to refute that argument.

Listen, Tatter-Tale, FiZZLe is the one claiming to be the English police -- not I.  HE is the one who initiated the grammar wars, not I.

 

[Tatterdemalion]

The boy may have changed his genitals and went through aggressive hormone treatments. He is STILL and ALWAYS will be a male, scientifically, biologically, biblically.

Talk about sleeping through English class:

"The boy may have changed ... and went through ..." is incorrect grammar.  Correct grammar is: "The boy may have changed ... and gone through ..."

This response is a shining example of how to destroy your own argument in one fell swoop. Correcting grammar mistakes instead of the argument itself means that you don't know how to refute that argument.

Listen, Tatter-Tale, FiZZLe is the one claiming to be the English police -- not I.  HE is the one who initiated the grammar wars, not I.

You still were the first to resort to desparate grammar attacks in the thread. Him replying with grammar-related stuff doesn't change the fact that you chose not to refute an argument.

If you continue to derail the conversation, it only builds up the pile of evidence showing whose argument is actually fizzling out.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

We shall see.

You PRESENTLY ignore science and hold out hopes for the FUTURE. So, PRESENTLY, you are antiscience. Loud and Proud!!!

Science is not a set of rules that we memorize from a book.  Science is dynamic -- always changing; never staying the same.  Sometimes scientists discover that one rule that they have believed has, in fact, been wrong all along; so they change.

So, I believe that the day will come when science will be able to explain how it is that some people are born homosexuals.  Science is not yet able to do that.

^^^^
This

 

[Smellin Coffee]

You still were the first to resort to desparate grammar attacks in the thread. Him replying with grammar-related stuff doesn't change the fact that you chose not to refute an argument.

Which argument did Route_70 not refute?

 

[FSSL]

I believe that the day will come when science will be able to explain how it is that some people are born homosexuals.  Science is not yet able to do that.

Which is why neither Route70 nor Smellin' are science-based. They reject science based on their own opinions.

All of this science vs. Bible stuff is just absurd junk.

 

[Recovering IFB]

Until further research reveals differently, that it isn't biological, I choose to give Transgenders the benefit of my doubts.

See... smellin... you are NOT guided by science. You have a certain persuasion and you are wanting, so much to find research to back up your opinion, that you are not willing to stand on what we know, definitively.

So you are saying I'm being guided by faith. I have not said otherwise.

We DON'T have definitive answers as science unfolds answers as as time goes on. And yes, I DO want to give those folks the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because I believe they are created in the image of my God and that their Creator loves them. I also try to view my actions as defendting them as persons with rights is defending Jesus. You have every right to disagree and think I'm cuckoo, an ignoramus or a heretic, but that is where I stand.

Psalm 5:5 The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers
#theologymatters

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Until further research reveals differently, that it isn't biological, I choose to give Transgenders the benefit of my doubts.

See... smellin... you are NOT guided by science. You have a certain persuasion and you are wanting, so much to find research to back up your opinion, that you are not willing to stand on what we know, definitively.

So you are saying I'm being guided by faith. I have not said otherwise.

We DON'T have definitive answers as science unfolds answers as as time goes on. And yes, I DO want to give those folks the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because I believe they are created in the image of my God and that their Creator loves them. I also try to view my actions as defending them as persons with rights is defending Jesus. You have every right to disagree and think I'm cuckoo, an ignoramus or a heretic, but that is where I stand.

Psalm 5:5 The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers
#theologymatters

I choose to attempt to promote the recorded teachings of Jesus first and foremost, rather than create doctrine based on a man's prayer.

Jesus, as the Son of God, modeled loving one's enemies. He didn't even hate Judas.

 

[Tatterdemalion]

You still were the first to resort to desparate grammar attacks in the thread. Him replying with grammar-related stuff doesn't change the fact that you chose not to refute an argument.

Which argument did Route_70 not refute?

The boy may have changed his genitals and went through aggressive hormone treatments. He is STILL and ALWAYS will be a male, scientifically, biologically, biblically.

And if you're going to say that he already addressed this, he should have said that instead of resorting to nitpick.

 

[Tatterdemalion]

Until further research reveals differently, that it isn't biological, I choose to give Transgenders the benefit of my doubts.

See... smellin... you are NOT guided by science. You have a certain persuasion and you are wanting, so much to find research to back up your opinion, that you are not willing to stand on what we know, definitively.

So you are saying I'm being guided by faith. I have not said otherwise.

We DON'T have definitive answers as science unfolds answers as as time goes on. And yes, I DO want to give those folks the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because I believe they are created in the image of my God and that their Creator loves them. I also try to view my actions as defendting them as persons with rights is defending Jesus. You have every right to disagree and think I'm cuckoo, an ignoramus or a heretic, but that is where I stand.

Psalm 5:5 The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers
#theologymatters

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8 ).

 

[Recovering IFB]

Until further research reveals differently, that it isn't biological, I choose to give Transgenders the benefit of my doubts.

See... smellin... you are NOT guided by science. You have a certain persuasion and you are wanting, so much to find research to back up your opinion, that you are not willing to stand on what we know, definitively.

So you are saying I'm being guided by faith. I have not said otherwise.

We DON'T have definitive answers as science unfolds answers as as time goes on. And yes, I DO want to give those folks the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because I believe they are created in the image of my God and that their Creator loves them. I also try to view my actions as defendting them as persons with rights is defending Jesus. You have every right to disagree and think I'm cuckoo, an ignoramus or a heretic, but that is where I stand.

Psalm 5:5 The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers
#theologymatters

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8 ).

Paul was writing to the church at Rome, Christ gave Himself  for the church...... he didn't die for the goats.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Until further research reveals differently, that it isn't biological, I choose to give Transgenders the benefit of my doubts.

See... smellin... you are NOT guided by science. You have a certain persuasion and you are wanting, so much to find research to back up your opinion, that you are not willing to stand on what we know, definitively.

So you are saying I'm being guided by faith. I have not said otherwise.

We DON'T have definitive answers as science unfolds answers as as time goes on. And yes, I DO want to give those folks the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because I believe they are created in the image of my God and that their Creator loves them. I also try to view my actions as defendting them as persons with rights is defending Jesus. You have every right to disagree and think I'm cuckoo, an ignoramus or a heretic, but that is where I stand.

Psalm 5:5 The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers
#theologymatters

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8 ).

Paul was writing to the church at Rome, Christ gave Himself  for the church...... he didn't die for the goats.

So a man's heartfelt prayer of passion becomes a major doctrine of salvation?

 

[Tatterdemalion]

Until further research reveals differently, that it isn't biological, I choose to give Transgenders the benefit of my doubts.

See... smellin... you are NOT guided by science. You have a certain persuasion and you are wanting, so much to find research to back up your opinion, that you are not willing to stand on what we know, definitively.

So you are saying I'm being guided by faith. I have not said otherwise.

We DON'T have definitive answers as science unfolds answers as as time goes on. And yes, I DO want to give those folks the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because I believe they are created in the image of my God and that their Creator loves them. I also try to view my actions as defendting them as persons with rights is defending Jesus. You have every right to disagree and think I'm cuckoo, an ignoramus or a heretic, but that is where I stand.

Psalm 5:5 The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers
#theologymatters

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8 ).

Paul was writing to the church at Rome, Christ gave Himself  for the church...... he didn't die for the goats.

Weren't you a goat once

 

[Route_70]

The boy may have changed his genitals and went through aggressive hormone treatments. He is STILL and ALWAYS will be a male, scientifically, biologically, biblically.

For the record, I have no argument here, except that I don't rely on the Bible to tell me who is and who isn't male or female.  I can usually (athough the way women dress these days, it is a challenge) discern gender for myself.

 

[Ransom]

In mathematics, only one negative example is required to disprove a proposition.

You failed to give one negative example from the Bible. All you did was assert that there wasn't specifically a positive example, which is not the same thing. Repeating your original fallacy fails to impress.

 

[FSSL]

For the record, I have no argument here, except that I don't rely on the Bible to tell me who is and who isn't male or female.  I can usually (athough the way women dress these days, it is a challenge) discern gender for myself.

Which is an absurd response that has nothing to do with the points above.

 

[Route_70]

In mathematics, only one negative example is required to disprove a proposition.

You failed to give one negative example from the Bible. All you did was assert that there wasn't specifically a positive example, which is not the same thing. Repeating your original fallacy fails to impress.

Why the dishonesty, Random?  My statement has nothing to do with the Bible.  I was making a point about XX and XY, in response to FiZZLe's fallacy about how chromosomes determine sex, which they do not.

 

[FSSL]

...FiZZLe's fallacy about how chromosomes determine sex, which they do not.

When I say "sex," I am not referring to the "special love a man shows a woman."

Progressives call Bruce Jenner a woman even though he still has XY chromosomes and a male body part.

Science still regards him to be a man. So, this is where the hang-up is. Route and Smellin' are not using Science. They want something to be, which it is not.

 

[Route_70]

Progressives call Bruce Jenner a woman even though he still has XY chromosomes and a male body part.

How do you know that he has XY chromosomes? 

In case you are unaware, he had his male part removed.