Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Age of the Earth

2011-10-06T00:14:57Z

ConservativeCory:

<small>''See also [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]].''</small>

The '''Age of the Earth''' has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. The subject is still debated today, particularly between [[young Earth Creationism|young-Earth scientists]], who believe that the Earth is only approximately 10-6,000 years old, and [[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth creationists]] and scientists who argue that Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> The scientific evidence [[young earth creationism|points to a young age of the earth and the universe]]. The biblical creation organization [[Creation Ministries International]] published an article entitled ''[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe]'', that provides much of the scientific evidence in support of a young Earth.

== Historical views ==
[[Image:Landscape.jpg|right|300px]]
For most of recorded history, humans of many backgrounds viewed the age of the Earth to be around 6,000 years,<ref>Burnet, p. 258.</ref> such as St. Barnabas and St. Irenæus.<ref>Burnet, p. 259.</ref>

In 1830, Dr. Hales published a list of 120 historical authorities from various cultures who had decided on an officiall [[date of creation]]. These ranged from 6984 B.C. to 3616 B.C.<ref>Batten 2002 quotes from "Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Holy Bible", 1879 8th Edition, 1939, which relates this, and reproduces the selection of the dates from Young.</ref>

Included in Hales' list is [[James Ussher]], who calculated the famous date of 4004 B.C. for creation. Young-Earth creationists still consider this date to be close to the actual date.
a$$4uck
In 1778 George-Louis Lecrerc, Count of Buffon, proposed that the Earth was about 74,832 years old.<ref name="ingv">INGV</ref>
[[James Hutton]], whilst not proposing a date, dismissed the Biblical account and claimed in 1785 that there was not evidence of a beginning at all.<ref name="ingv" />
[[Charles Lyell]] supported Hutton's idea in 1830, in ''Principles of Geology''.<ref name="ingv" />

In 1854 [[Hermann von Helmholtz]] estimated an age of between 20 and 40 million years.<ref name="ingv" />
Around the same time [[Lord Kelvin]] put his mind to deriving an age, and came up with a range between 20 million years and 400 million years. He later refined that down to between 20 million and 40 million years.<ref name="ingv" /> More recent discoveries of radioactivity and mantle convection explain why the assumptions Helmholtz and Kelvin made resulted in dates that are much lower than current uniformitarian estimates.

The 1911 edition of the [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] discussed dates up to 500 million years.<ref>Encyclopædia Britannica, pp 650-651.</ref>

By about 1930, J. H. Jeans was arguing for an age of the Earth of around two billion years.<ref>Universal History of the World, p.76.</ref>

Using circular logic -- assuming that decay rates somehow remained constant despite necessarily changing physical characteristics as time approached the origin -- [[atheists]] insist that the Earth is 4.5 billion years based on an implausible assumption of constancy in [[Potassium-argon dating|Potassium-argon (K:Ar) decay rates]] and other radiometric methods.<ref>Peck, 2000, p.376.</ref>

== Geology ==

[[Image:516XZRGNCKL AA240 .jpg|right|300px]]
[[William R. Corliss]] is a cataloger of scientific [[Anomaly|anomalies]] (observations and facts that challenge prevailing scientific [[paradigm]]s) and has published many works on the subject.<ref name="sf">[http://www.science-frontiers.com/ Science Frontiers] (Corliss' web-site)</ref>
He also wrote 13 books for the [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration]] (NASA), a dozen educational booklets for the [[Atomic Energy Commission]] (AEC), and a dozen articles for the [[National Science Foundation]] (NSF). <ref>Corliss, 2002</ref> The science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on the career of William Corliss.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref>
''New Scientist'' wrote regarding Corliss's work: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging". <ref>Quoted on the [http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm Science Frontiers web-site]</ref> [[Arthur C. Clarke]] described Corliss as "[[Charles Fort|Fort]]'s latter-day - and much more scientific - successor."<ref>Clarke, Arthur C. (1990) ''Astounding Days: A Science Fictional Autobiography''. Gollancz. Page 110</ref>

Corliss's work on geological anomalies catalogs scores of anomalies which challenge the [[old-earth]] [[paradigm]].<ref>[http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm#Geology Geological Catalogs] (Science Frontiers)</ref>

== Bibliography ==
* Burnet, Thomas, [http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/ste/ste36.htm The Sacred Theory of the Earth, chapter V], 1691.
* Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition (1911). [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling On-line page facsimiles].
* Hammerton, J.A. (Ed.), "Universal History of the World" (8 volumes) The Educational Book Co., London, c1930.
* Batten, Don, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/417 Old-earth or young-earth belief: Which belief is the recent aberration?], ''Creation'' 24(1):24–27, December 2001.
* [http://www.ingv.it/~roma/SITOINGLESE/activities/geomagnetismo/analysistheory/historicalresearch/age.html The age of the Earth] (Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV)).
*Peck WH, Valley JW, Wilde SA, and Graham CM (2000) Ion microprobe Evidence for Pre-4.4 Ga Continental Crust and Low Temperature Water/Rock Interaction. ''Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr'', vol 32, no. 7.

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] at [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa Age of the Earth and Universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]

== Notes ==
<references />
[[Category:Geology]]

Conservapedia:Does History Matter?

2011-10-06T00:06:54Z

ConservativeCory:

'''NO'''

Just ask the average teen! --[[User:Peterporcaro|Peterporcaro]] 16:29, 11 November 2009 (EST)

Henry Ford said, "I don't know much about history, and I wouldn't give a nickel for all the history in the world. History is more or less bunk. It is tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today." George Santayana said "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Who was closer to being right?

Contents [hide]
1 Henry Ford: "history is bunk"
2 George Santayana: "condemned to repeat"
3 Napoleon Bonaparte: "a lie agreed upon"
4 Other Perspectives
5 Nobody cares about history
6 Everything matters
7 Yes
8 History *does* matter.
9 Yes!
10 Geography
11 Abysmal
12 We Are History

[edit] Henry Ford: "history is bunk"
If "...the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today", than who's to say the history we make today will be cared about by our children? ;-). If we don't care about history now, than none of our descendants will care about us. Of course even if we do care about history, there's still a huge chance they still won't care about their past. --Ymmotrojam 18:22, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I say let the govrnment take the history books and make their own history, then preach it to us Albobsman 13:03, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

I feel it is relevant to note that Henry Ford was a Nazi killer.

Actually, Henry Ford was a Nazi sympathizer but not an actual Nazi. Also, the quote is "history is more or less bunk." Just FYI. Pecant 20:45, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] George Santayana: "condemned to repeat"
The perfect example of this is the nation of Israel. Fortunately though, we've got a good God. Even when Israel was disobeying God and repenting again... over and over again, God was still faithful to His promises. And if we repent and put our trust in Him alone, we can avoid repeating those bad things in history. --Ymmotrojam 18:35, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Napoleon Bonaparte: "a lie agreed upon"
While this is the classic Wikipedia model, I hope Conservapedia can avoid being condemned to repeat this bunk. RobS 16:36, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

"Vulgas vult decepi" -Phaedrus 15BC-50AD. Translated as "The people wish to be deceived."--Roopilots6 10:40, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
[edit] Other Perspectives
If history doesn't matter, why don't we just make it so this wiki no longer stores the history of the pages that are created and edited ;-). --Ymmotrojam 18:30, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Who is this guy above?...what a joker :) my point is this: History is a thing of the past hahahahahaha...seriously though, history is important and I think that if history is discarded then we not only remove the career option of archeologists etc, but also, people who have done great and brave things will be discarded also and things like the Holocaust should certainly not be forgotten as we must recognise this as a very terrible time. What about things like the 'Tower of Freedom' and its purpose of marking the dreadful day of the terror attack on the Twin Towers...are we really going to discard that...are we going to discard the Somme, D-Day, Napoleon, Stalin, The Beatles, yes The Beatles were a rock group but they have had a massive impact on the world...think about it, Liverpool firmly on the map, Strawberry Fields...Penny Lane...yes, an impact they have made. Also, to prevent disasters from happening such as the Mnt St Helens eruption, many lives could have been saved if only someone had looked at historical records of this volcanoe's previous eruptions and how they have occured and what happpened during the eruption. History is important in court cases and such if something has just been uncovered even though it may have happened decades ago. Are we able to discard history should be the question and the only answer to that is simple...NO!!! [User: bealecr] 16:09, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Nobody cares about history
Hell, look at Afghanistan. You can go back to the 1700s or 1980s to see that nobody can win there. Or, re Iraq, you can go back to the 1970s and Vietnam and see that you can't "liberate" a country that (with substantial justification in both cases) sees you simply as a self-interested neo-colonial oppressor.

Or you can just go to the local library, fire up the microfiche machine and look at the past 50 years of gun crime in the US. At least Australian Prime Minister John Howard outlawed assault rifles after Martin Bryant massacred all those people in Port Arthur in 1996.

What's the next blast from the past we can look forward to from the US? Witch burnings, perhaps, or simply some good, old-fashioned lynchings (though they'd be Mexican illegal immigrants this time, no doubt). Perhaps California, Oregon and New York should secede. --AppalledBystander 06:29, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

What does it mean to "win" in Afghanistan? RobS 11:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I think he means essentially "conquer". Obviously, if no outside country can "win", the Afghanis must be "winning" the wars of invasion/colonization/conquest etc. Human 13:27, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
If that's the meaning, then the basic premise is flawed. The US and NATO are not trying ot "conquer" Afghanistan. RobS 15:15, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Afghan history shows that any try from outside to conquer the country by military finally failed completely. Some success can definitely be reported regarding humanitarian support and building up basic infra structure, which surely needs protection through police forces and sometimes even military forces. Surely no perfect story and still much left to be done. The economy, i.e. farming is still mainly based on opium poppy. But even when slow, some progress has definitely been achieved. The number of children going to school sky rocketed, the number of girls in particular. So, history can teach you a lesson, but it cannot replace your own thinking. --schifra 07:40, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
[edit] Everything matters
How will you know where your going unless you know where you've been. Archaeological history, the history of the sun, moon, earth, ...etc. How else could people plan for the future unless they knew the history of the past. Which is why any historian worth their salt will get their information from multiple sources, archaeological artifacts and/or sites, and anthropological studies. History most definitely doesn't mean anything to those who try to rewrite it for selfish reasons. Such as political or assorted ideological purposes and used as propaganda to further their own agendas. Of which you will no doubt denote many examples of on this debate subject.--Roopilots6 20:10, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Yes
We can learn from it.

Only from America's heartland could this question arise.

- of course context matters
- and of course we can learn from those who have gone before us

Mate...I totally agree!! In America, history is important too. Example: If someone had bothered to look at the history of Mnt. St. Helens' eruption, they would've realised that it will blow sideways. If they had but checked this, then many more lives would've been saved. I can't believe that apparently nobody cares about their history, about the sacrifices people made so that we could be alive today. Just less than 100 years ago and again in 1939, thousands of brave men risked it all, laid down their lives so that we may speak English that we would retain our cultures, our pride, even so that we may live today and I'm sure they didn't do all this so that some idiot could say that they didn't care about history. Whoever that was is an ignorant pig and no I don't think that this view about the person is without evidence. I truly can not believe that someone thinks it appropriate to not recognise the importance of history, as history has shaped us, shaped whole cultures, whole countries, shaped the entire world.

[edit] History *does* matter.
There are things in history that should NEVER EVER be forgotten. If "history does not matter", this technically would encompass things such as the second world war, or the reasons that lead to it; also forgotten would be the sacrifices millions of people made during that war, and all the inhumane atrocities carried out by people of those times: Nazi Germany´s horrifying human experiments, the Japanese-carried out atrocities in China, Soviet Russia and all the "good" their communist ideals did to the world, or the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Actually, "history" would technically encompass even the events of the Bible.

Still some of you dare say "History does not matter?" FreakyM 07:22, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Coming in contact with other cultures one will notice a lot of differences. Which way is right is often a moot discussion, in particular when neglecting the historical background of these differences.History matters because we can learn from the mistakes that the world has made and use it to our benefit.

[edit] Yes!
As Winston Churchill said, "If we do not study history we are doomed to repeat it". Also from a Christian's perspective, we can learn about God's grace, sovereignty, etc. from history, and it helps us understand other cultures and religions. Mschel 11:25, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

NEVAR FORGET. Seriously though, history is crucial to morality and civilisation - but only so long as it is accurate. So many conflicts in the world today could be resolved if only people had access to unfiltered accounts of their people's histories, as both victims and aggressors. When it becomes warped and distorted to suit an ideology, revisionist history can be every bit as poisonous as organised religion. Underscoreb 22:01, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Yes history matters. Knowledge of one's own nation is very important. It is very important to realize though that history took place in a different place, and often times the tale from history that is widely disseminated is only a superficial recounting that leaves out many things that the historian does not agree with. For instance many people know that during Washington's farewell address he warned the nation to stay away from entangling foreign relations. In fact political parties have been created around this principal. But what is less well known is that he also warned about the dangers of political parties. So history is important, but so is actually researching the information yourself and not taking another person's word for it. Rellik 20:02, 13 March 2008

Short answer, yes - see future(EDT)

[edit] Geography
If history matters its only because geography made it so. History and Geography/Geology invariably linked. Look at any historical event or any current event.

The city of Venice, founded in a swampy marsh because Milanese (descendent's of Romans) were being attacked by barbarians. Found the marsh easily defensible.
Discover of America, Columbus searching for a quick way to Asia
Liberation of Kuwait 1991, Iraq invaded Kuwait seizing (then)25% of the worlds oil reserves.
California, population quickly surged because of the Gold Rush, spawning statehood, more general westward expansion and a Trans-Atlantic railroad.
The state of Utah, Mormons chased out of Missouri, settled at an 'oasis in the desert', would have likely been chased out of California.
People who don't know history don't know geography either, both are important even though their effects are so large they are not entirely self evident with regard to the daily lives of individuals.--Mitrebox 19:11, 26 January 2008 (EST)

[edit] Abysmal
There are almost no historical articles on conservpedia. Sections regarding historical events or topics barely have a single paragraph. Users should focus on that more. The problem I see here is various religious fanatics focusing on defacing science and blaming everything on commies and liberals. Intranetusa 14:10, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

[edit] We Are History
History is everything, and everything will become history. Without history, you know nothing. Those who control the past control the present. Those who control the present, control the future. It is for prcisely these resons that US power is waning, for there is no in depth understanding of world history, not in terms of facts, but in terms of applying the lessons of history to the present situation. --Krysg 19:15, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Does_History_Matter%3F"ViewsPage talk page Edit History Delete move Protect Watch Personal toolsAddisonDM My talk My preferences My watchlist My contributions Log out Popular Links
Main Page
Educational Index
Debate Topics
Recent changes
All pages
All images
All logs
Random page
Help
Help Index
Statistics
Conservapedia Commandments
American History
American History Lectures
American History Homework
Search

Causes of Homosexuality

2011-10-06T00:03:23Z

ConservativeCory:

[[File:70810564 64d3a67932.jpg|alt=Causes of homosexuality|right|275px|thumb|Homosexuality is rare in [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox Jews]]. For more information please see: [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]].]]

The '''causes of [[homosexuality]]''' are attributable to man's sinful nature, nurture, environment, and genetics. How important each factor is, though, is an issue that is debated. Those from the most [[liberal]] school usually assume a philosophy of determinism, treating homosexuality as an identity or orientation which one has no choice over, and which cannot be changed. This belief is then used to justify acting it out.<ref>Sylvia Thorson-Smith, ''Reconciling the broken silence'', p. 30</ref> The contrasting and warranted position is that homosexuality is a choice, that of yielding to ultimately harmful desires, and which choice is partly affected by nurture and environment.

==Causes of homosexuality - Biblical explanation ==

The [[Bible]], being the most comprehensive transcendent moral authority, abundantly deals with human nature and behavior and consistently manifests that the nature of man has not changed since [[the Fall]]. So the Bible is certainly the preeminent authoritative source when it comes to providing a framework when determining the causes of homosexuality. Man is shown to have been created as a perfectly made being (Gn. 1:31) - yet not as a robot - but as a being designed to be able to make choices, which thereby allowed him to distort his perfection. God from the beginning also joined male and female in life-long marriage, and placed a priority on the family, and provided laws, as needed, for its health and preservation and that of society, while aberrations result from failure to abide by them. ''For more information please see:'' [[Homosexuality and the Bible]] and [[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]''

===Nature of man and causes of homosexuality ===
In the beginning, man disobeyed his Creator, and as part of the punishment for so doing both mankind and that which he was given stewardship of was negatively affected. In addition to physical decay and the suffering and natural death of living creatures being introduced into the world, (Gn. 2:17; 3:17-19; Rm. 5:12,17; 6:23; ) the Fall resulted in the nature of man demonstrating a certain proclivity to sin. However, this does not determine that a man must practice a certain sin, nor does it justify man giving into this attraction to sin, as God also gave man ability to resist sin. (Gn. 4:7)<ref>http://www.sbts.edu/documents/tschreiner/Homosexuality.pdf</ref>

Certain negative physical effects of sin are also seen as being progressive, as with time more diseases and other aberrations seemed to have occurred, and laws against incest later became necessary. In addition, as men continued to act contrary to the basic moral laws which they knew innately and through creation, conscience and oral tradition, a formal body of law was given through [[Moses]], which detailed and codified the immutable morality God enjoins upon man. (Ex. 20; Dt. 4:8,9; Lv. 18; Gal. 3:19) Addition laws include ceremonial laws which the [[New Testament]] reveals were typological. ''For more information please see:'' [[Leviticus 18]].''

As regards homosexuality, from the beginning of the Bible and throughout, it consistently teaches that God only sexually joined opposite genders together, sanctifying them in marriage, having created men and women uniquely compatible and complementary.(Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4; 1Cor. 11:8-12)<ref>http://www.cbmw.org/Articles/</ref>

In contrast to what God had ordained by design and decree, homosexuality is one of many sins which are a result of man yielding to his sinful nature, and is a form of fornication, although a most perverse kind. The prohibition of it is given along with sexual relations with animals, (Lv. 18:23) and is clearly condemned wherever it is manifestly dealt with. (Lv. 18:22; 20:13; Mk. 7:21; Rm. 1:20-27; 1Cor. 6:9; 1Tim. 1:10)

The Bible, as well as history, also evidences that while there are three areas in which man sins, those of lust for pleasure, possessions and power, (1Jn. 2:16) individuals may differ as regards which type of sins present the greatest temptation for them, with genetics playing at least a part in that. That judgment upon a people who gave into a specific sin could result in a genetic predisposition to that same sin among their offspring may be speculated, but it is not proven.

===Environment===

The Bible provides a clear link between the adherence of a family or a nation to the laws of God and the moral choices of offspring. (Prov. 22:6) The Bible also positively examples close father-son and familial relationships, and may be seen to partially implicate detachment with rebellion. (Gn. 37-50; 2 Sam. 13-18) Studies today have shown that [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality|religious upbringing and culture can strongly affect rates of homosexuality]].

The record of [[Sodom]], as well as accounts of nations elsewhere, testify that living within the environment of people where [[iniquity]] abounds is conducive to furthering the same iniquity among succeeding generations, resulting in the necessity of Divine judgment when nations became given over to such. (Lv. 18:24; 20:22; Dt. 18:12; 28; Jer. 14:9,10; Rm. 2:2)

In Genesis 19, the city of Sodom is revealed as a place in which men sexually lusted after men, from which the term "sodomy" was derived (like as homosexuals use the term "gay", although this is contradictory in the end), and Jude 7 refers to Sodom and its region being given to fornication, including that of unnatural relations.

In Ezekiel 16:49 the general iniquity of Sodom and its "sisters" is given as "pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness" and general indifference to the needy. The next verse proceeds to inform that "the Sodomites were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." The word for ''abomination'' here is ''tô‛êbah'', which is not the word often used for ritual uncleanness, but is often used for sexual sin, in particular sexual sins and including sodomy. (Lv.18:22; 26-27,29,30; 20:13; Dt. 23:18; 24:4 1Ki. 14:24; Ezek. 22:11; 33:26) Sodom is also associated more with sexual sins than with any other ''physical'' type of sin.

What the Bible, as well as secular history, reveals is that prevalent homosexuality is concomitant with pride, affluence, increased free time, and selfish indulgence and carelessness.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html Homosexual relations and the Bible: see Genesis 19 to Ezekiel 16:49]</ref> Therefore, rebellion against God's laws and order and the resultant environmental factors are seen to be a cause in promoting sensuality and homosexuality.

===Idolatry and judgment===
[[Image:Martin destruction sodom640x422.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|Destruction of [[Sodom]] by [[God]]]]

In [[Romans 1]], God, through the [[apostle Paul]], condemns both male and female homoeroticism, which, as a cultural practice, is shown to be a manifestation and a result of idolatry, in which man progressively acted contrary to that which God has revealed by creation, by design and normality. This is morality which is confirmed by written decree (the Law), as the next chapter declares. As a result of this continued rebellion, which was partly manifest in God being reduced to an image like unto corruptible creatures (like as today with homosexuals construing Christ to be homosexual, or sanctioning it, as well as nature effectively being worshiped), "God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves." (v. 24)

It is also stated that a certain afflictive punishment(s) of the body were incurred by those men who engaged in relations with each other. (v. 27) Unless repentance takes place, worse consequences will follow. (Rv. 21:28)

While some seek to render this chapter as only condemning homosexual relations when done as part of idolatry, the condemnation is not due to its association with paganism, rather as it inherently contrary to that which God ordained, then it is a manifestation of false religion, regardless of its form, though in ancient times in which religion was an inseparable part of culture, then formal idolatry was what was more manifested. Romans 1 proceeds to show that homosexuality is not alone as a fruit of idolatry, but that this particular pernicious physical sin is one of many inherently evil things. (Rm. 1:28-32) ''For more information please see:'' [[Romans 1]].

In summary, God's eternal power is manifest in His [[creation]] (Romans 1:18-20). Nonetheless, certain people chose to worship the creature more than the Creator (Romans 1:21-25). Therefore, God gave them up to homosexuality and other sins and gave them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1:26-32). As an example of the truth of this teaching, [[feminist]]s, wishing to deny the [[Women#New_Testament_statements_on_the_role_of_women|God-given role of women]], often engage in [[goddess]] worship and other forms of [[idolatry]]<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/goddess.html "Probe Ministries: Goddess Worship," by Russ Wise]</ref> and as a consequence are often given up to lesbianism.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56458 Hetero woman: Feminism turned me into a lesbian], from [[WorldNetDaily]]</ref>

=== Conclusion of Biblical explanation ===

What is revealed in the Bible is that homosexuality is a practice due to man yielding to his sinful nature and disobeying the good laws of God, and misusing, among other things, his sexual abilities. This disobedience itself is idolatry (whatever holds your chief allegiance is your god, at least at that time), while continued idolatry results in homosexuality as a practice, as God delivers one over to perverse desires. In addition, individual and societal disobedience to the laws of God creates an environment which is conducive to perpetuating and further intensifying iniquity, which if continued, in time requires judgment. Studies today have shown that [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality|Religious upbringing and culture can strongly affect rates of homosexuality]].

== Modern studies concerning the causes of homosexuality ==

Some studies indicate environmental factors can be involved in persons becoming homosexuals. Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse state in ''Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church's moral debate'' (and a main source for this section),
<blockquote>
The origins of homosexuality are not clearly understood by scientists, and the topic is a subject of hot debate. Theories and and empirical studies, which often contrast sharply, abound. The theories about the [[etiology]] of homosexuality fall into two very large categories: theories that point to nature (that is, biological variables) and theories that point to nurture (that is, the influence of experience, of psychological variables." (p. 52).
</blockquote>

Those who emphasize nurture, sometimes known as the ''[[psychoanalysis|psychoanalytical theory]]'', see powerful psychological forces at work, shaping and molding children from their birth, while those who emphasize nature contend that early homosexual traits attest to a biological cause. (p. 53)

Despite many psychological studies which indicate that the parent-child relationship, early childhood development, early homosexual experiences, and childhood abuse foster homosexuality, liberals tend to reject the environmental aspect, and favor a biological influence.<ref>David G. Myers, ''A level of explanations view'', Psychology of Christianity: four views. pp. 54-83</ref> This is then used to render homosexuals to be slaves to genes, and justified in acting it out.

==Environment and nurture==
[[Image:325979 dna150.jpg|thumbnail|150px|left|[[Columbia University]] [[psychiatry]] professors Drs. William Byrne and Bruce Parsons stated: "There is no evidence that at present to substantiate a [[biology|biological]] theory. [T]he appeal of current biological explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of [[psychosocial]] explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data".<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf</ref>]]

That homosexuality is affected by environment and nurture has been the historical secular position.

In his 1980 work ''Overcoming Homosexuality'', Robert Kronemeyer writes: "With rare exceptions, homosexuality is neither inherited nor the result of some glandular disturbance or the scrambling of genes or chromosomes. Homosexuals are made, not born 'that way.' I firmly believe that homosexuality is a learned response to early painful experiences and that it can be unlearned. For those homosexuals who are unhappy with their life and find effective therapy, it is 'curable.'<ref>Robert Kronemeyer, ''Overcoming Homosexuality'', p. 7 (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1980)</ref>

Similarly, in a 1989 ''[[USA Today]]'' article, [[San Francisco]] State University professor of psychology John DeCecco, and the former editor of the 25-volume, ''Journal of Homosexuality'', stated, "The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is entirely foolish". Homosexuality is "a behavior, not a condition," and something that some people can and do change, just like they sometimes change other tastes and personality traits."<ref>Kim Painter, ''A Biological Theory for Sexual Preference'', USA Today, 1 January 1989, p. 4D</ref>

===Parental relationships with offspring===

The psychoanalytical theory is the historical position, which implicates a detached, rejecting or absent father, often along with a close bond to the mother, as working, on the conscious and unconscious level, against a secure sexual identity. Also contributing to this can be a mother who has animosity toward the father, or men in general, and who works to present him negatively, and to make the child side with her.

One of the earliest studies supporting this position was that of Irving Bieber and associates.<ref>Bieber, ''Homsexuality: A psychoanalytical study of male homosexuality'' (1962)</ref> Comparison of 106 homosexuals with 100 male heterosexuals showed that mothers of the former had enmeshed seductive type relationships with their sons, while their fathers were detached, distant or rejecting. This study was contested by some who charged the researchers with bias, but a further study by Ray B. Evans, which also compared homosexuals with heterosexuals, reported similar results, this time among self-identified homosexuals who had never sought treatment.<ref>Ray b. Evans, "Childhood parental relationships of homosexual men", ''Journal of Consulting and clinical psychology'', 33. (1969), pp. 129-33.</ref>

Based upon his work with 200 male homosexuals, Gerard van den Aardweg stated that 79 percent described their mother as "overanxious", or "overconcerned" about them; their safety, health, and being overly sentimental when they met with some hardship, as well as manifesting other aspects of over-mothering. In addition, in 71 percent of homosexual cases, "the most important factor was the father's detachedness or nonparticipation in the son's upbringing. The fathers of 38 percent of the men were so hypercritical that the sons were made to feel either rejected and/or inferior. <ref>Gerard van den Aardweg, ''on the origins and treatment of homosexuality'' (1985), pp.184-85.</ref>

Another study of about 1500 homosexuals showed much less influence by the mother, while far more reported an unaffectionate or detached father, and approximately half of homosexuals reported they had negative feelings toward their fathers, versus 29 percent of heterosexuals.<ref>Bell, Weinberg, Hammersmith, ''Sexual preference: Its development in men and women'' (1981).</ref>

While these factors are conducive to homosexuality, it should be stressed that these do not ensure that children raised this way will become homosexual, nor are these factors alone in influencing it.

===Sexual abuse===

Childhood sexual abuse is well attested to demonstrate a correlation to the incidence of homosexuality among those affected by it. A large national survey of almost 35,000 Americans showed that more than three times as many men and women who had been sexually abused as children became homosexuals, versus that of heterosexuals.<ref>7.4 percent or homosexual men and 3.1 percent of females, versus 2.0 percent of heterosexual men and 0.8 percent women.</ref><ref>Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, and Michaels, ''The social organization of homosexuality:...'', (1994) p. 344</ref> Another study reported that 58 percent of male adolescents who later became homosexuals suffered sexual abuse as children, while 90 percent who did not suffer sexual abuse identified themselves as heterosexuals.<ref>Sheir and Johnson, ''Sexual victimization of boys:... (1988) pp. 1189-93</ref> In addition, 43 percent of male homosexuals reported sexual activity with another male during the ages of 10-12, versus 9 percent of heterosexuals.<ref>Manosevitz, "Early sexual behavior in adult homosexual and heterosexual males", ''Journal of abnormal psychology'', 76 (1970), 396-402.</ref>

===Educational indoctrination===
As part of the liberal ideology in modern [[education]], and as a result of psychological tactics used by homosexual [[activist]]s, schools have increasingly fostered the promotion of homosexuality, whether as part of official policy through homosexual activists working with or in schools. As a form of indoctrination which begins at the kindergarten level, homosexuality is treated as healthy and normal, with students at very impressionable ages sometimes being influenced to experiment with homosexual behavior. This is often done under the rubric of [[HIV]] instruction of preventing [[suicide]] by homosexuals, and preventing ''[[homophobia]]''. <ref>[http://www.cwfa.org/articles/12546/MEDIA/family/index.htm CWA: School Tells Kids to Hide Pro-‘Gay’ Propaganda From Parents], Concerned Women for America, 3/13/2007</ref><ref>[http://www.missionamerica.com/agenda.php Fighting the Gay Agenda in Schools Articles], Mission America</ref><ref>[http://www.chroniclewatch.com/2009/06/17/indoctrination-of-youth/ Roberto Santiago, The Indoctrination of our Youth],The Chronicle Watch, June 17, 2009</ref><ref>[http://www.missionamerica.com/oldagenda26.php GLSEN, Corruption and Crime], Mission America</ref> <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=127050 'Hate' laws could label 5-year-olds 'offenders'] WorldNetDaily, March 05, 2010</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126233 'Czar' sees transgender school goals in reach], WorldNetDaily, February 25, 2010</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54683 District gags 14-year-olds after 'gay' indoctrination], WorldNetDaily, March 13, 2007</ref>

==Biological research on the causes of homosexuality ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]] and [[Homosexuality and Genetics]].

The belief that homosexuality has a biological cause can be traced back to the preliminary findings of neuroscientist Dr. Simon LeVay. In 1991 LeVay's studied the brains of 41 cadavers which included 19 homosexual males, and claimed that "a tiny area believed to control sexual activity [the hypothalamus] was less than half the size in the gay men than in the heterosexuals."<ref>Charlene Crabb, ''Are Some Men Born to Be Homosexual?'', U. S. News & World Report, 9 September 1991, p. 58</ref><ref>S. LeVay, "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between heterosexual and Homosexual Men," Science 253 (1991), pp. 1034-37</ref> This study was immediately seized upon by many as proof that homosexuality was biologically determined.

However, further scrutiny showed this hasty conclusion as lacking in warrant.

*1. The range of sizes of the hypothalamic region varied and was inconsistent. The region at subject was the same size in a few homosexual men as that of the heterosexuals, while in a few other heterosexuals this region was a small as that of a homosexual.
*2. The fact that all 19 of the homosexual men had died of [[AIDS]] could easily have accounted for or contributed to the differences.
*3. It has not been determined if the smaller hypothalamuses were the cause rather than the effect of homosexual activity. "Researchers have found that when people who become blind begin to learn Braille, the area of the brain controlling the reading finger actual grows larger."<ref>Reported in D. Gelman "Born or Bred?" Newsweek, 24 February 1992, pp. 46-53</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homotheo.html</ref>
*4. Levay's study was based study was based upon a supposed sexual functional correlation between the SDN-POA brain center in male rats and a brain center called INAH3 in humans, but which assumption was shown to be false.<ref>http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron4.html</ref>
*5. The sexual history of the "heterosexual" men was not known, and Levay's samples included 16 brains from men whose sexual orientation was unknown.<ref>[http://www.equip.org/PDF/DH055-1.pdf Joseph P. Gudel, ''HOMOSEXUALITY: Fact and Fiction'']</ref>
*6. And as William Byne noted, LeVay’s work "has not been replicated, and human neuroanatomical studies of this kind have a very poor track record for reproducibility. Indeed, procedures similar to those LeVay used to identify nuclei have previously led researchers astray".<ref>Byne, William (1994), “The Biological Evidence Challenged,” Scientific American, May, 1994, 270: p. 53</ref>.
*7. The conclusions were that which were sought by the researcher. Dr. LeVay, a homosexual himself, confessed that his study was not entirely a dispassionate scientific endeavor,<ref>Simon LeVay on The Phil Donahue Show, ''Genetically Gay: Born Gay or Become Gay?'', January 3, 1992</ref> He also later stated, "I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay."<ref>Byrd, A. Dean, Shirley E. Cox, and Jeffrey W. Robinson (2001), ''Homosexuality: The Innate-Immutability Argument Finds No Basis in Science'', The Salt Lake Tribune</ref><ref>http://www.sltrib.com/2001/may/05272001/commenta/100523.htm</ref>

Two prominent geneticists, Paul Billings and Jonathan Beckwith, commenting on the quality of the LeVay research, stated that LeVay, "could not really be certain about his subject's sexual preferences, since they were dead", and that his "research design and subject sample did not allow others to determine whether it was sexual behavior, drug use, or disease history that was correlated with the observed differences among the subjects' brains." And in addition, it was very likely that LeVay's method of defining homosexuality would "create inaccurate or inconsistent study groups." <ref>P. Billings and J. Beckwith, "Born Gay?" Technology Review, July 1993, p. 60,61</ref>

Another study, published in ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America'', examined the ''anterior commissure'' (a structure that divides the left and right halves of the brain) of male heterosexuals and homosexual men, most of whom died of AIDS. The study shows that the anterior commissure was larger in women and in 27 of the 30 homosexual men than in heterosexual men.<ref>L. Allen, et al., ''Sexual Orientation and the Size of the Anterior Commissure in the Human Brain,'' Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America 89, no. 15 (1992), pp. 7199-7202</ref>.

Here again, how AIDS might have factored in this difference is an issue, and the findings of this study were overall in contradiction to another study published in 1988, which found, in part, that the anterior commissure was larger in men than in women.<ref>S. Demeter et al., "Morphometric analysis of the human corpus callosum and anterior commissure," Human Neurobiology 6 1988), pp. 219-26</ref>

A 1991 study of twins by Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard was also promoted as establishing biological determination of homosexuality, but which conclusion was also soon found to be lacking in warrant, and contrary to other studies.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homotheo.html</ref><ref>[http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron4.html Dr. Paul Cameron, ''Born WHAT Way?'']</ref>

That blood chemistry as well as brains can change over time in response to environment and lifestyle has been documented by studies.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/bioresearch.html</ref><ref>Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, ''The Biology of Homosexuality: Science or Politics?''</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/bioresearch.html</ref>

==Conclusions==

Sociologist Steven Goldberg, Ph.D. states,
<blockquote>
Virtually all of the evidence argues against there being a determinative physiological causal factor and I know of no researcher who believes that such a determinative factor exists...such factors play a predisposing, not a determinative role...I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors.
</blockquote>

Goldberg also expressed, "Gay criticism has not addressed the classic family configuration"; it has merely "asserted away the considerable evidence" for the existence of family factors. Studies which attempt to disprove the existence of the classic family pattern in homosexuality are "convincing only to those with a need to believe." <ref>S. Goldberg, ''When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False'' (1994), Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books</ref>

Psychiatrists Friedman and Downey: "Despite recent neurobiological findings suggesting homosexuality is genetically-biologically determined, credible evidence is lacking for a biological model of homosexuality." <ref>R. Friedman, M.D. and J. Downey, M.D., ''Journal of Neuropsychiatry'', vol. 5, No. 2, Spring l993</ref>

Psychiatrist and author Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. concludes,
<blockquote>
Like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is...neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences...postnatal environment (such as parent, sibling and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases of development.<ref>J. Satinover, M.D., ''Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth'', (1996). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books</ref></blockquote>

Drs. William Byne and Bruce Parsons, researchers at the New York State Psychiatric Institute,having carefully analyzed all the major biological studies of homosexuality, found none that definitively supported a biological theory of causation. "Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised." Archives of General Psychiatry 50, no.3. (1993)

Other similarly express that nurture and choice factor as being mostly or wholly determinative.<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/homorig.html On the Origins of Homosexuality:
Is a Person "Born that Way"?]</ref>

===Indications of onset homosexuality===

Childhood manifestations of gender non-conformity such as consistent preference by a boy for the clothing, company and play things (dolls, etc.) of girls over that of boys is generally seen as predisposing such to homosexuality.<ref>Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse, ''Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church's moral debate'', pp. 52-92</ref>

==Homosexuality as a choice==
The Bible shows that while nurture and environment can make one more predisposed to certain types of behavior, man's sinful nature can also deceive one into believing that sinful behaviors are not sin, while yielding to sin reduces ones ability to resist it. Secular studies also indicate that most homosexuals have been attracted to the opposite gender.

A research project (2004) of Robert Goetze identified 84 articles or books that contain some relevance to the possibility of sexual orientation change. Of the data reported, 31 of the 84 studies showed a quantitative outcome of individuals able to change sexual orientation.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2553</ref>

===Former homosexuals===
[[Image:St Paul Preaching.jpg|left|thumb|200px|St. [[Paul]] defends his preaching (Giovanni Ricco)]]
''For more information please see'': [[Ex-Homosexuals]] and [[Overcoming Homosexuality]]

One of the earliest historical records of the existence of [[Ex-Homosexuals|ex-homosexuals]] is found in the letter of the [[Paul|Apostle Paul]] to the [[Corinth|Corinthian]] [[Christianity|Christian]] church (approx. 59 AD).
{{cquote|Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the [[Kingdom of God|kingdom of God]]? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such '''were''' some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the [[Holy Spirit|Spirit]] of our [[God]]. - I Corinthians 6:9-11 (KJV)}}

Today people still report leaving homosexuality and becoming heterosexual by being born again through repentance and faith in the Lord [[Jesus Christ]].<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56481</ref><ref>http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19650</ref><ref>http://www.cwfa.org/articles/4216/CFI/cfreport/index.htm</ref><ref>http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.aspid=25145</ref><ref>http://www.witnessfortheworld.org/blkexgbks.html</ref> <ref>http://www.frontlinemin.org/wasgay.asp</ref><ref>http://www.charismamag.com/display.php?id=9019</ref><ref>http://www.apocalipsis.org/testimony.htm</ref><ref>http://www.baylor.edu/lariat/news.php?action=story&story=13784</ref>

[[Peter LaBarbera]] is the President of [[Americans for Truth]] which is a organization which counters the [[Homosexual Agenda|homosexual agenda]]. Peter LaBarbera stated the following regarding Christian ex-homosexuals who reported being transformed by the power of God:
{{cquote|Another factor from my experience as a close observer of the “ex-gay” phenomenon is that many former homosexuals do not linger in “[[Reparative Therapy|reparative therapy]]” programs, or participate in them at all. They attribute their dramatic and (relatively) rapid transformation to the power of God, and likely would not show up in a study of this kind. In fact, these “unstudied” overcomers would appear to be the most successful ex-homosexuals because they’ve moved on with their lives — as “reborn” Christians can move on after overcoming any besetting sin.<ref>http://www.americansfortruth.com/news/landmark-study-change-for-homosexuals-is-possible.html</ref>}}

==Additional sources concerning the causes of homosexuality ==

There has been much work done since the latter part of the 20th century. Below are some resources in regards to the various causes of homosexuality:

*[[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]]
*[[Sexual Abuse Being a Contributing Factor for Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality and Choice]]
*[[Homosexuality and Genetics]]
*[[Homosexuality in animals myth]]
*[[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]]

==See Also==
*[[Resources on becoming a Christian]]
* [[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]
*[[Ex-Homosexuals]]
*[[Teenager Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality Research]]
*[[Homosexuality Statistics]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.allaboutworldview.org/causes-of-homosexuality-faq.htm What are some of the causes of homosexuality?]
*[http://ankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/streams-of-life/SL2W0803.pdf What Causes Homosexuality] by Dr. John F. Ankerberg
* [http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/genetics_of_homosexuality.html Rich Deem, ''Genetics and Homosexuality: Are People Born Gay? The Biological Basis for Sexual Orientation]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{homosexualityb}}

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Sociology]]