Darwin's theory

Joe Exotic

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

It is still your belief. And you are entitled to take that point of view. I wont argue it with you.
And it may indeed be scientific fact. On this, I probably agree with you. But there is more to the world than science. And being a 'scientific fact' does not necessarily tell the full story. It is just one perspective.
Similarly, by your definition of what a man is, and what an ape is, you deduce that a man is an ape. OK. But only by your definitions.

Just checking do you know how the scientific method works (roughly)
1. observation
2. hypothesis
3. test hypothesis
4. confirm/reject hypothesis (by many different studies)
5. if confirmed form a theory if not back to step 1

and then
6. new evidence
7. adapt/change theory or start again

Basically we take all The available evidence and form an explanation which best explains it and use that as our "understanding" of the topic

so being a "scientific fact" is not really just a perspective it by definition encompasses all we know about the subject

Joe Exotic

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Including Creation Science ?

Theres no creation science just science

Doctor Jimbob

murphk wrote: »

Just checking do you know how the scientific method works (roughly)
1. observation
2. hypothesis
3. test hypothesis
4. confirm/reject hypothesis (by many different studies) Check if hypothesis agrees with bible
5. if confirmed form a theory if not back to step 1

and then
6. new evidence
7. adapt/change theory or start again

Basically we take all The available evidence and form an explanation which best explains it and use that as our "understanding" of the topic

so being a "scientific fact" is not really just a perspective it by definition encompasses all we know about the subject

The creation science method!

SaveOurLyric

GreeBo wrote: »

Oxymorons are not science I'm afraid.
To be called "science" implies you follow certain rules, scientific method. Story telling doesn't count.

How well informed on Creation Science are you? I doubt you would make the comment above if you studied it in depth.

GreeBo

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

Bisexuality exists in a huge array of different species. It isn't unique to humans. It is visible in all apes. It is only logical to deduce that it existed when homo sapiens in their modern form evolved, given that prior members of the Homo family (no pun intended) exhibited bisexual behaviour.

Bonobos (our closest relative) are a great example of how bisexuality can actually benefit a species. In their ranks, sex is used as an activity to relax and calm tensions. Bonobos engage in sex at a much higher frequency than Chimps, and as a result are much less aggressive.

So bisexuality can actually improve the chances of a clan survival's chances. Straight up homosexuality is probably just a more expressed version of whatever the mutation exists that allows for sexual attraction between animals of the same sex.

I don't see why it's actually an issue.

Bisexuality doesn't preclude procreation, homosexuality does.

You might as well say people with one eye are not blind, people with none are just more expressed.

From an evolutionary point of view gay people don't procreate, straight abd bisexuals do.

I can see bisexuality being more beneficial than being straight in many ways, but being gay is a dead end, naturally.

Nodin

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Could they not just have a **** like?

If **** calmed them down like sex did, then young lads in their teens wouldn't bate the heads offof each other.

Joe Exotic

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Even Darwin's Theory is still only, by definition, a theory. Its not Darwin's Fact.

you do realize that a theory in scientific terms is the highest level of science not a theory like we use in ever day conversation

a scientific theory is what best explains, after strenuous test all the scientific facts

Nodin

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

How well informed on Creation Science are you? I doubt you would make the comment above if you studied it in depth.

Do please enlighten us then. Certainly my knowledge of it would lead me to conclude it had no validity whatsoever.

SaveOurLyric

murphk wrote: »

Theres no creation science just science

Google is your friend. And yes, for those of you who need to see degrees to be able to have a serious conversation with someone on this topic, you can get degrees in it too. And a lot of research doctors and such like writing very informed analyses of it.

floggg

GreeBo wrote: »

Where did I say people became gay?
I said, numerous times now, if being gay was a useful , pervasive trait then eventually everyone would be gay.
Not naturally procreating doesn't seem like a useful trait for an organism, hence being gay can be seen as a disorder, from an evolutionary point of view, a dead end.

Em...

GreeBo wrote: »

Well you are now assuming that a hay man and a gay woman have sex, which kinda goes against being gay.

In evolutionary/biological viewpoint they are not "gay".

I'm not saying that they would be gay because both their parents are gay, Im saying "if homosexuality was a persistent/pervasive trait" then it would eventually happen. If being gay was a benefit then more and more people would become gay. If its not a benefit then, as the original poster said, it can be viewed as a disorder. Its not a benefit to the individual organism so it will die out.

GreeBo

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

How well informed on Creation Science are you? I doubt you would make the comment above if you studied it in depth.

Science is observed and explained, it's not made up by humans, the universe takes care of it and we observe and try to understand it.

You are talking about creating science. That's where you make things up not based on observation but on how you would like them to be. It doesn't stand up to the simplest of testing. It requires faith to get past the holes. That's not science, that's stories.

Knasher

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Google is your friend. And yes, for those of you who need to see degrees to be able to have a serious conversation with someone on this topic, you can get degrees in it too. And a lot of research doctors and such like writing very informed analyses of it.

You can't get a degree in creation science from a reputable university. You have to go to a nonsense, private university that has been set up specifically to shield people from the real world to get a "degree" in it.

Joe Exotic

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

How well informed on Creation Science are you? I doubt you would make the comment above if you studied it in depth.

Again no such thing as creation science just science

if you have to add something to the start of it then your saying basically it doesn't follow the rules I.E. the scientific method as opposed to the creationist method

Creation method:
step 1 read bible
step 2 burn witches
step 3 go back to step 1

Doctor Jimbob

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Google is your friend. And yes, for those of you who need to see degrees to be able to have a serious conversation with someone on this topic, you can get degrees in it too. And a lot of research doctors and such like writing very informed analyses of it.

Just because creationists call it science doesn't make it science. If I got enough people on board I could make pages on Klingon genetics come up at the top of a google search. That wouldn't make it a valid field of study.

Degrees? Not so much. Peer reviewed papers? Oh hell yes. Can you produce some of those on creation 'science'?

GreeBo

floggg wrote: »

Em...

I already clarified that.
Think mankind when you read people.
I'm not in any way attempting to state that specific people become gay. I'm pretty sure evolution isn't quite that quick.

Joe Exotic

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Google is your friend. And yes, for those of you who need to see degrees to be able to have a serious conversation with someone on this topic, you can get degrees in it too. And a lot of research doctors and such like writing very informed analyses of it.

and yet no peer reviewed journals :rolleyes:

Doctor Jimbob

murphk wrote: »

and yet no peer reviewed journals :rolleyes:

'But but that's just because the mean old scientists won't let us play with them'

Joe Exotic

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

'But but that's just because the mean old scientists won't let us play with them'

Its a conspiracy by the saucer people in conjunction with the reverse vampires in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner:pac:

Nodin

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Google is your friend. And yes, for those of you who need to see degrees to be able to have a serious conversation with someone on this topic, you can get degrees in it too. And a lot of research doctors and such like writing very informed analyses of it.

Well, I've used google in relation to it once before, and the only question that such searches ever raised in my mind where whether certain persons were chancers, or genuinely believed what they were coming out with. So - do please direct us to these people, so we might learn something new.

Edgarfrndly

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Even Darwin's Theory is still only, by definition, a theory. Its not Darwin's Fact.

I don't think you understand what the term "theory" means in a scientific context. It is not a casual observation about how something works. In order for something to become a theory in a scientific sense, the proposition must follow the scientific method where it is tested and confirmed through observation and thorough experimentation. All work must go through scrupulous peer-review before being accepted as a scientific theory.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is a theory, and also a fact. In the same way as germ theory is a theory, but also a fact.

SaveOurLyric

murphk wrote: »

and yet no peer reviewed journals :rolleyes:

There are articles. Lots and lots of them. But its just not the kind of thing that you will read reviews of.

Doctor Jimbob

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

There are articles. Lots and lots of them. But its just not the kind of thing that you will read reviews of.

There are articles, but they aren't peer reviewed. I could start my own journal tomorrow, print whatever the feck I want in it and go around telling people it's science because it's an article.

Nodin

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

There are articles. Lots and lots of them. But its just not the kind of thing that you will read reviews of.

Journals that are concerned with evolution don't review papers on evolution?

Fascinating stuff here.

Joe Exotic

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

There are articles. Lots and lots of them. But its just not the kind of thing that you will read reviews of.

and yet no peer reviewed journals :rolleyes:
heres an article for ya

http://bigfootsightings.org/don-monroe-radio/

do you belive this by your standards of evidence i guess you do

Edgarfrndly

GreeBo wrote: »

Bisexuality doesn't preclude procreation, homosexuality does.

You might as well say people with one eye are not blind, people with none are just more expressed.

From an evolutionary point of view gay people don't procreate, straight abd bisexuals do.

I can see bisexuality being more beneficial than being straight in many ways, but being gay is a dead end, naturally.

No, it isn't. So long as there are enough straight couples producing offspring, then the overall group is unaffected. In fact, homosexuality might contain a clan's population for the benefit of the group, where overpopulation becomes an issue due to food and resource concerns.

The population as a whole would only be affected if all members of a group were homosexual. Otherwise, homosexuality would not exist at all.

Edgarfrndly

GreeBo wrote: »

Bisexuality doesn't preclude procreation, homosexuality does.

You might as well say people with one eye are not blind, people with none are just more expressed.

From an evolutionary point of view gay people don't procreate, straight abd bisexuals do.

I can see bisexuality being more beneficial than being straight in many ways, but being gay is a dead end, naturally.

No, it isn't. So long as there are enough straight couples producing offspring, then the overall group is largely unaffected. In fact, homosexuality might contain a clan's population for the benefit of the group, where overpopulation becomes an issue due to food and resource concerns.

The population as a whole would only be affected if all members of a group were homosexual. Otherwise, homosexuality would not exist at all.

SaveOurLyric

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

I don't think you understand what the term "theory" means in a scientific context. It is not a casual observation about how something works. In order for something to become a theory in a scientific sense, the proposition must follow the scientific method where it is tested and confirmed through observation and thorough experimentation. All work must go through scrupulous peer-review before being accepted as a scientific theory.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is a theory, and also a fact. In the same way as germ theory is a theory, but also a fact.

In the same way that Creation Science is a theory. But I am not so blikered as to also claim that it is also a fact. Unlike some 'scientists'. It is the theory however that best fits the observable world for me. The Darwin theory is an interesting one, and some points do seem to have some sense to it. But overall, it just doesnt add up. The most likely scenario some day, as I see it, is that Creation theory will both explain how it is consistent with Darwins observations, and explain the flaws in Darwin, putting it to bed finally.

Knasher

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

In the same way that Creation Science is a theory. But I am not so blikered as to also claim that it is also a fact. Unlike some 'scientists'. It is the theory however that best fits the observable world for me. The Darwin theory is an interesting one, and some points do seem to have some sense to it. But overall, it just doesnt add up. The most likely scenario some day, as I see it, is that Creation theory will both explain how it is consistent with Darwins observations, and explain the flaws in Darwin, putting it to bed finally.

Creation "Science" isn't a theory in the scientific sense of the word. It has no predictive power and is isn't falsifiable. It doesn't even rise to the level of hypothesis. It is, at best, a silly notion.

Joe Exotic

night all im off to bed but if you want to watch some good disscussions on the issue at hand

go to utube and search for Athiest experience they have many creationists on including matt slick and ray comfort including many typical religous people

good debates a can be quite funny!!

Doctor Jimbob

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

In the same way that Creation Science is a theory. But I am not so blikered as to also claim that it is also a fact. Unlike some 'scientists'. It is the theory however that best fits the observable world for me. The Darwin theory is an interesting one, and some points do seem to have some sense to it. But overall, it just doesnt add up. The most likely scenario some day, as I see it, is that Creation theory will both explain how it is consistent with Darwins observations, and explain the flaws in Darwin, putting it to bed finally.

You clearly don't know what theory means in a scientific context. Creation science is absolutely not a theory in the scientific sense. Explain how it fits the physical world. How does it explain vestigial organs? The genetic similarity between organisms? The fact that fossil analysis clearly shows a change in the bodyplan of organisms over time? These are all things in the observable world. I think what you mean is that creation science is the theory that best fits your religious beliefs. Nothing in the observable world supports it. Nothing.