Darwin's theory

Joe Exotic · 09-10-2014 11:44PM

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 · 09-10-2014 11:45PM

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 · 09-10-2014 11:46PM

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 · 09-10-2014 11:46PM

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 · 09-10-2014 11:47PM

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 · 09-10-2014 11:48PM

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 · 09-10-2014 11:48PM

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

GreeBo · 09-10-2014 11:49PM

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 · 09-10-2014 11:50PM

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:

Joe Exotic · 09-10-2014 11:53PM

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 · 09-10-2014 11:53PM

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 · 09-10-2014 11:53PM

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 · 09-10-2014 11:54PM

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.

Nodin · 09-10-2014 11:57PM

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 · 09-10-2014 11:58PM

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 · 09-10-2014 11:58PM

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 · 09-10-2014 11:59PM

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 · 10-10-2014 12:01AM

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 · 10-10-2014 12:03AM

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 · 10-10-2014 12:04AM

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!!

Edgarfrndly · 10-10-2014 12:04AM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

In the same way that Creation Science is a theory.

No, it's not. "Creation Science" is not a theory. It's a hypotheses, which has no merit - as it lacks any scientific evidence. Creation Science is largely propagated by people who take their queue from the bible first, and scientific texts second. They already constrain themselves to a preconceived idea, blinding them to performing real tests.

You can of course dispute this by finding a peer-reviewed article by a "creation scientist", that has passed review and being accepted solely on it's scientific merits.

osarusan · 10-10-2014 12:05AM

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.

Nobel Prize on the way.

Edgarfrndly · 10-10-2014 12:05AM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

In the same way that Creation Science is a theory.

No, it's not. "Creation Science" is not a theory. It's barely a far-fetched hypothesis, which has no merit - as it lacks any scientific evidence. Creation Science is largely propagated by people who take their queue from the bible first, and scientific texts second. They already constrain themselves to a preconceived idea, blinding them to performing real tests.

You can of course dispute this by finding a peer-reviewed article by a "creation scientist", that has passed review and being accepted solely on it's scientific merits.

Nodin · 10-10-2014 12:05AM

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.

I have a theory, and that theory states that you don't actually believe in creationism at all, at all.

Knasher · 10-10-2014 12:06AM

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

You can of course dispute this by finding a peer-reviewed article by a "creation scientist", that has passed review and being accepted solely on it's scientific merits.

The problem there is that the peer of a creation "scientist" is also a creation "scientist" and clearly they will accept any old nonsense. Show me something that has been accepted by the wider scientific community and I'll listen.

Cianmcliam · 10-10-2014 12:07AM

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

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.

Humans already have a mechanism to deal with expanding population size, the group invariably splits once it reaches between 80-150 people. This is pretty much universal in the anthropological literature. Only when farming arrived did it make large tribal societies possible, even then they usually segmented.

Edgarfrndly · 10-10-2014 12:09AM

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Humans already have a mechanism to deal with expanding population size, the group invariably splits once it reaches between 80-150 people. This is pretty much universal in the anthropological literature. Only when farming arrived did it make large tribal societies possible, even then they usually segmented.

It is one mechanism. Also, I'm not stating it as a matter of act - but rather a suggestion on how homosexuality might benefit a group.

Frito · 10-10-2014 12:15AM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

isn't it great that the earth isn't too hot or too cold? kinda just right...

If there's one proposition that could steer me towards intelligent design it's that Goldilocks is the creator.

The Pheasant2 · 10-10-2014 12:15AM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

You make a good case for your belief that men are apes, but I think most people will still look at an ape and know, despite some of the fancy college science behind the theory, that it just cant be so. A lot of the work going on today in creationism will likely soon prove the man-ape idea to be false (some claim to have done so already), showing that man was indeed created as we are - without any need for apes or Darwin.

I truly, genuinely, find it mind-blowing that an educated person in the First World in the 21st century can say that.

Evolution is a scientific theory - this isn't a "theory" in the conversational sense ie. suggesting doubt or conjecture or uncertainty. Scientific theory amounts to scientific fact.

I don't see you questioning the "theory" of gravity...although I suppose it's only a "theory" after all. :rolleyes:

Cianmcliam · 10-10-2014 12:17AM

I think the discussion is getting confused, two separate ideas are getting intertwined.
One is whether homosexuality is enviornmental or genetic or random. I doubt many still believe it is a learned behaviour, most of us agree people are born straight or gay and there's no point in trying to change this state.

The second issue is whether or not being gay was adaptive in the past ie. conferred reproductive benefits on individuals carrying these genes. I think this point is highly debatable while still believing that being gay is a state you are born into not a choice or learned behaviour.

I hope people reading this don't think that arguing that homosexuality was unlikely to be adaptive means the person arguing this case thinks it's a learned behaviour. I certainly don't think this at all. I personally think the explanation is probably hormonal events during gestation.

Darwin's theory

Comments