[Thaway]

[quote=gallo;308882]

Quote:
Quote by: Thaway
When you said "statistically more likely" even though that is technically correct, it would be more accurate to say "more probabilistic" since stats are based on probabilities and are merely a form of reporting probabilities...thus stats themselves are not the principle driving the phenomena that certain things are more or less likely to occur.

Why try to confuse the issue? Certain characteristics tend to be more successful at producing offspring. When examined, they are "statistically more likely." Perhaps you are unfamiliar with population genetics.

“Statically more likely” only makes sense if you do not understand what statistics are. Since, you don’t believe me I will drop it since I understand what you intend. But, again, what you mean to say is that “research has demonstrated that they are more likely to occur”. Again, things cannot be statically more or less anything. It’s improper use of the word.

Before you comment again on how much I do not know about statistics, I am in a doctoral program and just completed my second course in Advanced Statistics. Yes, I’m in a science program, so I also know plenty about science.

One of the main points I was trying to share with you what that science itself does not claim to prove or disprove anything. Science can only offer evidence for logical conclusions. The conclusions themselves are not the finding of research. The findings are the evidence. Everything people put on top of that is just guessing.

Nor does science claim to be able to answer any question that cannot be directly observed.

AND YET, people seem to think science proves and disproves, and is the key to understanding any question imaginable.

Note – you can never observe yesterday…thus science can never directly answer a question about the past.

Quote:
Quote by: Thaway
Well, this actually means that all the scientific evidence (which is what it really is...evidence) could be wrong. Though it is EXTREMLY unlikely, it is possible.

Do you even know what science is and how it works? Of course it could be wrong. It could be that the earth doesn't orbit the sun. It could be that various micropathogens don't cause disease. what was your point?

My point is a little deeper than that. I hold the view that science combined with reason can lead us to the “real truth”. But many people fail to recognize the part where science stops and reason begins. I find those people to be intellectually dishonest.

Of course they are threatened by the knowledge that science cannot directly answer anything because they have fooled themselves into thinking “I base all my ideas on what science has proven”. If that is the case…then you have no ideas because science cannot prove anything and it does not claim to.

Quote:
Quote by: Thaway
Every experiment require human observation…humans are prone to observation errors, just look at eye witness testimony inconsistencies.

And humans are also prone to being duped by religious charlatans. Do you have a point?

I was talking about the room for human error in science – I’m petty sure you understand that. We could however talk about all the things humans can do if you would prefer.
Quote:
Quote by: Thaway
Every experiment requires humans to design them…this requires forethought and prediction based on theory; a lot of room for error there.

But no room for error in the reading of scripture?

Again, I’m talking about the room for human error in science. But I think you see that.
Quote:
Quote by: Thaway
People have bias, independent observers are not always consistent, experimental conditions vary across experiments, and many theories can never be directly tested…like evolution.

And that is why science progresses by peer review. You don't know much about how science works, do you?

Plenty of peer-reviewed research is crap. Sorry to burst your bubble, but peer review is just one more step in the chain of “room for human error” in the scientific process. But, publication is a little farther down the road then I was trying to go, nonetheless, I’m glad you brought it up.

As for evolution, it has been observed and those observations formed the hypotheses that formed the basis for the predictions that have been experimentally verified. Please educate yourself before you speak.

Sorry, but the only evolution that has EVER been observed it what is referred to as microevolution. That is, evolution within a species. There has never been a single case of macroevolution, when one species evolves into a new species.

Whenever you hear someone use science to back up evolution, they are taking evidence from microevolution and using it to make claims about macroevolution.

Hopefully you can see the error in that reasoning.

Quote:
Quote by: Thaway
Until we have an experimental earth and control earth and billions of years, science could never verify evolution.

What a mindless statement. Is it preferable to posit mythology?

It’s a scientific statement. …“Mythology” of course not…but guessing is really our only option. At least I recognize that.
Quote:
Quote by: Thaway
So if you want to rely on scientific evidence to support your beliefs (which they are beliefs, just as the Muslims and the Christians have beliefs) that is fine, just make sure you understand all the faith gaps that exist in your belief system before you go and criticize someone else’s faith based belief system.

But I don't believe in evolution. My belief system is something else, not evolutionary biology. Biology is a matter of reason and logic rather than some superstition based mythology.

Once again, I think you are missing the gap between where science ends and reason begins. You state it here, but then loose your own thought immediately in the same sentence. Every conclusion is a belief – no matter what is based on. I’m not sure you believe.
Quote:
Quote by: Thaway
You might say "where does science require faith?". Many, many places...that is why science itself acknowledges the possibility it is mistaken, and therefore requires the use of statistics to estimate the likelihood its findings are due to chance.

Why do you find it necessary to argue with this straw man? Why do you think that it is necessary to reduce science to the level of faith? Is it that your faith is weak? I see the symptom often.

Personal attacks are not a great way to communicate. Nonetheless, my general point here is that ever conclusion is a belief. Believe requires faith. Some people pretend that beliefs based on scientific evidence do not require faith. That is simply a mistake.
Quote:
Quote by: Thaway
So, I raised a lot of issues...let me know which ones you would prefer to talk about by responding selectively.

You raised nonsensical mythology. Let me know which particular myth you wish to discuss by responding selectively.

Name one myth I raised.
Quote:
Quote by: Thaway
Again, then explain the persistence of the genetic components of homosexuality.

So explain to me why it is that you fear homosexuals? Homophobia seems to be a characteristic of suppressed homosexuals. Why are you so interested?

I do not fear homosexuals, but thanks for your concern.