Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality
- Thread starter Buddha1
- Start date
- Status
Buddha1 said:
Me too!
Buddha1 said:
I told you know more than 3 times that Darwin used sexual selection to explain the evolution of features that could NOT be explained with natural selection. How many fucking times do I have to repeat myself before you understand a simple statement?
Buddha1 said:
Give me some peer reviewed articles and I will shut up.
Don't give me that shit. I am not a scientist and I'm not supposed to have access to peer-reviewed papers.spuriousmonkey said:
If you are right and knowledable, you should be able to prove your case without resorting to these stupid evading techniques.
Otherwise just fuck off.
I mean scientists cannot play with people's lives by giving them lies, just because they have degrees. What they say through science should make sense to laymen, especially when these are such simple facts of life.Buddha1 said:
If you can't prove your case to laymen, you are not being honest.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
What are you wittering on about? What do you mean you are not supposed to have access to peer-reviewed papers? Of course you are. Who is stopping you from having such access?Buddha1 said:
Alos, as has been pointed out repeatedly, why, if you are not a scientist are you posting your speculations in a science forum?
Your posts and arguments are so filled with holes they have become almost a perfect vacuum.
Science rules our lives. We as humans are capable of seeing things for ourselvs. Science is our servant not our ruler.Ophiolite said:
When there is prima facie evidence of misuse of science by the scientific community then the layman has every right to question it.
I am using scientific evidences to prove my case. Nowhere does it say that a scientifically proven point is invalid unless it is peer-reviewed. I don't know and I don't care if something is peer-reviewed or not.
As a layman I will not doubt an accredited scientist unless I have reasons to do so. And I will think nothing of a peer-reviewed paper if I have reasons to believe that it is seriously flawed, and if I can prove it.
I mean Johann Roughgarden has published a book which is a resource book for so many universities around the world. If she is wrong why doesn't so many peers challenge her work or write criticisms of her (I'm sure they would have, but they haven't stuck!). You just cannot get away with your biased criticisms in the real world, because the world is changing. Within your peer-group you devise all kinds of ways to prevent the truth from coming out to the public. I guess that is why the vested interest group is so keen on 'peer-reviewed' papers.
So to cut the matter short, prove your case here before laymen, if you have one, otherwise f* off with you peer-reviewed papers.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Ricky, as I have just pointed out to you on a separate thread there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. I am using the phrase here in a rhetorical, not a scientific manner. It is intended to criticise by use of mild humour Bhudda1's position.Ricky Houy said:Ehh, I beg to differ. I seems to me as if it has an atmosphere. So it can't be close to a perfect vacuum.But, yea I see where you going with that. But at the same time it doesn't make to much sense.
Buddha sometimes i dont think even you know what you're talking about and saying....
Also i looked up one of the other names you dropped, it seems he conducts bias surveys, along the lines of "have you competed with someone of the opposite sex for someone of the opposite(or same) sex", they neglect any alternatives.
If his other surveys and observations were conducted along similar lines then they would obviously be one sided, either way i dont think its scientific.
Even if name dropping meant anything, it helps if you know the name!
Also i looked up one of the other names you dropped, it seems he conducts bias surveys, along the lines of "have you competed with someone of the opposite sex for someone of the opposite(or same) sex", they neglect any alternatives.
If his other surveys and observations were conducted along similar lines then they would obviously be one sided, either way i dont think its scientific.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
It can therefore exist as a fictional beast, but there would be no evidence that it existed in reality. In the same way a perfect vacuum is, as you have quoted in another thread, but a philosophical concept. None exist. There is no reason to believe any exist. There is no evidence for their existence. The fact that they have not been proven not to exist is not evidence for their existence. The fact that you imply it may be is a demonstration of a weakness in your knowledge of the scientific method.
DARWINISM --- A DISTORTED WORLDVIEW
Men who are naturally close to heterosexuality (meaning they have a strong need to bond with women) do tend to think that the only purpose of males is to mate and merge with the female.
So what happens when the majority of men is silenced and cannot speak for themselves?
The men who have a voice and speak --- and they speak a lot, and speak too loud because of their power, create an artificial environment where it appears that most men exist only to mate with and love women. (Contrast this with the fact that we started out like the horses). The majority continuously judges itself against this supposed ‘nature’ and tries to adjust to it, they too believe it to be the reality and secretly view themselves as ‘deficient’ to the extent they don’t fit in or have acknowledged their same-sex needs.
But my point here is that, what happens when science --- which is a tool in the hands of the vested interest group which holds power ….. and which judges things only from what they appear on the outside ….. makes theories about male biology (sexuality) based on this viewpoint.
The result then is Darwinism.
Darwin was one of the heterosexual vested interested group who thought the entire male race shared his nature --- and he saw the world in that particular way, and went ahead to give scientific credence to this outlook, for the entire male race.
Men who are naturally close to heterosexuality (meaning they have a strong need to bond with women) do tend to think that the only purpose of males is to mate and merge with the female.
So what happens when the majority of men is silenced and cannot speak for themselves?
The men who have a voice and speak --- and they speak a lot, and speak too loud because of their power, create an artificial environment where it appears that most men exist only to mate with and love women. (Contrast this with the fact that we started out like the horses). The majority continuously judges itself against this supposed ‘nature’ and tries to adjust to it, they too believe it to be the reality and secretly view themselves as ‘deficient’ to the extent they don’t fit in or have acknowledged their same-sex needs.
But my point here is that, what happens when science --- which is a tool in the hands of the vested interest group which holds power ….. and which judges things only from what they appear on the outside ….. makes theories about male biology (sexuality) based on this viewpoint.
The result then is Darwinism.
Darwin was one of the heterosexual vested interested group who thought the entire male race shared his nature --- and he saw the world in that particular way, and went ahead to give scientific credence to this outlook, for the entire male race.
- Status