| Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums. |
 | | 
15th January 2004, 10:36 PM
|  | Thief in the Night
25      
| | Join Date: 30th August 2003 Location: New York
Posts: 6,386
Blessings: 9,342
Reps: 29,807,908,674,769,116 (power: 29,807,908,674,784) | | Eh, my little method works alot better in psychology. 
Thankyou, however, for the information.
__________________
Bushido216 |
15th January 2004, 11:07 PM
|  | Legend
60  
| | Join Date: 22nd October 2002 Location: New York
Posts: 14,398
Blessings: 1,006,565 My Mood 
Reps: 406,903,328,345,094,208 (power: 406,903,328,345,118) | | Originally Posted by Bushido216 Eh, my little method works alot better in psychology.  Which is why we in the hard sciences don't think much of psychology! Want to hear some psychologists jokes?
__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890 |
18th January 2004, 09:50 AM
|  | only hurts when I breathe
35  
 | | Join Date: 8th October 2002
Posts: 5,264
Blessings: 119,861
Reps: 1,039 (power: 16) | | Originally Posted by cze_026 Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island. Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
It takes far lest than millions of years.
CZE
I thought we were talking about humans, not fish. Humans are just a tad bit more complex than a fish.
__________________ It's better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not...be you
|
18th January 2004, 12:13 PM
| | Thief in the Night
25
| | Join Date: 30th August 2003 Location: New York
Posts: 6,386
Blessings: 9,342
Reps: 29,807,908,674,769,116 (power: 29,807,908,674,784) | | Originally Posted by lucaspa Which is why we in the hard sciences don't think much of psychology! Want to hear some psychologists jokes?
Preferably not. Psychologists are doing alot of hard work and it's not easy attempting to figure out processes that you cannot directly look at or quantify with a simple equation.
In phsyics you can look at a ball rolling down a hill and no exactly what forces are acting on it (gravity and friction). In psychology you see a person who think he's a four year old girl and you have to interpret and work and manipulate around a problem.
For a science only a hundred years old I think we've come quite a long way.
__________________
Bushido216 |
18th January 2004, 09:53 PM
| | Legend
60
| | Join Date: 22nd October 2002 Location: New York
Posts: 14,398
Blessings: 1,006,565 My Mood
Reps: 406,903,328,345,094,208 (power: 406,903,328,345,118) | | Originally Posted by Inspired I thought we were talking about humans, not fish. Humans are just a tad bit more complex than a fish.
Still doesn't take millions of years. H. erectus speciated to neanderals in the period 500,000 - 200,000 years ago. That's 300,000 years, not millions. It looks like the speciation from H. erectus to H. sapiens happened in about 500,000 years.
"Complex" doesn't seem to matter. And I am not sure humans are more complex than a fish to begin with. Don't confuse biological organization with technology. What seems to matter is 1) population size, 2) selection pressure, and 3) restricted gene flow.
__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890 |
18th January 2004, 10:01 PM
| | Senior Member
46  
| | Join Date: 13th January 2004 Location: From Parts Unknown
Posts: 956
Blessings: 91,599
Reps: 239 (power: 0) | | | Hey Bushido,
If physics is so easy I'll wait a day or so for you to specify all the stable solutions in R or Z domains for the Navier Stokes equations.
And why you are at it why don't you rip off a quick theory for the baryon/antibaryon imbalance in the Big Bang - specifically what is the CP violating reaction at work since the neutral kaon or neutral B meson cannot be the reaction at work. |
18th January 2004, 10:43 PM
| | Thief in the Night
25
| | Join Date: 30th August 2003 Location: New York
Posts: 6,386
Blessings: 9,342
Reps: 29,807,908,674,769,116 (power: 29,807,908,674,784) | | Originally Posted by Captain_Jack_Sparrow Hey Bushido,
If physics is so easy I'll wait a day or so for you to specify all the stable solutions in R or Z domains for the Navier Stokes equations.
And why you are at it why don't you rip off a quick theory for the baryon/antibaryon imbalance in the Big Bang - specifically what is the CP violating reaction at work since the neutral kaon or neutral B meson cannot be the reaction at work.
I never said physics was easy. I simply said that psychology isn't the ******* child of science, or it shouldn't be.
Things in physics can be directly observed or mathematical equations concocted from them. Psychologists have no such support.
__________________
Bushido216 | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
