Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological instinct in female to seek out a mate outside of the group.
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 725 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 31 of 61 (636240)
10-04-2011 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by IamJoseph
10-04-2011 9:10 PM


Re: assert, assert, assert
....but a mathematical fact.
Show your workings.
Better yet, let's work on getting back to the topic of the thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by IamJoseph, posted 10-04-2011 9:10 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by IamJoseph, posted 10-04-2011 9:39 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 32 of 61 (636241)
10-04-2011 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by IamJoseph
10-04-2011 7:47 PM


Why do you keep interjecting the Hebrew bible into science threads?
(See signature.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by IamJoseph, posted 10-04-2011 7:47 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by IamJoseph, posted 10-04-2011 9:35 PM Coyote has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3658 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 33 of 61 (636242)
10-04-2011 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Coyote
10-04-2011 9:23 PM


Because the applicable laws emenate from there. I pointed out the understanding of that law is faulty. Why should I not quote it - is a scientific law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2011 9:23 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2011 9:45 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3658 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 34 of 61 (636243)
10-04-2011 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Coragyps
10-04-2011 9:21 PM


Re: assert, assert, assert
Yes sir.
1M+1F gives 1 offspring.
2M + 2F gives 2 offsrpings.
3M + 1F gives 1 offsrping negative growth.
Negative growth X time = no growth.
No Growth = no humanity.
QED.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Coragyps, posted 10-04-2011 9:21 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2011 9:52 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 35 of 61 (636244)
10-04-2011 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by IamJoseph
10-04-2011 9:35 PM


Because the applicable laws emenate from there. I pointed out the understanding of that law is faulty. Why should I not quote it - is a scientific law.
Sorry, no.
Scientific laws, and theories, emanate from peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Ancient tribal myths and beliefs emanate from religious writings.
Any correlation with scientific writings is just coincidental.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by IamJoseph, posted 10-04-2011 9:35 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by IamJoseph, posted 10-04-2011 10:00 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 36 of 61 (636245)
10-04-2011 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by IamJoseph
10-04-2011 9:39 PM


Re: assert, assert, assert wrongly
1M+1F gives 1 offspring.
2M + 2F gives 2 offsrpings.
3M + 1F gives 1 offsrping
It gives those results approximately every two-three years during child-bearing years; you seem to have forgotten this.
(Remember, "Roll me over in the clover, roll me over lay me down and do it again..."?)
negative growth.
Negative growth X time = no growth.
No Growth = no humanity.
All of these flow from a faulty premise.
Sorry, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by IamJoseph, posted 10-04-2011 9:39 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by IamJoseph, posted 10-04-2011 10:01 PM Coyote has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3658 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 37 of 61 (636247)
10-04-2011 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Coyote
10-04-2011 9:45 PM


Have it your way. Thanks for acknowledging the relevant co-incidence. Brilliant observation!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2011 9:45 PM Coyote has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3658 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 38 of 61 (636248)
10-04-2011 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Coyote
10-04-2011 9:52 PM


Re: assert, assert, assert wrongly
The math is correct, but you do not want to accept it. The time factor rules negative growth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2011 9:52 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2011 10:09 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 39 of 61 (636249)
10-04-2011 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by IamJoseph
10-04-2011 10:01 PM


Re: assert, assert, assert wrongly
The math is correct, but you do not want to accept it. The time factor rules negative growth.
Show your work.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by IamJoseph, posted 10-04-2011 10:01 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by IamJoseph, posted 10-04-2011 10:13 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 41 by IamJoseph, posted 10-04-2011 10:24 PM Coyote has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3658 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 40 of 61 (636250)
10-04-2011 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Coyote
10-04-2011 10:09 PM


Re: assert, assert, assert wrongly
I did. Now you have to show what other cause applies that there is a discordance with those who have a problem with incest and gay, and why the correct aw must apply. I said this is caused by the factor of negating reproduction and that this is an involuntary reaction which has nothing to do with bigotry. Your move!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2011 10:09 PM Coyote has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3658 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 41 of 61 (636251)
10-04-2011 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Coyote
10-04-2011 10:09 PM


Some rocket science.
You are running away from the facts. What happens when negative growth continues in direct proportion of the impacting continuing time factor? Why is there an involuntary discordance with the reaction to negative growth setting alarm bells in metabolistic reactions? Need a calculator or a science manual?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2011 10:09 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2011 10:36 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 42 of 61 (636252)
10-04-2011 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by IamJoseph
10-04-2011 10:24 PM


Re: Some rocket science.
You are running away from the facts. What happens when negative growth continues in direct proportion of the impacting continuing time factor? Why is there an involuntary discordance with the reaction to negative growth setting alarm bells in metabolistic reactions? Need a calculator or a science manual?
Sorry, you have not established negative growth.
That ruins your whole argument.
Your original case was totally flawed.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by IamJoseph, posted 10-04-2011 10:24 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by IamJoseph, posted 10-04-2011 10:44 PM Coyote has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3658 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 43 of 61 (636253)
10-04-2011 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Coyote
10-04-2011 10:36 PM


Re: Some rocket science.
quote:
Sorry, you have not established negative growth.
Absolutely I did.
quote:
That ruins your whole argument.
Your original case was totally flawed.
What applies if there is no flaw - play devil's advocate!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2011 10:36 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2011 11:08 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 44 of 61 (636255)
10-04-2011 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by IamJoseph
10-04-2011 10:44 PM


Re: Some rocket science.
Your original claim:
1M+1F gives 1 offspring.
2M + 2F gives 2 offsrpings.
3M + 1F gives 1 offsrping negative growth.
Your figures suggest this is a lifetime's reproduction, whereas these figures should be possible every two to three years during childbearing years, up to 20 or 25 years in many cultures. They needed those birth rates as the infant death rates were much higher back then.
Look up numbers of children in the past and see what you get. Ten children was common, while twenty was not unheard of.
Your figures are totally unrealistic. (Are these figures from your Hebrew bible or something that you can't see anything else?)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by IamJoseph, posted 10-04-2011 10:44 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by IamJoseph, posted 10-04-2011 11:25 PM Coyote has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3658 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 45 of 61 (636256)
10-04-2011 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Coyote
10-04-2011 11:08 PM


Re: Some rocket science.
quote:
Your figures suggest this is a lifetime's reproduction
Correct. Not to be confused with periodical declines due to childbirth factors: there is no childbirth in the continueing time if the negative growth trend continues, as it must and will. This is the reasoning behind this law. This says gay rights is good; equal gay rights is bad for gays and humanity. Sounds bad - but its not really - its actually good for gays, while the incorrect 'equal' factor is very bad for gays. Its not equal to hetro and any honest gay will admit this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2011 11:08 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2011 11:34 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024