Hypothesis

"Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption."

Theory

"An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. "

Very similar definitions, the two words are almost always interchangeable. Nothing to do with peer review, there is no board that "cerifies" theory.

 

See above genius. You are going to school me on definitions?! You can't even spell. You obviously don't understand basic research principals, given your arguments I question wether or not you actually have a bachelors in anything! You have presented no research/evidence of a even a study on humans regarding the cause/possible causes of homosexuality. Furthermore I seriously doubt that any such study would overlook the choice of a human being to of their own free will engage in homosexual behavior! Let alone any behavior. I would not doubt that some have a predisposition to homosexuality, some have a predisposition to alcholism. However wether or not they drink is entirely up to them, as is whom they choose to have a relationship. But hey you're the holder of a bachelors in micro cell biology and a study on homosexual behavior in mice is proof positive for you.

 

I said it buddy, and laughed all the while. Plus I called you a liar and rolled my eyes.

 

What was I wrong about again? What exactly are you disagreeing with in my statement? I called the science you are basing your beliefs on quesswork and you agreed with me but I'm wrong?! So sad your arguments, how bad they are.

 

You missed the point. My comment had nothing to do with "100 percent" or probabilities. You need to read my posts before you respond.

First of all, what I said was: Correlation is not causation. Like the london cabbie and hippocampus correlation. The fact that a part of your brain is involved in something, or correlated to something, doesn't mean you don't have a choice. If it did, there would be no such thing as choice because a part of your brain operates for everything you do.

Your animal/species/scientific method point here is irrelevant. You did not read my original post, or you did not understand it.

Finally, you get to this "95 percent of homosexuals say..."...uh, so is it the brain, or did you find this out by survey?

Guru say: "latest science" is code word for "whatever unregistered wants to believe"

 

Well my definition has more to it than yours so there:


Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>


So there are in fact several meaning of the word theory, but only one of these is in reference to scientific method; that being #5 and it includes "scientifcally accepted general principle".

did you ever take any science classes?

 

Of course I've taken science classes, and biology classes. Was that an insult? And I think you left out the word "plausible" in your quote to help your argument. I didn't see the word fact in there though, funny? I still don't see that these theories on animal behavior are scientifically accepted to apply in humans, or that they are even conclusive evidence to fully explain the animal behavior.

"a plausible or scientifically accepted"

 

From a weakly reasoned article, that was supposed to deal with a curious issue, which is abortion, and that was written by Mr. John deLaubenfels on strike-the-root.com , contradicting an original article written by an author who went with the name “Weebies” I quote “Women have wonderful imaginations, and picture vividly what the child might have been like, had it been allowed to grow into an actual baby capable of living outside the womb.” “had it been allowed to grow”, I know that for someone who has such kind of reasoning, in which he puts himself in an imaginary place, from where he thinks that he is in control of everything, even life, it will be very difficult for him to have himself convinced with something that just can not be tackled materialistically. Such characters seem to hate the fact that the secret of life has never been discovered, and to my mind, will not be. They “speak” about issues like abortion, as if they have discovered that secret long time ago, and as if it was submitted to them to control it.

It was a very careless way, with which Mr. John contradicted Weebies’ article. And I think it is the same way always a lot of people “speak” about the issue. For that, I wanted to contradict each argument mentioned in Mr. John’s article.

The author first made a very sketchy approach to the subject. He wondered why would not the perpetrator of abortion be punished in a perfect society -having admitted abortion as a crime that equals a murder of a fully sentient person?

Within that sketchy approach, he went on imagining the perfect society’s response to the absurdity of abortion, as if he has lived there for some time on another planet or universe. Although, I personally wish to live in a perfect society myself, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find that there, they consider abortion as a murder! I mean, why not?! It is just that my imaginary perfect society might defer from his!

To speak about abortion as a real murder, we should bring into or consideration a lot of valid factors within the discussion. Laws, legislations, being anti- /or pro- family, sexual freedom, freedom as a symbol, and religions. All of those factors are very much related to our subject. And reality tells that neither I nor “John” can tell that we effectively helped putting an end to such a widely debated issue; its present rules just can not be changed easily, and most probably, political administrations usually maintain keeping such an issue always under debating –since they usually, and stupidly, have that “stupid religion phobia”, and they just want to be as separated as they can from religion\religions in their countries.

“Yes religion”, I think when the world’s legislations can not put an end to a debate like this one, we should go to our last resort, which is religion –to my mind, it should not be a last resort, especially when it is a life and death debate. You see, since nobody can decide when to be born, or when to die, then life is a gift from a supreme force. And, throughout the life history this gift was associated by that force with its own “instruction menu” in order to make us able to invest it in the right way, which is religion.

For all of what was mentioned above, I can see, why “Weebies”, the author of the article “John” contradicted, “side-stepped” this point -as “John” put it.

It also seems that Mr. “John” just does not like “scientific medical facts”, although he seems to be “libertarian”! He opposed the fact that an embryo is an equivalent to any human life. And his opposition did not go without some more spicy sketchy deluding approaches, made by comparing the disposable sperms and unfertilized eggs, with the living embryo. He can't understand, why it is accepted for the sperms to be disposed of, and it is not accepted for the embryo.

Fist of all, I can say that this kind of comparison is just absurd –“it stroke me as nonsense” like “John” would like to read it. A normal human living cell with full genome, just can not be compared with neither the sperm nor the unfertilized egg, that have only half of the normal genome for a normal human living cell. (They are very limitedly programmed cells!)

Another defying fact to “John’s” comparison, is that, a normal human living cell has the ability to be divided into new cells, which are fully alive and have full genome, or at least, had been conduced due to a dividing process, and lost the ability to divide later. (Like nervous cells) But neither the sperm nor the unfertilized egg has shown the ability to be divided before the fertilization takes place. And “Yes” both of them were due to a dividing process, but it is a very special process and it is designed to create half-genome cells which help nothing in the human body, and are sharply pointed towards fertilization.

To keep the very few life-aspects, both, the sperm and the unfertilized egg show, they should have the support of some other normal human living cells; sertolli cells for the sperms. And the Follicle cells for the unfertilized egg. -And “surprise!” for a very limited period of time! They are just not deigned to live without cells or Cellular systems to feed them! What kind of life is there in those “things”?! "Yes, thing” they are nothing but equipments to help the fertilization process start and ‘create life’.

The huge number of sperms and the potential unfertilized eggs a woman has reflects that they are disposable. One Sperm and one unfertilized egg are needed to accomplish a single fertilization. So what destiny awaits the rest of this huge number when there is no fertilization, but to decay?! They are disposable. And on the contrary, just because a single fertilization usually produces one embryo, this makes this embryo indispensable.

I would like to draw the attention of the reader to another very simple fact. Human beings just do not throw cells out of their bodies, unless they are crippled cells in away or another; they might be dead cells, like those we lose all over or skin every day, or a programmed special cells with half genome, that help one exact purpose.

When an infertile couple have some of the woman’s eggs fertilized outside the womb, and then implanted inside, Mr. John asks “Why is possible to dispose of the unused fertilized eggs we still had, without considering that as a murder? – Although I don’t like to have my writing awash in questions, like Mr. John’s, but I would address the reader about this point by asking only two simple questions. Do those fertilized eggs inside that lab container have any tiny chance to develop a normal human life, without being implanted inside the womb? And, are not doctors and experimenters working every day on experiments in which they do dispose of some living cells within their work? The point is that “Yes” when an embryo is under a microscope for example outside the womb, then it is nothing but a living cellular system, like any other one in any other experiment, that does not have any chance to develop a new life, no matter what assisting medium we might use to help it actually achieving that.

Mr. John Admitted that abortion represents a tragedy, but at the same time he excused women for taking a decision towards it, by saying that it is a personal affair, and that nobody should meddle in it. He did not even bring into account the reasons why those women would take such a decision. In fact, what we should be asking ourselves is that “why is it a tragedy for them?” What usually happens is that they may face some social or financial problems, or may want to run away from responsibility, while they think that they are too young to have baby. But at the same time, and deep in their minds and hearts, they know that the price for solving those problems, or for running away from responsibility, is to actually kill their own baby. And, to accept living with such an Idea is just tragic! (Here, I would like to say that it is ‘pathetic’) And I would go further and ask “is it enough/ or fair to just watch those women?” I mean, all what they are doing is throwing themselves into such a tragedy, killing a life chance in their wombs, and forcing their societies to tolerate the scene. For me, to intervene in such a situation is something very much recommended. Why do not we try to adapt our rules and institutions to the whole issue? I mean, there should be institutions that work on fighting the reasons why a woman might take such a decision. And, it should be practical enough to sort out all of their problems, and to help them have the baby born, and even help them afterwards in bringing him\her up.

Mr. John also wondered “what if precautions to avoid pregnancy fail?” Of course, to his consideration, a woman in this case, with some problematic motive, should strike the problem at the root and abort the child. Well, to my mind, the embryo in this case is just a branch of the problem, which is rooted at what I call “Casual Sex”. Even if I had to accept that “Casual Sex” is becoming a live style nowadays in some societies, I would not accept that very open willing to dispose a life in case of a “precaution failure”. The least that can be said here is that “Is not working on the precautions themselves, and make them more strict and effective, better/ or more logical than working on killing a life instead!”
Mr. John’s last ‘curious’ argument was the following: “(Karl Marx supported abortion rights. Marx was evil. Therefore anybody who supports abortion rights is evil). This makes as much sense as saying, (Hitler urged people to drink milk. Hitler was evil. Therefore milk is evil, and anyone who drinks milk is Hitler's soul-mate)" I hope Mr. John understand why I’m going to ‘side-step’ this underestimating idea, and restrict my response to it to saying that “Mr. John is FUNNY”

Finally I will say, all of us were life chances, and we only made it by the help of our mothers. Plus, even for a living human being, all what he has, is a life chance for the next moment.

Muddar Al-Nahed

A 27-years old student in the pharmacy college at Damascus University Syria.


Mr. John's Article .... http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/de...ubenfels1.html

 

wow. welcome to i-club!!

feel free to participate in any ongoing debate on this site

:banana:

 

What?!?! Our current gov't does NOT try to distance itself from religion.

Nobody can decide to be born, but anyone can decide when to die. Furthermore, people DO decide when someone is born (within a month or two) when they copulate with the intent of bearing a child. This is the worst 'proof' that there is a god I've ever seen.


That whole post is full of serious problems in logic and reasoning. These two example just jumped out at me the most.

 

So our government should start making decisions based on their religion? But don't the citizens of america follow hundreds of different religions? Which one is right and which one do we follow?
Shouldn't we worry about the thousands of un-adopted kids in america now rather than arguing that we could take care of these babies as well?

 

ericdared81:

So our government should start making decisions based on their religion?

< Why not?..... (Decisions, about abortion in particular) >

But don't the citizens of america follow hundreds of different religions?

So what?!

Which one is right and which one do we follow?

< You follow yours! -of course, if you "trust" it! >

Shouldn't we worry about the thousands of un-adopted kids in america now rather than arguing that we could take care of these babies as well?

< Good point! but i don't think that numbers are actually on your side on this.
I mean, babies who are fading because of "Abortion rights", outnumber those who are un-adopted!>
__________________________________________________ _____

MVWRX:

What?!?! Our current gov't does NOT try to distance itself from religion.

<Really!- I think that you should think agian!

if you think again and reach the same dead-point\idea, then I think that you should get to know your religion better, and then -Sorry- WORK HARD to find out wither your "GOV'T " is actually, practicing it correctly regarding issues like abortion. >


Nobody can decide to be born, but anyone can decide when to die.


<Yes Of course.... And you can decide when to end others lives-when to KILL!>

people DO decide when someone is born (within a month or two) when they copulate with the intent of bearing a child

<(within a month or two) OH!... how accurate they are!!!!!!>

This is the worst 'proof' that there is a god I've ever seen.

<Who's taking about this! -- "Proving that there is a God"!!!!!
I'm not intersted in proving that to "YOU"!
the point was "life is percious" that's all!--do you usually read that way ... ?!>

That whole post is full of serious problems in logic and reasoning. These two example just jumped out at me the most.

< Well, I'm waiting for the rest of them to "Jump out at you". You see... you may be hopeless, but I have free time!!!!!>

__________________________________________________ __________

 

You really like that article don't you?

I would hope that almost anyone on this board (especially the one's with more than 2 posts) would agree that making political decisions based on religion rather than the constitution, laws and reality would be very, very wrong.

Sure, if we don't allow any abortions we won't have to worry about it because there aren't many un-adopted kids to worry about now. Sounds like a plan. I shall follow your logic right into a brick wall.

 

FIrst off there is a quote feature...would make it easier to read what you are saying.

Because not everyones religion follow the, big shock here, same ideals! Hence for example one of my friends religion says its ok to have abortions So what now? Should we follow his or yours? Also what about those that don't believe in god and religion as a whole?

And if you do not follow any religions what then?

What do you mean by fading? Again, I would love to see your numbers on this. Have a legitiment site with these numbers?


The current administration core base is, the religious right. Not only that they tend to pander to that group. So in all honesty you are wrong here. Not only that again you assume that every religion has the same ideals as yours about abortion.

Thats a matter that is not as crystal clear as you put it. For that matter, I take it you are a religious individual, hence I ask you when exactly is a new born really alive? When sperm and egg meet or further down the line?

Don't see whaat your point is here at all, mind explaining? Im pretty sure the science on how long till a child is born is pretty exact now.

I think we can all agree that life is precious. But we do not all agree when life starts like you do. Actually I still do not think you have stated exactly, for you, when life starts.

So your trying to save him I take it? But from what? Having his own opinions? More than anything your arguments have been i'll founded and not very well explained. But please continue, after all you do have all this free time.

 

<sitting in bleachers, holding up a 'helladumb is #1!' foam hand, waiting for the next move>


...I cant wait till the new guy gets into one with Salty...