(December 28, 2019 at 1:00 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Breezy, is biology in the curriculum for psychologists where you live?

Depends on what aspect of psychology you are specialising in; every student in my school graduating from psychology needs to take a course on the biological aspects of behavior at the very least.

Psychology is a very invasive field, meaning it requires interdisciplinary knowledge of other branches in order to be studied coherently. An introductory course on perception, for example (also required by my school), begins with a physical analysis of light, followed by the chemical interactions in photoreceptor, followed by a neurological understanding of the pathways in the brain, until finally you're able to tackle the psychological aspects of perception.

That isn't always the case for other fields of science. I recently took a course on human cognition which was mandatory for me but an elective for neuroscience students. As the semester went on I started to notice that the psychology students could understand what the neuroscience students were saying, but that neuroscience students were very unfamiliar with what psychology students where saying. The curiosity eventually got to me and I asked the class/professor about it. It turns out that yes, neuroscience gets taught to psychologists in varying degrees, but not a lot of psychology is taught to neuroscientists.

I've since noticed that's it's a hierarchy thing. A chemists doesn't need to know much beyond chemistry. A biologist learns chemistry when learning biology. A neuroscientist learns chemistry and biology when leaning neuroscience. And a psychologist learns all of the below in varying degrees when learning psychology.

It's all very interesting how fields are built on one another.

Edit: I just looked up the curriculum and yes, it looks like Biology is a prerequisite for psych students at my school; I probably didn't notice because I had already taken biology before transferring to psychology. Its also worth noting that if you take a course on evolutionary psychology you're simultaneously learning evolutionarily biology.

(December 27, 2019 at 10:14 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(December 27, 2019 at 6:31 pm)Yukon_Jack Wrote: It’s also an affirmation that macro evolution is a fantasy

Can you explain why you think that?

Well I already mentioned Lenski and the fact that after MANY thousands of mutation induced generations on fruit flies, there is zero macro evolution to wit. Unless you call a 2 headed fly evolution

So, no theists want to take a crack at explaining to me how god designed and created DNA? Jeeze, I suppose I couldn’t take such an outrageous proposition seriously without knowing every detail of the mechanism of action. In fact, I don’t think understanding how he did it would be enough to persuade me. Without seeing it happen before my very eyes, I can’t believe such a thing could even be possible. I just can’t imagine how.

When god created life on earth, is that considered macro creation or micro creation?

(December 28, 2019 at 2:06 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: When god created life on earth, is that considered macro creation or micro creation?

Nafro creation you faithless fool

(December 28, 2019 at 1:01 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Now there is no such thing as a scientific fact? 😂

There really isn't; there is only observation and interpretation as I mentioned to Gae. Of course, if you're just using the word fact to mean something that was observed, there isn't much issue with using that word. The problem is that the word fact carries with it the connotation of being true, immutable, or infallible.

What would be an example of a scientific fact, for example? Even scientific laws are understood to be descriptions, not facts, precisely because a "black swan" could appear at some point undermining the observations described by them.

(December 28, 2019 at 2:06 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: When god created life on earth, is that considered macro creation or micro creation?

That would be considered creation. And if there is no macro evolution and abiogenesis, what would the default be? (Try google the drastic improbability of getting a simple protein to form let alone multiple complex ones)

Hey potato brain why don't you try pulling your head out of your ass?

(December 28, 2019 at 2:18 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(December 28, 2019 at 1:01 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Now there is no such thing as a scientific fact? 😂

There really isn't; there is only observation and interpretation as I mentioned to Gae. Of course, if you're just using the word fact to mean something that was observed, there isn't much issue with using that word. The problem is that the word fact carries with it the connotation of being true, immutable, or infallible.

What would be an example of a scientific fact, for example? Even scientific laws are understood to be descriptions, not facts, precisely because a "black swan" could appear at some point undermining the observations described by them.

Quote:In science, a fact is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence. Facts are central to building scientific theories.

The only person here who is insinuating notions of absolute certainty and absolute truth is you.

Quote:Well I already mentioned Lenski and the fact that after MANY thousands of mutation induced generations on fruit flies, there is zero macro evolution to wit. Unless you call a 2 headed fly evolution

No you misused  Lenski,s work to come to stupid conclusion . You know Lenski the guy who accepts Maro evolution happens .

---

Quote:That would be considered creation. 

Nothing because it's a fairytale

Quote:And if there is no macro evolution and abiogenesis, what would the default be?

Fallacy

Quote: (Try google the drastic improbability of getting a simple protein to form let alone multiple complex ones)

You tried this trick already it failed you then it fails you now.

---

Quote:What would be an example of a scientific fact, for example? Even scientific laws are understood to be descriptions, not facts, precisely because a "black swan" could appear at some point undermining the observations described by them.

Nope it  remains a fact .I know you don't like that but a fact it remains