The question Evolutionsists can't answer

Mistermystery · #91 29th July 2004, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by Colossians

We have seen alot of bluff here. But no answers from the evolutionist camp which address the philosophical impasse.

"HA! Those stupid evolutionists! They are so stupid. Look at them trying to awnser my query in an honest fashion, it's perposterus. LOOK AT THEM GO."

Evolutionists like trying to pull themselves off the ground by their own bootstraps. And then they tell you this occured because their bootstraps needed to be pulled.

I hope you will find your way to the real savior, before it is to late. If you keep being blind like this you will never make it to heaven.

Mistermystery · #92 29th July 2004, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Colossians

The evolutionist has convinced himself that no intelligence behaves as one with intelligence would behave.

He reasons that an organism can memorize pleasure, and then change itself so that it will get more of the same in generations to come. So he has organisms with perception, who like joy-trips, and wished they'd evolved more of them in their own life-time.
I can just hear these organisms now: "If only we'd known what pleasure we could have had earlier! Now it's too late! But let's pass on what we have learned to our progeny whom we produce without this pleasure! Yeah! Great idea!"

Once again our evolution friends have our ends producing another's path to it.
In the Republic of Evolutionary, rain falls on people because cows are wearing raincoats.

For someone who says we aren't playing by the rules, you surely are a rule breaker here. You dishonestly accuse us of things, you make ad hom attacks, and make a numerous amount of fallacies.

Great job you're doing here. I hope Christ forgives you for your sins.

Colossians · #93 29th July 2004, 08:36 AM

Jet Black,

Here is a hint or 2 for you and your cronies (to help you get to the gist of things):

1. Pleasure has no utility where volition is absent.
2. Pleasure is a non-entity where perception is absent.

(Think about that for a while before you provide more of your question-begging doctrine, ad nauseum).

Jet Black · #94 29th July 2004, 08:43 AM

oh I see, so you are claiming that only humans feel pleasure?

Colossians · #95 29th July 2004, 08:55 AM

You need to think again, this time at the fundamental level.

I am logging off now - it is late in this part of the world. When I next attend this thread, I will expect a thoughtful response to the full ramifications of the 2 pointers I have provided in bold font.

And I shall expect such from you.

Mistermystery · #96 29th July 2004, 08:59 AM

Do you also expect it to be delivered in an essay form, and should we bring it to you on a silver platter?

Nathan David · #97 29th July 2004, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Loudmouth

How do you evolve desire? By reproductive success.

Take the desire to eat, fueled by an empty stomach. Those organisms that are not impelled to eat die of starvation. Same thing with sex, those that are not impelled to have sex do not pass down their genes to the next generation, and so the lineage of sexually apathetic individuals are bred out.

I think this is the best worded of the many correct answers to the questions in the OP.

I also think there is a misconception in the OP. Animals do not desire orgasm, they desire sex. Once they experience orgasm, they are likely to desire sex even more through simple Pavlovian conditioning.

Nathan David · #98 29th July 2004, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by Colossians

1. Pleasure has no utility where volition is absent.
2. Pleasure is a non-entity where perception is absent.

OK, no problem.

Volition: animals desire sex, and make a conscious decision (volition) to pursue sexual relations.

Perception: animals perceive that they enjoy sex.

Jet Black · #99 29th July 2004, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Nathan David

I think this is the best worded of the many correct answers to the questions in the OP.

I also think there is a misconception in the OP. Animals do not desire orgasm, they desire sex. Once they experience orgasm, they are likely to desire sex even more through simple Pavlovian conditioning.

stop ringing that wretched bell.

the_gloaming · #**100** 29th July 2004, 10:18 AM

Here is a hint or 2 for you and your cronies (to help you get to the gist of things):

1. Pleasure has no utility where volition is absent.

Depends how you define volition. from dictionary.com (if you disagree with their definitions say so):

1.The act or an instance of making a conscious choice or decision.
2.A conscious choice or decision.
3.The power or faculty of choosing; the will

If you are defining it as 1 or 2, then your first statement is incorrect. For example, give a dog some food and it will derive pleasure from it, in that the nerves from the stomach will stimulate the pleasure centre of the brain when it is digesting food, encouraging it to eat more in the future. Over time, dogs (or rather, most organisms before and after dogs existed) that responded positively (not consciously, but as a result of their genes) to either the pain of hunger or the pleasure of getting rid of the hunger would have an advantage over those creatures that didn't respond. This can be applied to the orgasm.

If you define it as 3, as in, a creature can either choose to eat food or not eat food, then sure. As long as you realise the choice is not a conscious decision, merely an option, and some organisms will happen to make a choice (influenced by their genes) that will give them an advantage evolutionarily, but some will not.

2. Pleasure is a non-entity where perception is absent

Sure, but perception of something is not the same as making a conscious decision, if you define perception (from perceive at dictionary.com) as "1.To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing".