The third question evolutionists can't answer

[DJ_Ghost]

Anyone else think it's looking a bit weak for Colossians' claim that this is a third question that can't be answered?

h2

Well we managed to answer the other two questions he said we couldn't answer as well. The problem is his questions tend to contain a fatal flaw.

Ghost

 

[Colossians]

Ghost,

You pose it as a question for biology when in fact it is a question for Sociology
Removing your dilemna to a sub-domain of evolution (a product of macro-evolution), is as redundant as telling us that life evolved on earth by being seeded here from Mars.

There is no drive to do that which is prohibited
You need to spend some time with Winona Rider (film-star come shop-lifter).
Then you need to spend some time in the real world observing the enticement of what is wrong (adultery is the prime example: note the words of this song by Presley: “love is so much sweeter, when it’s borrowed ” ) .
Lastly, ask a kid why he just put his hand in the cookie jar when his mommy told him not to.

Now society mitigates what is prohibited. Without society there is no prohibition of any kind.
Apropos are the words of Margaret Thatcher: “There is no such thing as society; there is you, and there is me”.
You should also consider that people with eating disorders experience internal prohibition problems.

If you would like to discuss such sociological matters further I can happily open a thread in the social science section for us to discss it.
No... I intend to keep on embarrassing you people right here for a while. Sorry, but I am quite hard-line when it comes to debate.

 

[Tomk80]

Ghost,

You pose it as a question for biology when in fact it is a question for Sociology
Removing your dilemna to a sub-domain of evolution (a product of macro-evolution), is as redundant as telling us that life evolved on earth by being seeded here from Mars.

Sociology is not a sub-domain of evolution. It is not related to evolution.

There is no drive to do that which is prohibited

You need to spend some time with Winona Rider (film-star come shop-lifter).
Then you need to spend some time in the real world observing the enticement of what is wrong (adultery is the prime example: note the words of this song by Presley: “love is so much sweeter, when it’s borrowed ” ) .
Lastly, ask a kid why he just put his hand in the cookie jar when his mommy told him not to.

And now you are talking psychology, and not sociology anymore.

Now society mitigates what is prohibited. Without society there is no prohibition of any kind.

Apropos are the words of Margaret Thatcher: “There is no such thing as society; there is you, and there is me”.
You should also consider that people with eating disorders experience internal prohibition problems.

And here you are mixing so many different areas of science that your whole post becomes a jumble in only one sentence.

If you would like to discuss such sociological matters further I can happily open a thread in the social science section for us to discss it.

No... I intend to keep on embarrassing you people right here for a while. Sorry, but I am quite hard-line when it comes to debate.

Sorry, but the only one you are embarrassing is yourself. Why don't you answer DJ_ghosts complete answer, in stead of picking out a few sentences of posts here and there.

 

[Colossians]

Sociology is not a sub-domain of evolution. It is not related to evolution.
It is very difficult getting you to think at fundamental levels: your dogma is pitched at a very pragmatic level.

Let's try again: if evolution is the reason why we are here, then it is philosophically erroneous to divorce facets of our existence from the 'ownership' of evolution. The substance of this thread, is the very reason you have opposition to your theories.

You continually tell us that all things can be explained in terms of things like chemical stimuli and benefit, and yet when the question gets too tough, you simply jump ship, and tell us that your doctrine does not attempt to explain things such as perception of right and wrong, and volition.

You cannot have it both ways: it is as philosophically erroneous to suggest that a system can evolve something which is not present in the initial ingredients, as it is scientifically erroneous to suggest that the genes of progeny were never present in their parents.

The question still stands: how does your system of spontaneous generation from a-moral inanimate substances, result in certain of its products not only believing in right and wrong, but in desiring to do wrong simply because it is wrong?

 

[h2whoa]

For goodness' sake. Try READING (that means looking at the words with your eyes but letting your brain get in on the act too) the replies here and here.h2

 

[Colossians]

h2,

It is you who needs to read. And then understand.
Start with my last post: try refuting one of the points.

 

[Nathan David]

You cannot have it both ways: it is as philosophically erroneous to suggest that a system can evolve something which is not present in the initial ingredients

Wrong. Alcohol does not exist in grapes, water, or yeast. Yet wine contains alcohol.

Point refuted. Now go back and read all the posts you obviously didn't understand.

 

[Colossians]

You cannot have it both ways: it is as philosophically erroneous to suggest that a system can evolve something which is not present in the initial ingredients
Wrong. Alcohol does not exist in grapes, water, or yeast. Yet wine contains alcohol.
False dichotomy: the ingredients of alcohol are present in grapes, in that 'ingredients' incorporates chemical propensities.
So tell us then just what the 'grapes' and propensities were in the beginning stuff of evolution, which resulted in the 'alcohol' of religious belief.
I'm all ears.

 

[Nathan David]

Wow, you understand chemistry as poorly as you understand philosophy.

 

[Mekkala]

A child cannot come from a non-existent parent. If your parent is evolution, then all must result from it.
If you cannot explain the issue presented, then it stands to reason that your parent is no parent at all.
If you then tell us instead that the issue is irrelevant, you are simply denying error.

Ah. I see. So, we're denying error because we claim that your irrelevant point is irrelevant?

Evidently you think it's irrelevant that your point is irrelevant, you error-denyer.

 

[Philosoft]

Colossians, can you cease avoiding responding to this post?

Simple, mating with the females under the control of another male, or hunting on the turf of another tribe, will result in getting more women, as both are "not allowed" but only dangerous because of said restriction, the desire to do things that are only percieved as dangerous due to the restrictions against them, and thus to rebel against any authority, evolved

 

[Nathan David]

Aside from its many other errors, the OP assumes that a desire to contradict authority would have to evolve. That would only be the case if there were an existing desire to obey authority. One may as well ask how that desire evolved.

 

[AirPo]

What is the name of the song that the Scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz sings?

 

[Dal M.]

You pose it as a question for biology when in fact it is a question for Sociology
Removing your dilemna to a sub-domain of evolution (a product of macro-evolution), is as redundant as telling us that life evolved on earth by being seeded here from Mars.

Are you sure that "redundant" is the term you're looking for?

Wrong. Alcohol does not exist in grapes, water, or yeast. Yet wine contains alcohol.
False dichotomy: the ingredients of alcohol are present in grapes, in that 'ingredients' incorporates chemical propensities.

Are you sure that "false dichotomy" is the term you're looking for?

If you would like to discuss such sociological matters further I can happily open a thread in the social science section for us to discss it.
No... I intend to keep on embarrassing you people right here for a while. Sorry, but I am quite hard-line when it comes to debate.

Are you sure that "hard-line" is the term you're looking for? Might I suggest "self-aggrandizing," "irritating," or "smarmy" as possible alternatives?

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Removing your dilemna to a sub-domain of evolution (a product of macro-evolution), is as redundant as telling us that life evolved on earth by being seeded here from Mars.

Firstly, as the rest of my post shows, there is no dilemma at all since I answered your question, complete with reference to evidence. If you take another look at my post you should find all that in the bits you have been careful not to address in the post I am now replying to.

Secondly, sociology is in no way a sub-domain of evolution. Evolution lies squarely in the field of biology, sociology quite simply does not. Pretending it does is rather silly.

There is no drive to do that which is prohibited
You need to spend some time with Winona Rider (film-star come shop-lifter).
Then you need to spend some time in the real world observing the enticement of what is wrong (adultery is the prime example: note the words of this song by Presley: “love is so much sweeter, when it’s borrowed ” ) .
Lastly, ask a kid why he just put his hand in the cookie jar when his mommy told him not to.

What you refer to is the drive to seek pleasure coming into conflict with the societal attempts to prohibit these actions. These people are following the urge to seek pleasure not a mythical biological urge to act against prohibition.

I can also guarantee that I have spent more time in the real world talking to people who infringe laws than you have, or had you forgotten I am a Criminologist?

Now society mitigates what is prohibited. Without society there is no prohibition of any kind.
Apropos are the words of Margaret Thatcher: “There is no such thing as society; there is you, and there is me”.

Oh now this is hysterical. Not only an example of the fallacy of appealing to authority but you are appealing to an authority who was demonstrably lacking in an understanding of social sciences as a whole, and using one of her throw away sound bites, one which is generally considered about the most laughable thing she ever said.

Since society is the interactions of a group of people sharing a government, to pretend it does not exist is incredibly silly.

You should also consider that people with eating disorders experience internal prohibition problems.

That is a matter for psychology, and yes they have internal prohibition problems after a fashion. However most of those problems stem from external societal pressures. None of this has any baring on your initial argument.

If you would like to discuss such sociological matters further I can happily open a thread in the social science section for us to discss it.
No... I intend to keep on embarrassing you people right here for a while. Sorry, but I am quite hard-line when it comes to debate.

Well first of all you are not embarrassing anyone here. Your arguments are fallacious, you ignore responses you can’t think up an “answer” for, you have demonstrated a poor grasp of science and philosophy and you attempt to make the rather spurious claim that science tries to boil every thing down to psychology when it does not.

Secondly you are not at all hard line when it comes to debating. I have repeatedly had to point out your use of fallacy, you ignore posts you don’t like and you refuse to accept answers when they are given rather than trying to debunk them in an honest intellectual fashion. Not to mention, the last time I went to the trouble of subjecting your posts to an argument analysis your “hard line” response was to stop posting here for a couple of months in the hopes I would go away.

Ghost

 

[rjw]

Hello Colossians,

In creation terms, explain how the desire to do what is not allowed, was created.

A child cannot come from a non-existent parent. If your parent is creation, then all must result from it.
If you cannot explain the issue presented, then it stands to reason that your parent is no parent at all.
If you then tell us instead that the issue is irrelevant, you are simply denying error.


Does the question I posed in the first sentence make sense to you? If so can you answer it with and supply evidence for your argument?

Regards, Roland

 

[vajradhara]

Hands up who thinks Colossians is actually a militant atheist out to make both creationism and Christianity look immensely stupid?

right here!! *raises hand*

 

[vajradhara]

Wrong. Alcohol does not exist in grapes, water, or yeast. Yet wine contains alcohol.

Point refuted. Now go back and read all the posts you obviously didn't understand.

absolutely Brilliant!!!

check and mate, as they say.

well done.

 

[JohnR7]

Irrelevant question.

It is not a irrelevant question at all. Evolution is based on benifical things being favored. If this is the case then why does something that is not of benifit to the species still prosper? Destructive behaviour should have been weeded out. For example, taking another man's women (or another women's man) could very well get you killed. So that sort of "forbidden" behaviour should have been weeded out by now.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I know that might be difficult as I did use polysyllabic words but do try.
Keep on with this bluff and you'll be hearing only non-syllabic words from me very shortly.

Promise?