The third question evolutionists can't answer

Dirtydeak · Oct 10, 2004

Colossians said:
In macro-evolutionary terms, explain how the desire to do what is not allowed, evolved.

What?.....

Your trying to relate mans sinnful nature to EV?

Uhhh... I don't get it. How can you try to relate a spiritual beleif with science?

Jet Black · Oct 10, 2004

Dirtydeak said:
What?.....

Your trying to relate mans sinnful nature to EV?

Uhhh... I don't get it. How can you try to relate a spiritual beleif with science?

no, I think he is trying to demonstrate that things cannot evolve. first of all he is makigng the error that everything is purely genetic, then he is making the error that risk is not sometimes advantageous. he knows this of course, but he just comes in here to stir up human waste products while the moderators are somewhere else.

JohnR7 · Oct 10, 2004

h2whoa said:
John I assume that he was referring to metal music rather than having a metal plate in his skull.

So, just what constitutes "metal" music? The only think I can find out is what it's not. It is not funk, punk, junk, or music for wimps. But no one seems to be able to tell me just what it is. It seems to be based more on what they reject, then what they accept. It reminds me of someone with a metal plate in their head. I had a relation by the name of Ambrose Bierce that had a peice of metal in his head and he was sort of like that, he rejected everything. Or at least he had a sarcastic explaination for everything. He wrote the devils dictionary.

JohnR7 · Oct 10, 2004

Jet Black said:
no, I think he is trying to demonstrate that things cannot evolve. first of all he is makigng the error that everything is purely genetic,

From a purely genetic basis, things do not evolve.

The Bellman · Oct 10, 2004

JohnR7 said:
From a purely genetic basis, things do not evolve.

Complete rubbish, and you should know better, John. Doesn't your religion say something about telling lies?

h2whoa · Oct 10, 2004

JohnR7 said:
From a purely genetic basis, things do not evolve.

Oh come on. That's just wrong.

h2

Jet Black · Oct 10, 2004

h2whoa said:
Oh come on. That's just wrong.

h2

I think you are too new to have seen his marvellous misuse of Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium. Even after having it thoroughy explained to him, he still couldn't understand it.

kingreaper · Oct 10, 2004

Colossians said:
Nathan David,
Aside from its many other errors, the OP assumes that a desire to contradict authority would have to evolve.
Of course it evolved: its here. (Sound familiar?)

So you are willingg to claim christianity evolved?

Wuheh we win, if it's evolved then its almost certainly not absolute truth

Colossians said:
That would only be the case if there were an existing desire to obey authority.
The very reason authority exists, is that there is a desire to obey it: those in authority in democratic systems are also desirous of submission to that authority. That is the beneficial phenomenon underpinning democracy, without which no democracy would exist.

No, theres a desire not to get harmed because you disobeyed authority, not an absolute desire to obey authority, if you wish to assert otherwise, please provide evidence

Colossians said:
One may as well ask how that desire evolved.
It evolved because it is beneficial for societys advancement and cohesion.
(This of coure presumes your line of thinking. In truth, the desire to obey authority is innate, being perceived as necessary to avoid chaos. And of course, such testimony militates against your notion that order can result spontaneously from chaos, for this end-of-the-line product (human desire to institue order) may not plausibly contradict the path to it.)

Nothing evolves for societies sake at the genetic level (things at the memetic level do but thats another matter) while some desire to maintain a social framework (don't kill me, I won't kill you) would evolve, in the form of the conscience, and vengeance drive, the desire to obey authority is not advantageous to the individual, or the direct family group

Colossians said:
DJ_Ghost
These people are following the urge to seek pleasure not a mythical biological urge to act against prohibition.
You miss the point: the fact that the urge to do what is wrong is indeed not biological, as you have correctly stated, tells you that the system from which such urge has arisen, must also not be biological. The two are both spiritual and cognitive.
The reason one desires to do what is wrong, is because of polarity: the laws God instituted hold jurisdiction over that which is something other than God, man: the result is therefore rebellion.
Why necessarily rebelllion? Because no law which does not result from oneself, can fully be perceived as that which has oneself at heart. And this is why Christ had to die: God had to demonstrate His love: mere talk is cheap.

You don't get it do you, he never said there was such a non-biological urge, merely that there was no evidence for such an urge in ANY form

Colossians said:
rjw,
Hello Colossians,
In creation terms, explain how the desire to do what is not allowed, was created.
Id be happy to answer your question, but you will have to start a new thread for it. Then you should pm me to point me to it, as I otherwise I might miss it.

Colossians said:

KingReaper,
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
The question does not pose an AND condition (desire to do things AND those things are not allowed), but an IF condition (desire to do things IF they are not allowed).
So nice creativity, but back to the drawing board.

Click to expand...

Wow, you answer the same post twice, in an attempt to make yourself appear smarter?

Colossians said:

Can you point to anything people do solely for the purpose of breaking the rules, which they odn't expect to have any other positive effects?
Recursive: your other positive effects is merely a perceived gain in the mind of the rule-breaker.
The issue is not what may be interpreted by the breaker, but what is understood as the objective criteria which is the advancement and cohesion of society.

Click to expand...

The cohesion of society is not what desires evolve for, desirres evolve for the good of the individual, and partly the close family, as such the gains of the individual ARE the important matter

DJ_Ghost · Oct 10, 2004

Colossians said:
You miss the point:

I understand your point perfectly, it is a fallacious one, as I have attempted to explain to you.

Colossians said:
the fact that the urge to do what is wrong is indeed not biological, as you have correctly stated,

Once again I have to explain to you, there is no urge to Do what is wrong. There is an urge to seek pleasure, this occurs before concepts of right or wrong are codified. So again you have the cart before the horse.

Colossians said:
tells you that the system from which such urge has arisen, must also not be biological.

It tells you nothing of the sort, you are falling into the trap of induction. You make a logical leap from a specific instance to a general one with no evidence that the general instance should follow the pattern of the specific instance. Repeatedly telling us it must be so without any supporting evidence other than Well it must is worthless hyperbole intended to support a baseless assumption.

Colossians said:
The two are both spiritual and cognitive.

They can be shown to be cognitive, they can not be shown to be spiritual. However that is neither here nor there since cognition can be seen to have arisen from evolution without any contradiction. However, even if we accept your ungrounded assertion that these things are spiritual (something we must take on faith as you can supply no evidence free of fallacy or the logical flaw of induction) that does not mitigate against evolution per-se. It could be used to argue against atheism but not against theistic evolution. Once again you tie yourself in knots trying to insist that X=Y because you say so.

Colossians said:
The reason one desires to do what is wrong, is because of polarity: the laws God instituted hold jurisdiction over that which is something other than God, man: the result is therefore rebellion.

This is a supposition on your part and again you provide no evidence what so ever other than your insistence it must be so because that's what you think. In fact there is only an urge to do what is wrong in sociopath personality types. Once again you seem unable to separate an urge to do what is wrong with an urge to do that which is pleasurable which is mitigated against by society. The subtlety of the difference seems to escape you, which I find surprising. An urge to do something wrong is a rare thing and is just that, an urge to do wrong because it is wrong. People who do this are sociopaths. An urge to do something because it is pleasurable, even though this thing has been declared as wrong by society , is something else. The former requires treatment whilst the second is usually regulated internally by adults making choices (see game theory which Jet Black mentioned earlier).

Colossians said:
Why necessarily rebelllion? Because no law which does not result from oneself, can fully be perceived as that which has oneself at heart. And this is why Christ had to die: God had to demonstrate His love: mere talk is cheap..

Mere philosophical speculation. Interesting in and of itself, but it is a starting point for debate whilst you are fallaciously trying to use it as a conclusion, something it is not intended to be.

Ghost

Colossians · Oct 10, 2004

Deamiter,
Colossians: can I ask you where you came up with this theory?
Never mind where.

Neither my sociology professor nor anybody he knows has ever heard of these concepts
Neither your sociology professor, nor anybody else, ever heard of any concept before it was enunciated. So I guess, your line of reasoning being that “if no-one has heard of it, it can’t be right”, renders anything they have heard as wrong. Right?

(for example, the idea that we rebel against authority by nature, and not because of conflict between sociological order and personal pleasure).
To deny that people derive pleasure from rebellion, is not admissible in this thread. It is a given.

It would really help if you would direct us to the published sources…
Redundant from multiple aspects.

DD,
Your trying to relate mans sinnful nature to EV?
Seeing that you admit you have a sinful nature, tell us how it came into being, and what it comprises. (I have a hunch you’ll avoid this one.)

Jet Black,
first of all he is makigng the error that everything is purely genetic,
On the contrary, that is your error. And you are quite aware it is the very reason we debate with you.
You lack integrity if you first of all pose evolution as alternative to creation, knowing when you pose such that both you and your opponents understand you to mean that such things as cognisance, volition, memory, and morality are products of inevitability based upon differential aspects, and then when the spotlight becomes too intense, contract the scope of your ‘science’ to mere chemical/genetic processes, declaring in the doing that you are surprised we have interpretted you as we have.

The Bellman,
Doesn't your religion say something about telling lies?
Obviously yours does too, or else you wouldn’t care. Nor would you know what a lie was.
So in line with this thread, the question for you to think about is “how did morality come from that which is amoral?”, and its corollary, “how is it we, being products of evolution, intuitively feel a need to deliberately define morals and ethics over and above the inherent anarchy of that very same evolution?: how is it a system decides to regulate itself recursively?”

H2,
Oh come on. That's just wrong.
These arguments are sure getting hard to refute.

KingReaper,
Aside from its many other errors, the OP assumes that a desire to contradict authority would have to evolve.
Of course it evolved: it’s here. (Sound familiar?)
So you are willingg to claim christianity evolved?
Did you note the “sound familiar?” What was the implication being made?

That would only be the case if there were an existing desire to obey authority.
The very reason authority exists, is that there is a desire to obey it: those in authority in democratic systems are also desirous of submission to that authority. That is the beneficial phenomenon underpinning democracy, without which no democracy would exist.
No, theres a desire not to get harmed because you disobeyed authority, not an absolute desire to obey authority, if you wish to assert otherwise, please provide evidence
Quite simple: there is no resentment on the part of the obeyers.
You employ a false fusion here: authority for useful purposes combined with authority for totalitarian purposes, and suggest that we are suggesting that there exists a fundamental desire to obey authority of whatever nature.
The issue of this thread is rebellion against well-meaning authority, not totalitarian authority. In fact, authority which is totalitarian is wrongly labelled: it is in fact coersion. True authority leads by example. That is the only reason Jesus Christ has authority over me.

Nothing evolves for societies sake at the genetic level
If all began with evolution, then all continues with it, so your dichotomy is false. Evolution may not be defined as that which relates only to chemical mutation. It is a philosophy of existence - the very reason you receive opposition from creationists. You are quite aware of this. You may not say “I don’t want to play anymore” when we take you to task on the implications of your life-science.

DjGhost,
Once again I have to explain to you, there is no urge to “Do what is wrong”
This is inadmissible in this thread. It is a given that there is an urge to do what is wrong. The thread concerns just how that urge came into being via evolutionary processes, and not whether it exists.
Your knowledge of psychology is about as lacking as your knowledge of induction. (At least I witnessed one of your fellow evolutionists correcting you on the induction side of things: it is a major proof stream of mathematics and logic. Hopefully someone will correct you on the psychology side of things also. You appear to guess on matters outside of your knowledge.)

There is an urge to seek pleasure, this occurs before concepts of right or wrong are codified.
That which is codified, is necessarily precursor to its codification, so your point is recursive. This was proven once and for all by the very first instance of codification.

So again you have the cart before the horse.
Rather, you have a bicycle with no wheels.

tells you that the system from which such urge has arisen, must also not be biological.
It tells you nothing of the sort, you are falling into the trap of induction.
You are not qualified to speak on induction, as you are unlearned in this area. You need to do some tertiary level math and logic.
Proof of this, is that my statement uses no induction, but set theory, information-science principles, and a quasi first law of thermodynamics: no set may arise from a parent set, and contain within it items not inherent in the parent.

The two are both spiritual and cognitive.
They can be shown to be cognitive, they can not be shown to be spiritual.
Absolutes cannot be proven, they can only be known, and declared. That is why they are understood as absolutes.
And why God and spirituality cannot be proven.
Further, proof is only proof when it is appears, which from a fundamental basis is to say “when it is perceived as such”. That you have not perceived it yet,does not negate its potential. The characteristic of spiritual proofs which sets them aside from physical-realm proofs, is the inabliity of humans to invoke them at will: they are dependant of the will of the Holy Spirit.
So to ask for proof from one who asserts spirituality but who at the same time asserts that God must reveal such to you, is invalid. The irony is, however, that this statement being made to you right now may in fact be that which the Holy Spirit uses to trigger the proof of Himself to you.

However that is neither here nor there since cognition can be seen to have arisen from evolution without any contradiction.
This is inherently invalid: cognition is called such for the very reason that it consists of non-quantifiable ‘material’.
Intuitively, it is understood as that which is exclusive of the chemical tools it employs (the brain).
Accordingly, in recent years a particular brilliant Oxford scholar, upon learning that a Cat-Scan he underwent provided no evidence of a brain in him, wrote a thesis called: “Is your brain necessary?”
You confuse that which facilitates cognisance, for cognisance itself.

Once again you seem unable to separate an urge to do what is wrong with an urge to do that which is pleasurable which is mitigated against by society.
Once again you define pleasure and prohibition as necessarily exclusive of each other. Pleasure is either exclusive or inclusive of prohibition: there is pleasure derived without awareness of prohibition, and there is pleasure derived by virtue of prohibition.
The evidence is overwhelming: pop songs to the tune of “love is so much sweeter when it’s borrowed” abound.
Pornography with “Barely Legal” plastered on the front cover, is rife, and specifically designed by psychologists employed by such media companies to illicit sales based upon pleasure derived from doing that which is wrong.
When males touch, they often use thoughts of prohibition to achieve [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].
Your awareness of life and what goes on, is symptomatic of one who spends too much time on his key-board.

Why necessarily rebelllion? Because no law which does not result from oneself, can fully be perceived as that which has oneself at heart. And this is why Christ had to die: God had to demonstrate His love: mere talk is cheap..
Mere philosophical speculation.
No speculation. In the absence of any evidence which suggests that one can fully perceive a law over oneself devised by another, to have himself and only himself at heart, the assertion is carried by default.
The issue here is submission to truth: there is no way we can show you proof of our position. All we can do is provide plausible reasoning, which is what you implicitly ask from us. It is then up to your own integrity: if it is indeed true that you will believe something because it is plausible, then you should believe what I have said.
If it is not true, then you should not debate with creationists, because we admit from the outset that we cannot prove our position, it being spiritually based.
To preclude plausible reasons and brand them as “mere speculation” is to preclude God’s revealing Himself to you via such reasoning, and therefore to render your own debating redundant, being based upon a will to concede, rather than evidence demanding such concession. It is to perpetually deny yourself of what is presently unknown to you.

Philosoft · Oct 11, 2004

Colossians said:
H2,
Oh come on. That's just wrong.
These arguments are sure getting hard to refute.

He wasn't talking to you, thus your reply is nothing more than a cheap-shot.

The very reason authority exists, is that there is a desire to obey it: those in authority in democratic systems are also desirous of submission to that authority. That is the beneficial phenomenon underpinning democracy, without which no democracy would exist.

What? The "beneficial phenomenon underpinning democracy" is that no single individual is capable of unilaterally implementing his personal belief system as normative. There are no individuals in authority under pure democratic systems.

The issue of this thread is rebellion against well-meaning authority, not totalitarian authority.

That is the grandest, most blatant goalpost shift I have seen in a long time. Nowhere in this thread have you made such a distinction until now. Shameful.

In fact, authority which is totalitarian is wrongly labelled: it is in fact coersion.

These terms are not mutually exclusive. An authority can hypothetically engage in coercion, which is defined as an unlawful act, but all totalitarian acts are not necessarily coercive.

True authority leads by example. That is the only reason Jesus Christ has authority over me.

I didn't think Jesus ever claimed to be anyone's authority.

Nothing evolves for societies sake at the genetic level
If all began with evolution, then all continues with it, so your dichotomy is false. Evolution may not be defined as that which relates only to chemical mutation. It is a philosophy of existence - the very reason you receive opposition from creationists. You are quite aware of this. You may not say I dont want to play anymore when we take you to task on the implications of your life-science.

This is wrong now, it was wrong when you wrote the OP and it will continue to be wrong as long as you adhere to this strawman of evolution. You might as well not bother responding to anything else until you get the fallacious notion that evolution is socially goal-oriented out of your head, because the very fundament of your misunderstanding, and our disagreements thereby, is right here. Rest assured, I will call attention to this mistake every time you make it. Eventually, you will have to either justify it or retract it.

Jet Black · Oct 11, 2004

what in blue blazes? I can't go to page 10.

edit: I can now I posted to it. heh.

Jet Black · Oct 11, 2004

Philosoft said:
Eventually, you will have to either justify it or retract it.

or ignore it, like he has done so far.

The Bellman · Oct 11, 2004

Colossians said:
Deamiter,
Colossians: can I ask you where you came up with this theory?
Never mind where.

Is it a secret?

Colossians said:
Neither my sociology professor nor anybody he knows has ever heard of these concepts
Neither your sociology professor, nor anybody else, ever heard of any concept before it was enunciated. So I guess, your line of reasoning being that if no-one has heard of it, it cant be right, renders anything they have heard as wrong. Right?

Wrong, since he neither said nor implied that. He asked for a source. For some reason you don't want to give it.

Colossians said:
(for example, the idea that we rebel against authority by nature, and not because of conflict between sociological order and personal pleasure).
To deny that people derive pleasure from rebellion, is not admissible in this thread. It is a given.

You might claim it is a given - it's not in evidence.

Colossians said:
It would really help if you would direct us to the published sources
Redundant from multiple aspects.

I've no idea what that is supposed to mean...except it's clearly not giving the published sources requested.

Colossians said:
DD,
Your trying to relate mans sinnful nature to EV?
Seeing that you admit you have a sinful nature, tell us how it came into being, and what it comprises. (I have a hunch youll avoid this one.)

He didn't admit he has a sinful nature. That's a religious contention, which has nothing to do with science in general or evolutionary theory in particular.

Colossians said:
Jet Black,
first of all he is makigng the error that everything is purely genetic,
On the contrary, that is your error. And you are quite aware it is the very reason we debate with you.
You lack integrity if you first of all pose evolution as alternative to creation, knowing when you pose such that both you and your opponents understand you to mean that such things as cognisance, volition, memory, and morality are products of inevitability based upon differential aspects, and then when the spotlight becomes too intense, contract the scope of your science to mere chemical/genetic processes, declaring in the doing that you are surprised we have interpretted you as we have.

No, it is not his error. No person who knows anything about evolutionary theory contends that "everything is purely genetic." It is, however, a common strawman used by those who know very little about it.

There is nothing lacking in integrity about identifying your misconceptions about evolutionary theory. When those who understand it discuss it, they know what it means; they cannot be blamed for misconceptions of those who don't understand it. When they correct those misconceptions, they are not lacking in integrity; they are merely pointing out the errors of those who do not understand the theory.

Colossians said:
The Bellman,
Doesn't your religion say something about telling lies?
Obviously yours does too, or else you wouldnt care. Nor would you know what a lie was.
So in line with this thread, the question for you to think about is how did morality come from that which is amoral?, and its corollary, how is it we, being products of evolution, intuitively feel a need to deliberately define morals and ethics over and above the inherent anarchy of that very same evolution?: how is it a system decides to regulate itself recursively?

I have no religion. I am opposed to telling lies because it inhibits communication. I know what a lie is because I can use a dictionary.

Morality didn't come from that which is amoral; it has no objective existence. It "came from" the human mind - it is a construct of that, like such concepts as 'beauty'.

As to how the human mind, a product of evolution, came to define morals and ethics, it did so because it found an evolutionary advantage in so doing, obviously.

Oh, and there's no "inherent anarchy" of evolution.

Colossians said:
H2,
Oh come on. That's just wrong.
These arguments are sure getting hard to refute.

No, they're not. When a blatant falsehood like the one responded to above is posted, it's simple to just refute it - anyone who knows anything about the topic will see it for what it is.

Colossians said:
KingReaper,
Aside from its many other errors, the OP assumes that a desire to contradict authority would have to evolve.
Of course it evolved: its here. (Sound familiar?)
So you are willingg to claim christianity evolved?
Did you note the sound familiar? What was the implication being made?

That it is here is a contention by you; it is not in evidence.

Colossians said:
That would only be the case if there were an existing desire to obey authority.
The very reason authority exists, is that there is a desire to obey it: those in authority in democratic systems are also desirous of submission to that authority. That is the beneficial phenomenon underpinning democracy, without which no democracy would exist.
No, theres a desire not to get harmed because you disobeyed authority, not an absolute desire to obey authority, if you wish to assert otherwise, please provide evidence
Quite simple: there is no resentment on the part of the obeyers.
You employ a false fusion here: authority for useful purposes combined with authority for totalitarian purposes, and suggest that we are suggesting that there exists a fundamental desire to obey authority of whatever nature.
The issue of this thread is rebellion against well-meaning authority, not totalitarian authority. In fact, authority which is totalitarian is wrongly labelled: it is in fact coersion. True authority leads by example. That is the only reason Jesus Christ has authority over me.

Your definition of "authority" is wrong - it is unrelated to whether or not that authority is "well-meaning" or not, so your distinction is meaningless.

You have not deminstrated that there exists a desire to disobey authority.

Colossians said:
Nothing evolves for societies sake at the genetic level
If all began with evolution, then all continues with it, so your dichotomy is false. Evolution may not be defined as that which relates only to chemical mutation. It is a philosophy of existence - the very reason you receive opposition from creationists. You are quite aware of this. You may not say I dont want to play anymore when we take you to task on the implications of your life-science.

Evolutionary theory relates ONLY to biological evolution. Attempts to create a "philosophy of existence" from it are hopelessly flawed, as would attempst to create a "philosophy of existence" from the theory of gravity be.

Colossians said:
DjGhost,
Once again I have to explain to you, there is no urge to Do what is wrong
This is inadmissible in this thread. It is a given that there is an urge to do what is wrong. The thread concerns just how that urge came into being via evolutionary processes, and not whether it exists.
Your knowledge of psychology is about as lacking as your knowledge of induction. (At least I witnessed one of your fellow evolutionists correcting you on the induction side of things: it is a major proof stream of mathematics and logic. Hopefully someone will correct you on the psychology side of things also. You appear to guess on matters outside of your knowledge.)

Sorry, but repeating that "it is a given that there is an urge to do what is wrong" does not make it so. You have not evidenced that such a thing exists.

Colossians said:
There is an urge to seek pleasure, this occurs before concepts of right or wrong are codified.
That which is codified, is necessarily precursor to its codification, so your point is recursive. This was proven once and for all by the very first instance of codification.

I've no idea how this is supposed to refute the fact that the urge for the pleasurable exists before concepts of right and wrong are codified.

Colossians said:
Once again you seem unable to separate an urge to do what is wrong with an urge to do that which is pleasurable which is mitigated against by society.
Once again you define pleasure and prohibition as necessarily exclusive of each other. Pleasure is either exlusive or inclusive of prohibition: there is pleasure derived without awareness of prohibition, and there is pleasure derived by virtue of prohibition.
The evidence is overwhelming: pop songs to the tune of love is so much sweeter when its borrowed abound.
Pornography with Barely Legal plastered on the front cover, is rife, and specifically designed by psychologists employed by such media companies to illicit sales based upon pleasure derived from doing that which is wrong.
When males touch, they often use thoughts of prohibition to achieve [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].
Your awareness of life and what goes on, is symptomatic of one who spends too much time on his key-board.

Once again, you fail to evidence that there exists an urge to defy authority. Citing pop songs doesn't do it, sorry.

Jet Black · Oct 11, 2004

If all began with evolution, then all continues with it, so your dichotomy is false. Evolution may not be defined as that which relates only to chemical mutation. It is a philosophy of existence - the very reason you receive opposition from creationists. You are quite aware of this. You may not say I dont want to play anymore when we take you to task on the implications of your life-science

Click to expand...

false, it all began with the Big Bang. nobody would be stupid enough to take cosmology and try to derive a philosophy of existance from this. Science merely tells us how the universe does work, not how it should work

On the contrary, that is your error. And you are quite aware it is the very reason we debate with you.

Click to expand...

Evolution is a biological theory only and does not concern iself at all with memetics

You lack integrity if you first of all pose evolution as alternative to creation,

Click to expand...

I do not pose evolution as an alternative to creation, I pose it as a mechanism of creation. I fully believe that we were created.

knowing when you pose such that both you and your opponents understand you to mean that such things as cognisance, volition, memory, and morality are products of inevitability based upon differential aspects, and then when the spotlight becomes too intense, contract the scope of your science to mere chemical/genetic processes, declaring in the doing that you are surprised we have interpretted you as we have.

Click to expand...

but evolution basically is only a biological and genetic theory, and does not deal with morality.

David Gould · Oct 11, 2004

Evolution a philosophy of existence? Isn't it a scientific explanation for biodiversity?

kingreaper · Oct 11, 2004

This is for collosians

Your argument assumes that there is a desire to disobey authority, this is the first major problem you should overcome, until you provide a reasonable level of evidence for that assertion you are committing the falllacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION, no argument based on this fallacy can stand, please remedy this immediately

The Bellman · Oct 11, 2004

David Gould said:
Evolution a philosophy of existence? Isn't it a scientific explanation for biodiversity?

Evolution can, with justification and accuracy, be called many things...a philosophy of existence isn't one of them.

Nathan David · Oct 11, 2004

Ultimately, the answer to this is the same as the answer to Collossians first two "questions".

A desire to disobey authority (which is not as universal as Collossians appears to be claiming) comes from the human brain.

Evolution explains how the human brain came about.

QED.

Actually not just the human brain. Domestic dogs often desire to disobey authority. If I jump on the couch, Master might yell at me. But the couch is comfortable.

Cats have no such dilemmas. If he wants to jump on something, he's there.

DJ_Ghost · Oct 12, 2004

Colossians said:
DjGhost,
Once again I have to explain to you, there is no urge to Do what is wrong
This is inadmissible in this thread. It is a given that there is an urge to do what is wrong.

No it is not. Your dishonest debating tactics are utterly mind boggling. Something is NOT a given just because you say so. You are trying to restrict debate by claiming something you CAN NOT SHOW is a given. Honest debate escapes you.

Colossians said:
The thread concerns just how that urge came into being via evolutionary processes, and not whether it exists.

I see that the stupidity of debating how a thing came into being before it is established that it DID come into being also escapes you. If the thing does not exist then this thread is pointless. You argue it does exist because you say so, however you provide no proof beyond well I say so , so there. Your playground antics are rather tiresome.

Colossians said:
Your knowledge of psychology is about as lacking as your knowledge of induction.

Except of course that I hold a BSc in a related field, have post graduate diplomas in psychology, and that I wrote a paper on the flaws of induction that has since been used by numerous students at a local university.

Colossians said:
(At least I witnessed one of your fellow evolutionists correcting you on the induction side of things: it is a major proof stream of mathematics and logic.

As you are aware the thread was locked before the debate on that was concluded, as you are also aware it was established that it was used in Maths (which I admit I overlooked) but that even in mathematics the flaws and pitfalls are well established. You claim it is a "major" proof stream, when that was not established. It certainly isn't in other fileds, I can not speak for Mathematics, since its not my field, but the few posts covering it implied it was used, they certainly didn't establish it as a major one. I would like to hear from a Mathematitian on that.

You are also aware of the flaws of induction because I have told you them in another thread but you chose to ignore that.

A brief summary, induction is flawed, as was pointed out by Popper and others, as it violates in own rules. it assumes that we can go from the specific to the general instance without good reason to do so. As a result the scientific method no longer relies on induction but deduction, and the scientific method is now falsificationist rather than verificationist. I can go into detail if you like, but since you ignored it the last time I did, I can only presume it went over your head. Oh yes, and whilst we are on the subject, I also overlooked the fact that some strands of Criminology are still using induction and that they are resoundly criticized as unscientific for doing so.

Colossians said:
Hopefully someone will correct you on the psychology side of things also.

Oh go on then have a go, since you fancy yourself a pop psychologist. Give it a shot, since you think my psychology is flawed, based on nothing more than your urge to be right.

Colossians said:
You appear to guess on matters outside of your knowledge.)

No actually, if its outside my knowledge I rather dont post or say that it is outside my knowledge, as I have done on this very forum a number of times. I was genuinely unaware that induction is used in Maths, since the logical flaw of induction has meant that it is no longer deemed a good and useful part of the scientific method. Your argument that I Dont know much about psychology is laughable and demonstrably wrong. Perhaps in future when some one tells you their field you should find out what is involved in that field before making yourself look like an idiot by assuming you know what they do and do not have a background in.

Colossians said:
So again you have the cart before the horse.
Rather, you have a bicycle with no wheels.

More of your soundbites, with nothing to support them.

Colossians said:
You are not qualified to speak on induction, as you are unlearned in this area.

Except of course that I am not, having written, as stated, papers on the logical flaws of induction. Not up to Poppers standard I grant you, but then they were aimed at undergraduates. Also if some one is not qualifed to speak on what they are un-learned in then you should stop speaking of evolution.

Colossians said:
You need to do some tertiary level math and logic.

No you need to do some post graduate level psychology, science and philosophy. So far we have seen scientists point out you are a bad scientist, a philosopher point out you are a bad philosopher, and you have so misunderstood postgraduate level psychology that when i presented some you thought it was not psychology at all, it speaks ill of your grip on the subject.

Colossians said:
Proof of this, is that my statement uses no induction, but set theory, information-science principles, and a quasi first law of thermodynamics: no set may arise from a parent set, and contain within it items not inherent in the parent.

Quasi first law of Thermodynamics eh? Oh should we be impressed I think not. Furthermore you made an inductive leap. If you can not see that then your grip on induction is worse than you imagine, of course what would I know, despite my credentials I obviously know nothing becasue you say it is so. Have you applied an observation from event A and assumed it holds in the case of event B, where event B is not a duplicate of event A? Have you any other, independant reason to think this will happen? When the answers to those 2 questions are "yes" and "no" in that order you have used induction.

Colossians said:
The two are both spiritual and cognitive.
They can be shown to be cognitive, they can not be shown to be spiritual.
Absolutes cannot be proven, they can only be known, and declared.

More groundless assertion on your point, required to shore up your baseless argument.

Colossians said:
However that is neither here nor there since cognition can be seen to have arisen from evolution without any contradiction.
This is inherently invalid: cognition is called such for the very reason that it consists of non-quantifiable material.

Irrelevant. Cognition results in a survival advantage so it can be seen as an evolutionary advantage. Where it is situated and why are not important in that decision, as you would know if you actually understood evolutionary theory or evolutionary psychology for that matter.

Colossians said:
Intuitively, it is understood as that which is exclusive of the chemical tools it employs (the brain).

You confuse that which facilitates cognisance, for cognisance itself.

Since I did not mention the Brain you are making an assumption here. It is entirely irrelevant to my point what facilitates cognisance, what matters is: does it give us an advantage?

Colossians said:
Once again you seem unable to separate an urge to do what is wrong with an urge to do that which is pleasurable which is mitigated against by society.
Once again you define pleasure and prohibition as necessarily exclusive of each other.

Not necessarily exclusive no, I even gave an example of when they where linked, so you are either missing the point to an astronomical level or you are deliberately not addressing that bit. You tell me. Ignorance or wilful deception on your part? The first I can forgive, but not the second.

Colossians said:
The evidence is overwhelming: pop songs to the tune of love is so much sweeter when its borrowed abound.

So overwhelming in fact that its still a hotly debated topic, or didnt you know it was debated? I mean by people in the field by the way, not by the public at large.

Colossians said:
Pornography with Barely Legal plastered on the front cover, is rife, and specifically designed by psychologists employed by such media companies to illicit sales based upon pleasure derived from doing that which is wrong.

Wrong again. Barely Legal means legal, not illegal. There is a reproductive advantage for men to be attracted to young women, as their reproductive success levels are higher. Being attracted to girls rather than women however is not normal, and is prohibited. People who are attracted to children are paedophiles, and that is not a normal mental state, so I covered it when I explained to you about sociopathic personality traits.

Colossians said:
When males touch, they often use thoughts of prohibition to achieve [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

That is fantasy and is a whole other area of psychology. If you knew as much about it as you pretend to you would know that.

Colossians said:
Your awareness of life and what goes on, is symptomatic of one who spends too much time on his key-board.

Is that supposed to be an insult? Its a fairly laughable one. Actually I do spend a lot of time at a keyboard. It is an unfortunate side effect of being an academic. I also spend a lot of time out in the real world, that is a necessity in my fields of academia and in order to conduct my other profession.

Just like your arguments, your insults require a lot of work.

Ghost

The third question evolutionists can't answer

Senior Member

Jet Black

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Bellman

Guest

Ace2whoa - resident geneticist

Jet Black

Guest

Senior Member

Trad Goth

Veteran

Orthogonal, Tangential, Tenuously Related

Jet Black

Guest

Jet Black

Guest

The Bellman

Guest

Jet Black

Guest

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Senior Member

The Bellman

Guest

Well-Known Member

Trad Goth

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency