The third question evolutionists can't answer

[Split Rock]

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.

It has not been "weeded out" for two reasons:
1. Such behavior does not necessarily result in getting killed... and in fact may not even result in getting the person killed a majority of the time.
2. Such behavior is not entirly due to genetics, but also due to environment.

 

[Split Rock]

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.

Evolutionary mechanisms do not work on societies. That is why there are sociologists.

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.

Maybe because the cookie tastes good and the child thinks he can get away with it?

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.

Margaet Thatcher is no authority on the issue in question. Why do you quote her? People with disorders do not act normally.. that is why we say they have a DISORDER. You are now asking why some people behave abnormally.

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.

Show me ONE person (other than yourself) that you have embarassed.

Oh and by the way.. why don't you answer Ghost's post IN ITS ENTIRETY??

 

[Pete Harcoff]

If you can't answer the question, I win. It's quite simple.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

*sniff*

Oh, this is too funny. I am convinced Colossians is an atheist troll making creationists look silly.

 

[Justin Horne]

I would be, but it seems as though I just can't tell anymore...

 

[kingreaper]

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.

If you steal someone el'ses mate you end up either with (fo a man) an extra mate, or (for a woman) a better quality mate, both of which are advantageous

The chances of getting yourself killed tend to be lower than the advantages of stealing a mate

 

[Colossians]

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.

 

[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.

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?

Note here that an increase in popularity such as is gained through things like graffiti is a gain, and can be evolutionarily explained by the fact that disobeying authority and getting away with it demonstrates that you have power comparable to that of the authority

 

[Brahe]

Oh, this is too funny. I am convinced Colossians is an atheist troll making creationists look silly.

Much as I would like to agree with you, Pete, I don't think I can. If we excluded every creationist who acted as badly as Collosians as atheist trolls, I'm not sure we'd have a single actual creationist.

Is there any moral or intellectual failing that Colossians has that some other creationist doesn't also have? Is there anything that Collosians has done that some other creationist hasn't also done? I may be missing something obvious, but if Colossians is an atheist troll, his camoflage is absolutely perfect as far as I can see.

 

[PhantomLlama]

Much as I would like to agree with you, Pete, I don't think I can. If we excluded every creationist who acted as badly as Collosians as atheist trolls, I'm not sure we'd have a single actual creationist.

Is there any moral or intellectual failing that Colossians has that some other creationist doesn't also have? Is there anything that Collosians has done that some other creationist hasn't also done? I may be missing something obvious, but if Colossians is an atheist troll, his camoflage is absolutely perfect as far as I can see.

You are right that everything Colossians has done has been done before.

There have been several creationists with deep, crippling misconceptions about evolution, several creationists who ignore answers and then claim victory, several creationists who have complained about technical language, several creationists who have hidden their arguments behind reams of impenetrable obfuscation, and several creationists who have an Aura of Smug so bright it can be seen from orbit, but Colossians is the first to combine all of these into one toxic package.

That is why I and others think he is just trolling, nothing more.

 

[Freodin]

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.

The question is: where does that "destructive behaviour" come from? For Evolution to be relevant, it has to come from hereditary causes.

But that isn´t the case here. Even if this "desire" could be shown to be hereditary, the circumstances of the prohibition would still be not. And thus it is not possible to inherit a desire, when there is no way to define what you should desire in "evolutionary" terms.

 

[Im_A]

well after reading all of this, i can only come to serveral conclusions.

one, the beginning post started the fault. it just seemed colossians was too much concerned with stating what he/she believes instead of engaging in actual discussion. i know this has turned out into a discussion, but if anyone thinks this is a healthy way of discussing anything period, needs to think of discussion over again. seems like to me, that colossians would be better off to go into the formal debating section. the only problem i see even with that, that there is no reference for what they are saying, and that seems to be a problem with most people responding on here (if i am correct, please kindly correct me.)

i mean there are two different trains of thought colliding, so one that is adherent to one view or the other, is normally going to say what is truth or not. but i think that is a faulty way of discussion unless you can bring up reference. then the replies back just fuel the fire in this "furnace." even though, i have similiar responds that seem good, but just opposite of what colossians first started. but i really believe that colossians really went the wrong route with the opening post, thus opening way for responses to just give fuel to the same spirit of that opening post.

i think philippians 2:12-16 is a good verse to remember. i also believe the Golden Rule is a good thing to remember, and be prepared to receive the same measure we give to others. which that shows to be happening in this thread and it is very sad, even though there were some good posts too, so i'm not saying it is all negative

i would like to see colossians start this whole thread over. put the rocks away, put away any way of obtaining personal fulfillment by so called "debunking" one's beliefs and just start this over. colossians i'm not trying to pick on you, but you really went off the mark in engaging people who don't believe in Creationism the wrong way. maybe put another post, and an open yourself to the fact that maybe you will find people who support you, or maybe you will find people who are against you and with that, maybe you will be proven wrong, or maybe you will be proven right, but to keep more of an open mind with engaging people who believe in evolution. plus we have to realize that most people in this world, are quick to see judgements and thus, when it is from the beginning, everything is just screwed up. maybe try to re-word your post to where your not coming off as pointing the finger, and waving the flag of victory before the debate/conversation ever gets going.

but who knows, maybe i don't know what i'm talking about. some probably see me as a young punk kid, but to correct, i'm a young metal head kid, haha. God Bless you all, and i sure hope to see this thread change some, but since i am not a mod, i'll just throw in a piece of food to maybe try to get some calmness in.

 

[JohnR7]

but who knows, maybe i don't know what i'm talking about. some probably see me as a young punk kid, but to correct, i'm a young metal head kid, haha.

You have a metal plate in your head? I thought they used plastic for that sort of stuff now a days.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Much as I would like to agree with you, Pete, I don't think I can. If we excluded every creationist who acted as badly as Collosians as atheist trolls, I'm not sure we'd have a single actual creationist.

Reminds me a Far Side comic: A flock of wolves in sheep's clothing are in a field; one wolf stands up with his mask off shouting, "Wait a minute! Isn't anyone here a real sheep?"

 

[h2whoa]

You have a metal plate in your head? I thought they used plastic for that sort of stuff now a days.

John I assume that he was referring to metal music rather than having a metal plate in his skull. I could be wrong though but I took as a pun on the music he likes.

h2

 

[Gracchus]

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

Memetic variation, like genetic variation, provides a basis for selection, which adds the capability of social evolution. It allows society to adjust to changing conditions.

This increases the probability of that society's members surviving to reproductive age.

 

[Colossians]

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: it’s here. (Sound familiar?)

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.

One may as well ask how that desire evolved.
It evolved because it is beneficial for society’s 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.)





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.





rjw,
Hello Colossians,
In creation terms, explain how the desire to do what is not allowed, was created.
I’d 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.





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.
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.

 

[Arikay]

Let me help for question number 4 that evolutionists can't answer.

#4 How can evolutionists explain _____ social meme using only genetics?
Hahaha, they can't, I win, Hahaha.


If he would like to move on to other areas of science, here is a sample question he can use:
#5 How can physicists explain quantum mechanics, using only newtonian physics?
Haha, you can't, I win. Losers.

 

[Deamiter]

I get it. Colossians has developed a set of psychological (perhaps sociological?) norms that I think he's claiming in place of the generally accepted theories.

Colossians: can I ask you where you came up with this theory? Neither my sociology professor, nor anybody he knows has ever heard of these concepts (for example, the idea that we rebel against authority by nature, and not because of conflict between sociological order and personal pleasure). It would really help if you would direct us to the published sources because it always seems like you assume this is common knowledge when it's never been presented to us before!

 

[Philosoft]

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.

This is ridiculous. Evolution has no stake in the "advancement and cohesion of society" beyond what the society can do for the survival and reproductive success of the individual. Thus, "what may be interpreted by the breaker" is virtually the whole enchilada.

This is pretty underhanded, defining yourself the winner from the outset by completely misrepresenting your opponent's position and predicating your argument therefrom. These are Hovind-esque tactics, you know. It doesn't get much lower than that.

 

[Jet Black]

warm milk or cold milk on weetabix? your decisions please.