Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
389 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, DrJones*, Faith, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Theodoric, xongsmith (9 members, 380 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,694 Year: 21,730/19,786 Month: 293/1,834 Week: 293/315 Day: 49/77 Hour: 3/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The third rampage of evolutionism: evolutionary pscyhology
gezginbekir
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 236 (198096)
04-10-2005 3:35 PM



Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by AdminAsgara, posted 04-10-2005 3:58 PM gezginbekir has not yet responded

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 227 of 236 (198103)
04-10-2005 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by gezginbekir
04-10-2005 3:35 PM


Gezginbekir, welcome to EvC.

You might want to reread the Forum Guidelines you agreed to when you registered with our forum. Please pay particular attention to

rule #5
Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

Please do not simply give bare links. We come here to debate on many different ideas and theories. What we do not come here to do is to play battle of the links.

You will find other helpful threads listed in my signature box.

Once again, welcome to EvC.


AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum
Other useful links: Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by gezginbekir, posted 04-10-2005 3:35 PM gezginbekir has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4154 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 228 of 236 (262514)
11-22-2005 6:04 PM


bump for crash and whoever
For those looking for Evo Psych discussions one can start with this linked post and work backwards in the the debate between me and Parsimonious Razor. I would also recommend reading my post #168 where I go through a specific EP paper.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2429 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 229 of 236 (333486)
07-19-2006 6:36 PM


Bump! Just for the sheer nostalgia of it all, especially with Syamsu back with us again. This thread documents to some extent the development of Syamsu's current line of argumentation base on moments of decision from his previous focus on the evils of evopsych and evolutionist terminology, think of it as a transitional if you will ;).

TTFN,

WK


Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Wounded King, posted 07-18-2008 8:21 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2429 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 230 of 236 (475773)
07-18-2008 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Wounded King
07-19-2006 6:36 PM


*bump*
Bumped again since Syamsu has a 'proposed new topic' very reminiscent of ground this thread covered.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Wounded King, posted 07-19-2006 6:36 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Syamsu, posted 07-19-2008 6:31 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3925 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 231 of 236 (475910)
07-19-2008 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Wounded King
07-18-2008 8:21 AM


Re: *bump*
I reread my postings in the thread. Very good most of it, some of it not so good.

Particularly good is the argument that evopsych people will end up in a delusion of innocense by misinterpreting their own sinful free-will as selfish genemechanisms, which will leave their hatereds to grow unchecked, so that they will be putting a veneer of altruism, over their rising tide of hatered.

And while most of my argument is the same, there have been some new developments, namely that I get more backup now for my arguments from science.

For example Edwina Taborsky arguing that natural selection is "weak anticipation". For as far as I understand the concept of weak anticipation, that is the same as saying that natural selection is not real, it is only in the head.

That's what I've been saying for a long time, that natural selection is not real.

So evolutionists, this is not over yet, the chances are that you'll lose all of it:

- natural selection theory will be thrown out

- creationism becomes the most fundamental hard-science discipline in all of science

- the scientific method becomes to explicitly acknowledge the spiritual domain is real

And that should just be the easy part for you all to accept, the hard part being questions of guilt and responsibility for destroying, and otherwise oppressing people's common knowledge about freedom, and things like that.

I made a thread about Edwina Taborsky's paper, I suggest you post in it. The paper is a little bit wordy, however basicly these are simple fundamental concepts we are dealing with. To acknowledge freedom tends to throw out natural selection. The more it is acknowledged the more natural selection is pushed aside. That trend is clearly visible, as als with a Darwinist like Steven Kaufmann.

Both Kaufmann, and Taborsky don't seem to want to be creationists, however they do want to acknowledge freedom is real. Try as they might to avoid creationism, Kaufmann talking about finding god in nature does not seem to be very consistent with atheism, eventhough he didn't mean it (but then again he did mean it). And Taborsky commenting repeatedly that she is not fashioning an intelligent design theory seems kind of desperate.

So in general that is state of the debate now, scientists coming to acknowledge freedom is real, and thereby naturally ending up with creationist ideas, which they then seek to avoid.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Wounded King, posted 07-18-2008 8:21 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Coyote, posted 07-19-2008 7:09 PM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 233 by bluescat48, posted 07-20-2008 9:57 AM Syamsu has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 441 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 232 of 236 (475915)
07-19-2008 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Syamsu
07-19-2008 6:31 PM


Re: *bump*
- creationism becomes the most fundamental hard-science discipline in all of science

You have got to be kidding!


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Syamsu, posted 07-19-2008 6:31 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2524 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 233 of 236 (475978)
07-20-2008 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Syamsu
07-19-2008 6:31 PM


Re: *bump*
So evolutionists, this is not over yet, the chances are that you'll lose all of it:

- natural selection theory will be thrown out

- creationism becomes the most fundamental hard-science discipline in all of science

- the scientific method becomes to explicitly acknowledge the spiritual domain is real

Even if allthe tenets of evolution were to be debunked, It would still give no more credence to creation than it would to the existance of the flying Spaghetti monster, Santa Claus, divination, numerology, alchemy, astrology, phlogiston, ouiga boards, magic, or exocisms.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Syamsu, posted 07-19-2008 6:31 PM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Syamsu, posted 07-20-2008 5:13 PM bluescat48 has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3925 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 234 of 236 (476037)
07-20-2008 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by bluescat48
07-20-2008 9:57 AM


Re: *bump*
The scientist that threw out natural selection, replaced it with evolution as an "informed and reasoned" process. So that's kind of looking like intelligent design theory.

Anyway, as you know creation is a free act, and since some professor found a way how to handle freedom mathematically, hyperincursive math, since then natural selection is out, and creation is in.

Here is how this works, decisions are made in the universe at large (proven), and through these decisions things come to be.

That is the fundamental mindset of the new scientist. Which happens to be the mindset of most believers in God, who'se view of the universe as it turns out was fundamentally more accurate then that of most all 20th century scientists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by bluescat48, posted 07-20-2008 9:57 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Granny Magda, posted 07-20-2008 6:51 PM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 236 by bluescat48, posted 07-20-2008 9:09 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 235 of 236 (476043)
07-20-2008 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Syamsu
07-20-2008 5:13 PM


Science Doesn't Work Your Way
The scientist that threw out natural selection, replaced it with evolution as an "informed and reasoned" process. So that's kind of looking like intelligent design theory.

I agree, it looks that way.

Anyway, as you know creation is a free act

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this. Do you mean that God was free to create or not create, as he saw fit?

since some professor found a way how to handle freedom mathematically, hyperincursive math, since then natural selection is out, and creation is in.

Woah there! The views of, as you put it, "some professor" do not a scientific consensus make. Science doesn't work that way. This new paradigm you are so impressed with needs to make predictions that can be studied by other scientists and have those predictions verified before it can become the new consensus. It also needs to do a better job of this than the current theory of natural selection. Further, for natural selection to be "out", you would have to falsify it in some way. Unless I missed it, you have not done this.

Here is how this works, decisions are made in the universe at large (proven), and through these decisions things come to be.

What? I'm sorry, but that sounds insane. The universe is how it is, no matter what decisions humanity makes or does not make. What on Earth are you saying?

That is the fundamental mindset of the new scientist. Which happens to be the mindset of most believers in God, who'se view of the universe as it turns out was fundamentally more accurate then that of most all 20th century scientists.

New science eh? Once again, we see creationists trying to redefine what science itself is, to its detriment as usual. There is no "new" science, only the same scientific method that has stood us in good stead for years. Only creationists (and perhaps homoeopaths) want to change it.

As for the accuracy of creationism, you have ample chance to demonstrate that. Feel free to give examples.


Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Syamsu, posted 07-20-2008 5:13 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2524 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 236 of 236 (476059)
07-20-2008 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Syamsu
07-20-2008 5:13 PM


Re: *bump*
Here is how this works, decisions are made in the universe at large (proven), and through these decisions things come to be.

Oh! the universe is anthropomorphic?

Anyway, as you know creation is a free act, and since some professor found a way how to handle freedom mathematically, hyperincursive math, since then natural selection is out, and creation is in.

Show me how natural selection is out and creation is in. I have seen no scientific evidence odf creation any more now than 50 years ago, or
any time since. Neither evolution nor creation can be defined as a mathematical progression, too many variuables. Also define your comment that "creation is a free act."


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Syamsu, posted 07-20-2008 5:13 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019