|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The third rampage of evolutionism: evolutionary pscyhology | |||||||||||||||||||||||
gezginbekir Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2303 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
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:
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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 Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Bumped again since Syamsu has a 'proposed new topic' very reminiscent of ground this thread covered.
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
- 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
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, orany 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024