Originally posted by pancreasman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Ted Kirkpatrick and Animal Cruelty
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostWell, I'm certainly not a "progressive Christian", whatever that is. I'm also fairly certain that most Christians would not self-identify as such, but feel free to offer contrary evidence."
There ya go. (I know, I know, they're not REAL Christians)
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostPsychology is not biology.
This explains what happens, not why it came about.
Why should there be a 'survival instinct'?
And why should it predispose us toward cooperative behaviour?
Cooperation takes two (or more) for success.
If I have this phantom cooperation mutation (assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is some genetic basis for instinct)
and my companions do not, by helping them I'm increasing their chances for survival, not mine.
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostTo whag
I am indeed a creationist.Last edited by Tassman; 12-13-2014, 11:30 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostWell, I'm certainly not a "progressive Christian", whatever that is. I'm also fairly certain that most Christians would not self-identify as such, but feel free to offer contrary evidence. I'm also sensing some circular reasoning in your bald assertion that "most smart Christians don't have a problem with the development of Eusociality." I am indeed a creationist. If that makes me 'fringe' in your view, perhaps you need to revisit your definition of 'fringe.' I'm guessing that qualification for MENSA membership makes me not dumb, but OTOH I don't know that you're operating with a typical definition of smart. I'm beginning to suspect that "smart" in your world means "agrees with whag."
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by whag View PostIOW, THE DEVELOPMENT OF eusociality isn't a controversy, but you're trying to say it is. Most smart Christians don't have a problem with THE DEVELOPMENT OF EUSOCIALITY, so you look fringe.
Fixed it for ya, and you still look fringe. Only creationists call godit/evodidit a false dichotomy. Progressive Christians sure don't have a problem with cooperative behavior evolving. How else do you think it came about?
I'm guessing you're an anti-evolutionist?Last edited by One Bad Pig; 12-13-2014, 10:41 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostIOW, you have no answer, so you deliberately misconstrue my position as opposing the idea of eusociality rather than the putative rationale for the evolution of such. I did find this exercise in mental gymnastics interesting, but it replaces one untestable (and demonstrated to be such) hypothesis with another. The "how" is most certainly "speculative hoo-ha."
Fixed it for ya, and you still look fringe. Only creationists call godit/evodidit a false dichotomy. Progressive Christians sure don't have a problem with cooperative behavior evolving. How else do you think it came about?
I'm guessing you're an anti-evolutionist?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by whag View PostThat's so hugely off topic, I can't forgive it. "Proof" is a strawman--or you really don't know the difference between proof and evidence. Again, what better hypotheses do you have for eusociality that makes more sense than the hypotheses science has extracted from the pieces of available evidence? We know biology and behavior develop, so it certainly isn't the speculative hoo-ha you're implying it is.
IOW, eusociality isn't a controversy, but you're trying to say it is. Most smart Christians don't have a problem with it, so you look fringe.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostExtrapolation is useful if one can establish a relationship between what you know and what you don't.
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostRight now, all I see is unproven assumption, with evolutiondidit replacing goddidit. I find it interesting that modern science came about because belief in the Christian/Jewish God engendered a belief that the universe was rationally designed and thus could be systematically investigated, and now many people are convinced that the universe came to be from random chance, yet still can be systematically investigated. Sorry for going so far off topic.
IOW, eusociality isn't a controversy, but you're trying to say it is. Most smart Christians don't have a problem with it, so you look fringe.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by whag View Post1. Extrapolation is a useful function in science. 2. What's the problem of extrapolating the natural development of eusociality? What better hypotheses do you have for eusociality that makes more sense than the hypotheses science has extracted from the pieces of available evidence?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostPsychology is not biology.
This explains what happens, not why it came about.
Why should there be a 'survival instinct'? And why should it predispose us toward cooperative behaviour? Cooperation takes two (or more) for success. If I have this phantom cooperation mutation (assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is some genetic basis for instinct) and my companions do not, by helping them I'm increasing their chances for survival, not mine.Last edited by whag; 12-13-2014, 06:41 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostI suggest you do a crash course in Natural Selection. It remains the primary explanation for adaptive evolution and is accepted as undisputed fact by virtually every scientist worldwide. It is the foundation of modern biology.
Because of the well understood phenomenon of ‘biological altruism’ whereby examples are found even “among creatures that are (presumably) not capable of conscious thought at all, e.g. insects. For the biologist, it is the consequences of an action for reproductive fitness that determine whether the action counts as altruistic, not the intentions, if any, with which the action is performed. Altruistic behaviour is common throughout the animal kingdom, particularly in species with complex social structures”.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/
No I'm not. The ‘survival instinct’ is the driving force of the evolutionary process and well supported by the evidence. It’s a characteristic of every living organism. In our case, and that of all social species, it predisposes us toward cooperative behaviour as a survival mechanism.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostYou've asserted that already. Proving such is another matter entirely.
I'm not referring to "why" in that sense. Why would two organisms spontaneously cooperate?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/
And in doing so, you are extrapolating, for the reason I mentioned before.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post“How” we have become a social species is due to random favourable mutations over very long periods of time.
There is no “why”, in the sense of purpose-directed evolution, merely the chance outcome of favourable mutations.
I'm not extrapolating from the physiological to the psychological realm. I'm referring to the evolved natural instinct of 'survival' which, in the case of a social species like us, predisposes us toward cooperative behaviour. In short, for our species, cooperative social behaviour is a survival mechanism.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostFrom observation, we indeed know that we are a social species. Observation does not tell us why or how we are a social species, however.
I am familiar with the general theory of evolution via natural selection, thanks. You're extrapolating from the physiological to the psychological realm, which is chancy because we don't have a very good grasp of how those interrelate.
Leave a comment:
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
39 responses
186 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 03:32 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
132 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
80 responses
428 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
305 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM | ||
Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
|
406 responses
2,517 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 05:49 PM
|
Leave a comment: