Creationism vs. Evolution

[Brian]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal I don't use any special definitions of this word or others. According to m-w, beauty is: the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit TC

Define spirit.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Brian Define spirit.

Wow, 14 definitions to choose from. I've narrowed it down to these two:

a: distillte: as (1): the liquid containing ethanol and water that is distilled from an alcoholic liquid or mash —often used in plural (2): any of various volatile liquids obtained by distillation or cracking (as of petroleum, shale, or wood) —often used in plural b: a usually volatile organic solvent (as an alcohol, ester, or hydrocarbon)

or

temper or disposition of mind or outlook especially when vigorous or animated

You decide. Or you can stop playing the Dictionary Lookup version of 20 Questions. If you want to know what a word means, go to Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online and see for yourself.

TC

[Brian]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal I don't use any special definitions of this word or others. According to m-w, beauty is: the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit TC

Do you believe in the science of the spirit?

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Brian Do you think life only consists of the search for truth? What do you think of entertainment or the social scene, such as concerts, bars, and clubs? Do you try to spread your truth there? Do you knock on doors and try to spread the word?

Once again, I don't have any truth of my own. Nor do I have the religious delusion that I should be a missionary for, uhm, a lack of God?

Now, in the interests of keeping the mods from jumping down your throat, do you want to explain what any of this has to do with creationism?

TC

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Brian Do you believe in the science of the spirit?

You mean psychology?

TC

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Brian If I said God is beautiful would that be acceptable?

I suppose a fictional character can be beautiful. However, I'd question your taste.

TC

[Brian]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal Once again, I don't have any truth of my own. Nor do I have the religious delusion that I should be a missionary for, uhm, a lack of God? Now, in the interests of keeping the mods from jumping down your throat, do you want to explain what any of this has to do with creationism? TC

Well first I wanted to see who it was that I am talking to and try to arrive on some level ground. We were at odds in the beginning and I used psychology tactics to get to level ground. This does not really have to do with creationism per say, but it does have to do with our attitudes towards people that come from different backgrounds. Creationist believe in the science of the spirit the exploration of the immaterial world and they believe the world was created because of the immaterial senses such as beauty and spirit and happiness. Those things exist and they believe they are created by a god. Whereas, evolutionists tend to deny the soul and concentrate on the physical realm. You have repeatedly refuted any interest in the immaterial until I pulled some thought from Plato and I quoted The Republic. Creationist live in the immaterial world that is their home which is why they continue to believe in Creationism. To get on the same level with a Creationist either the Creationist needs to bend to you or you need to bend to them, there is no other way.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Brian Well first I wanted to see who it was that I am talking to and try to arrive on some level ground. We were at odds in the beginning and I used psychology tactics to get to level ground. This does not really have to do with creationism per say, but it does have to do with our attitudes towards people that come from different backgrounds. Creationist believe in the science of the spirit the exploration of the immaterial world and they believe the world was created because of the immaterial senses such as beauty and spirit and happiness. Those things exist and they believe they are created by a god. Whereas, evolutionists tend to deny the soul and concentrate on the physical realm. You have repeatedly refuted any interest in the immaterial until I pulled some thought from Plato and I quoted The Republic. Creationist live in the immaterial world that is their home which is why they continue to believe in Creationism. To get on the same level with a Creationist either the Creationist needs to bend to you or you need to bend to them, there is no other way.

See, this is precisely where you're mistaken. You keep arguing for NOMA, but the Creationists won't have any of that. They don't want to be relegated to the land of psychology. They claim their pleasant-sounding ideas are literally true, in the physical world that we all share.

TC

[Brian]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal You mean psychology? TC

I thought that was the science of the mind?

[Brian]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal See, this is precisely where you're mistaken. You keep arguing for NOMA, but the Creationists won't have any of that. They don't want to be relegated to the land of psychology. They claim their pleasant-sounding ideas are literally true, in the physical world that we all share. TC

What about on an individual level? What is the purpose of a name if we are all just belonged to labeled groups?

[Brian]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal See, this is precisely where you're mistaken. You keep arguing for NOMA, but the Creationists won't have any of that. They don't want to be relegated to the land of psychology. They claim their pleasant-sounding ideas are literally true, in the physical world that we all share. TC

Also I agree that everyone has the right to imagination and can practice their imagination. I do not think we should restrict people in this for how would we ever handle them in the judicial system? We just have to personally understand for ourselves what we consider to be true and if we want to actively engage with others than that is our choice.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Brian I thought that was the science of the mind?

When you speak of the spirit, you are simply misidentifying the mind. The mind exists in terms of the brain, but the notion of a spirit abstracts the behavior of the brain and then omits its source, leaving you with the fallacious concept of a mind without a body.

TC

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Brian What about on an individual level? What is the purpose of a name if we are all just belonged to labeled groups?

No clue what you're getting at. You'll have to explain.

TC

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Brian Also I agree that everyone has the right to imagination and can practice their imagination. I do not think we should restrict people in this for how would we ever handle them in the judicial system? We just have to personally understand for ourselves what we consider to be true and if we want to actively engage with others than that is our choice.

Nobody can stop you from imagining stuff. It only becomes an issue when you violate a child's trust by indoctrinating them that what you imagine to be true, or when you try to pass laws based on the desires of your imaginary friends, or when you use your imagination as an excuse for various forms of bigotry and violence.

In the end, we hold each other responsible for the foreseeable consequences fo our choices. So while you have almost complete freedom in what you believe and only slightly limited freedom in what you say, when you cause harm by acting on your false beliefs, we blame you. In this way, you are responsible for the dangerous falsehoods you believe, even though belief itself is generally a private matter.

One example would be the children who have been killed due to their parents' willingness to substitute prayer for medicine or to treat mental illness as demonic possession.

TC

[SoylentGreen]

[quote=Brian;523446]I thought that was the science of the mind?[/QUOTE
Actually, no. Psychology is not a science.
Nor is there any such thing as a science of the spirit.

We were at odds in the beginning and I used psychology tactics to get to level ground.

You don't even know what psychology is apperantly if you think asking for some dictionary definitions is in any way a psychology tactic. Perhaps you were meaning that you were trying to psych him out . Which means your just playing mind games.

Creationist believe in the science of the spirit the exploration of the immaterial world

That is a pseudo science. In other words you borrow the word science and misapply it to your world of imagination.

Creationist live in the immaterial world

Where science doesn't exist.

To get on the same level with a Creationist either the Creationist needs to bend to you or you need to bend to them, there is no other way.

Why would I want to reduce myself to the level of your imagination that has no basis in science, and is purely fictional.
If creationists want to claim they have a science then they should learn what science is.

It's very simple, really. If a theory doesn't make testable predictions, or if the tests are not practical, or if the tests cannot lead to a clear outcome that supports or falsifies the theory, the theory is not scientific. This may come as a surprise, but very little of the theoretical content of human psychology or creationism meets this scientific criterion. As to the clinical practice of psychology, even less meets any reasonable definition of “scientific.”

[Brian]

[quote=SoylentGreen;523471]

Quote by: Brian I thought that was the science of the mind? Actually, no. Psychology is not a science. Nor is there any such thing as a science of the spirit.

Psychology is a discipline involving the scientific study of mental process and behavior. I may be referring to metaphysics or philosophy.. it may not be considered a science but religion deals with it a lot.

You don't even know what psychology is apperantly if you think asking for some dictionary definitions is in any way a psychology tactic. Perhaps you were meaning that you were trying to psych him out . Which means your just playing mind games.

I was studying the emotions, behavior, perception, and personality of the person I was debating and I knew that I had to get on the same terms with him in some kind of way. You forget that I used Plato.

That is a pseudo science. In other words you borrow the word science and misapply it to your world of imagination.

Philosophy is not imagination.

Where science doesn't exist.

At one time science meant "knowledge" we have come a long way from there.. what science covers greed, lust, pride, envy, love, life, beauty, or glory? Should these things be addressed? I do not see why they would not be addressed by science.

Why would I want to reduce myself to the level of your imagination that has no basis in science, and is purely fictional. If creationists want to claim they have a science then they should learn what science is.

It is a discipline.

It's very simple, really. If a theory doesn't make testable predictions, or if the tests are not practical, or if the tests cannot lead to a clear outcome that supports or falsifies the theory, the theory is not scientific. This may come as a surprise, but very little of the theoretical content of human psychology or creationism meets this scientific criterion. As to the clinical practice of psychology, even less meets any reasonable definition of “scientific.”

But at the same time that does not mean we should not study things that do not meet the scientific standard. What you are saying comes across that psychologists should abandoned their practices because it is not scientific and there is no importance of it in our society because it is not scientific. Is this what you are saying?

[SoylentGreen]

Brian; Psychology is a discipline involving the scientific study of mental process and behavior. I may be referring to metaphysics or philosophy.. it may not be considered a science but religion deals with it a lot.

It is not a scientific study

If a theory doesn't make testable predictions, or if the tests are not practical, or if the tests cannot lead to a clear outcome that supports or falsifies the theory, the theory is not scientific

.
Psychology uses statistical data , not empirical.

I was studying the emotions, behavior, perception, and personality of the person I was debating and I knew that I had to get on the same terms with him in some kind of way. You forget that I used Plato.

Plato gave us an ideology
And you cannot psychoanalyse the writings on a board with any of the accuracy that is needed for scientific evidence. What you were doing was playing a mind game.

Philosophy is not imagination.

And your imagination is not a philosophy.

At one time science meant "knowledge" we have come a long way from there.. what science covers greed, lust, pride, envy, love, life, beauty, or glory? Should these things be addressed? I do not see why they would not be addressed by science.

Beause science does not deal in the imaginary.



I

t is a discipline.

And when constantly misused by theists it becomes an excuse.

But at the same time that does not mean we should not study things that do not meet the scientific standard. What you are saying comes across that psychologists should abandoned their practices because it is not scientific and there is no importance of it in our society because it is not scientific. Is this what you are saying?

Do you not comprehend that science is not the only method of gaining information.

psychology is the sort of field that can describe things, , it cannot reliably explain what it has described. In science, descriptions are only a first step — explanations are essential: * An explanation, a theory, allows one to make a prediction about observations not yet made. * A prediction would permit a laboratory test that might support or falsify the underlying theory. * The possibility of falsification is what distinguishes science from cocktail chatter. This doesn't mean psychology lacks theories. It means the theories, when applied to humans, either cannot be tested in a scientifically rigorous way, or the tests fail without anyone noticing or caring. This explains why psychology's frequent theoretical failures tend to be discussed in a courtroom rather than a laboratory or a scientific journal. As with most professions, scientists have a private language, using terms that seem completely ordinary but that convey special meaning to other scientists. For example, when a scientist identifies a field as a "descriptive science," he is politely saying it is not a science.

* Is Psychology a science?

[gallo]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal If you want to read some high-quality Gould bashing, try "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", by Dennett, who happens to be friendly with Dawkins. Then again, if you had trouble with TSG, I'm not sure you'll be able to handle DDI. TC

I read Darwin's Dangerous Idea back around 1997 or so. I found it interesting. However, I didn't say I had trouble with TSG. I said, "I admire Dawkins a great deal and enjoy his writing, for the most part. "The Selfish Gene" was a bit outputting for me, perhaps because the personification of genes used to make a point. It interfered with my grasp of his premise." I should have said "off putting". I grasped what he was saying, I thought that the analogy was really bad. Dawkins, in fact, agrees with me.

For didactic purposes, I treated genes as though they were isolated units, acting independently. But of course they are not independent of one another, ... --The God Delusion, p 228

A gene is on an individual chromosome in an individual organism. It is not aware and takes no active role in it's own propagation. Genes as a whole make up the phenotype of an organism and the environment acts on that phenotype.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: gallo I read Darwin's Dangerous Idea back around 1997 or so. I found it interesting. However, I didn't say I had trouble with TSG. I said, "I admire Dawkins a great deal and enjoy his writing, for the most part. "The Selfish Gene" was a bit outputting for me, perhaps because the personification of genes used to make a point. It interfered with my grasp of his premise." I should have said "off putting". I grasped what he was saying, I thought that the analogy was really bad. Dawkins, in fact, agrees with me. A gene is on an individual chromosome in an individual organism. It is not aware and takes no active role in it's own propagation. Genes as a whole make up the phenotype of an organism and the environment acts on that phenotype.

Yes, some people seem to misunderstand the way he uses "selfishness" in this context, and that throws them off. I didn't have this problem, however.

TC

[Brian]

Where does information come from? If there was no information to study then there would be no science. Science is strict on how to interpret information as to what is real and what is not, but what happens to all that information that was deemed as false? Is it thrown out or considered to have an explanation for it? I find it hard to throw out everything that cannot be proven like love or phases of life or courage. What happens to the information that is deemed inappropriate to deal with scientifically?