Please do not confuse form with function, here. If we were face to face, we'd probably have a stimulated but completely friendly discussion going. It's just that I like to answer concretely, in response to specific statements or questions, instead of writing a semi-monologous "meta-answer".
Everybody has a POV. Mine is based on high school and university studies, experiments, and experience. I'm not just "swimming with the mainstream" either - I've never done that carelessly, as my high school Biology teacher would testify. I still vividly remember the two of us arguing in class on the subject of "are animals intelligent" for over an hour...Omega wrote:This is based on your own POV.
Are you including yourself in the group of "laymen"? I admit I never graduated in Biology, but I surely do feel competent to discuss the issue. To follow up on your example, I learned enough to not assume a polar bear's hair is white merely because it appears white. I know about refraction, I know for example that a peacock's feathers aren't colored either (not the least because I had them under the microscope).What you think you see in your children may just as well be an illusory correlation, like assuming a polar bear's hair must be white, but in reality it is not white, it is clear; you just didn't know the facts, so you based what you thought was rational (though wrong) in the place of fact, but on accident. Which is why laymen should never debate a scientific matter.
That is just a naive example, but I think it highlights my point: Please, tell me what distinguishes the two of us so fundamentally that your studies made you "see the truth" while mine only blinded me?
So whoever is more fanatical in his research is automatically right because no-one else can know as much as he? I challenge that claim.I hardly consider attending a lecture as qualifying you as an expert, for 1) you may have taken notes, but exactly what percentage of it does your mind currently posses? Your college studies on this subject stopped 12 years ago. You can say as a parent your education of human behavior has carried on steadily, but I would find that hard as you haven't the time to devote to truly studying the child's behavior, nor have you tested the child; or at least you failed to mention that.
Perhaps I have remained liberal of mind, open to take in other parts of life, learn about other subjects, hear other standpoints, always questioning what I know and extending my knowledge, instead of getting obsessed with a specific idea?
I always considered it a bad thing when someone thinks he has found "a truth", and sets out trying to prove it, to the point of denying others the right of discussion. The scientific mind is happy either way - when a hypothesis is proven or falsified - because it means you know more.
And if no proof for or against something can be found, most times it is better to let it rest as "unproven" and open your mind to all the other wonders around you. I happen to know some things about astrophysics, nuclear physics, martial arts, and history - all of them fascinating subjects I would have missed if I had let a single subject dominate my mind...
I may not. I think I have, however. Same goes for my wife, who has studied Sociology. We're pretty self-reflected in how we raise our kids.For example, you may have noticed that you had to teach your children not to put things in their mouths lest they eat something awful.
If this is true, then you have instilled in your child the seed of a more complexed notion, boundaries perhaps. You may not have noticed just how much you are influencing your child's development/identity nor foreseen just how similar you and your children will be in time.
See above on "I see the light, you are blind". You sound pretty cavalier here.I don't see why I should change my point of view based on seemingly stale knowledge of a subject that I am actively studying.
Do I get this correct - you believe that God made life in a way that allows species to adapt to an Ice Age, but you do not believe that this adaption eventually makes new species appear, that any new species happened because God willed it so?I take the same position as Stephen Hawking's in relation to his Origin of the Universe Theory, as I do not think that macro-evolution exists. As for micro-evolution I have already taken a stand for that side as I totally believe in micro-evolution. This is what is beautiful about God's design because it was made with the ability to adapt, so that the living creatures of the earth could survive the Ice Age, and Deforestation, diet change, elevation change, etc.
That's a school of thought I have severe problems with to understand. And before you ask, no, I'm not of an Abrahamic persuasion. I can't really see how you could accept the short-term, but do not believe it might have long-term impacts...
Which are... fake?You already have the primitive brain even before the aforementioned and that controls the bodies major things like the breathing, movement, etc. Perhaps lurking in here is the creatures primal emotions such as mad, glad, sad.
I really don't get what your standpoint is, exactly.
Oedipus Complex is a concept from Freud's psychoanalysis. Which happens to fail on psychic disorders... where are you coming from, here?It's usually between this age when a child will begin demonstrating parental attachment classified as the Oedipus Complex. [...] Furthermore, and lastly, your theory doesn't support cases involving multiple personalities (or bi-polar disorder), phobias, mental disorders, etc.
It happens in some specimens of a species (not only humans and apes but other animals too). Obviously it is a severe evolutional disadvantage, which is why no species will ever "evolve to prefer the same sex". (Besides, in an open and enlightened discussion, I strongly object against calling a so-far unfalsified hypothesis a "myth").Your theory doesn't support homosexuality, can you tell me how living creatures who need the opposite sex to procreate can somehow evolve to prefer the same sex? No you cannot at all explain that, because it doesn't suit the macro-evolution myth.
Science as a whole isn't sure about the cause(s) of homo- or bisexuality, so I find it rather daring to suggest a genetic cause - which you do if you discuss it in the course of evolution.
Let's turn this around: If you believe in ID, what is your explanation for homo- or bisexuality?
The alternative would be that emotions are within the "soul". Which I do happen to believe in, but which no-one has found any proof for so far, either.Therefore, emotions are fake. I don't know how else to describe it, because it is nothing more than an electro-signal interpreted by different parts of the brain which are then recognized somewhere else and you act upon it either out of confusion or from experience.
Is it really important whether emotions are a mixture of neural impulses and hormones or some tingling in your aura, as long as they are genuine? I mean, that's what makes a character, in human or animal, isn't it?
*shakes head*...and then around your mid twenties you start taking more control over who you are. Thus, later in your life the more advanced your emotions become such as developing Mysophobia.
Phobias are "advanced"?
Parents have a huge influence on what a person you become, and it can take many years for you to "take more control" if you don't like the direction your parents have been nudging you. But that doesn't mean your emotions are less advanced as a child. Less directed, more confused, less controlled, yes. But I would say a child has even stronger and more varied emotions than any (normal) grown-up, simply because they don't have the ratio to hold their feelings in check. Which goes somewhat contrary to what I feel is your angle on this subject.
