|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I was just pointing out, for the hundredth time or so, that scientists must be subjective about why questions Why do planets orbit the sun? That is a why question that it is totally posible to be wholly objective about.
That is the rule in science, you cannot make objective statements about good and evil, and that means you cannot make objective statements about why one instead of the other alternative is realized in a choice. But planets have no choices and are capable of no good or evil. It is you that is incomprehensively claiming that they do and that they are.
For the 5th time, it's probably so that probalistic aspects of GR are translated into freedom of the system in anticipation theory What probabalistic aspects of GR? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
So GR does not neccesarily give exact predictions in the first place. Which of the predictions of GR can anticipation theory improve upon?
Now if you all could just remember these things: - alternatives are in the future - the act of realizing an alternative is a decision - it is not possible to make objective statements about why one or the other alternative is realized But not all future possibilities are due to decision making are they? How do our objective scientific theories manage to predict so accurately future state of systems if there are subjective decisions being made by the inanimate objects involved?
For people who quite evidently have no theoretical framework to fall back on for as far as knowledge about freedom is concerned, you learned nothing about it in school or college, you should all present a more studious attitude. For someone who quite evidently has no scientific knowledge and little grasp even of the theory they are advocating you seem very sure that the theory in question is A) Scientifically valid and B) True. To anyone vaguely objective it is quite obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about and that the theory you have described is merely a crutch for your wider irrational belief system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
For the millionth time you cannot say as a matter of scientific fact, that planets are neither good or evil. Probably it is in the faq.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
For the millionth time you cannot say as a matter of scientific fact, that planets are neither good or evil. You have now claimed that planets (and all other inanimate objects) are capable of decisions, love and now good and evil. What does a morally good planet choose to do?Which of the known planets would you describe as evil? This converstaion is ridiculous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
For the billionth and 1 time, I have claimed that good and evil are subjective, and therefore outside of science. Look at the faq it's very probably in there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
For the billionth and 1 time, I have claimed that good and evil are subjective, and therefore outside of science Well if you want to claim that toothbrushes are capable of evil then it seems that we can at least both agree that this is a wholly unscientific conclusion.
Look at the faq it's very probably in there. Do you have anything of your own to say on this topic? Or are you just going to repeatedly refer to flawed paper that you are not even sure contains the required answers and which you do not even actually understand yourself?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
It is not unscientific that toothbrushes are evil, it is just outside of science. Some of your opinions about good and evil are unscientific because you assert them as objective.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dokukaeru Member (Idle past 4645 days) Posts: 129 From: ohio Joined: |
Doku writes: You sir(or madam), are delusional. I take this back.You sir(or madam), are a delusional idiot. Want to try and address Message 101 or Message 105?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
It is not unscientific that toothbrushes are evil, it is just outside of science. What? How can something be outside of science whilst also being scientific?
Some of your opinions about good and evil are unscientific because you assert them as objective. Which opinions exactly?I have asserted no opinions about good and evil as being anything other than subjective. However it is an objective conclusion that inanimate objects do not make decisions and are therefore incapable of good and evil. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Scientists are people too, and they are allowed to present their personal opinion about what's good or not. They are just not allowed to make a theory about it. Such as it is an established fact that there is neither good or evil in the universe, except for people.
You said that since other mammals maintained the vit-c gene, that it could also have persisted in people. So it was a decision between alternatives. That is what you said, but probably you said it, not understanding what you said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Thats smart, and it would take some explaining why that also isnt allowed, but its not so smart that you are simply positing a science of good and evil. As before in creationism there is no such problem, because there is a clear division between the spiritual and the material.
So having established that you do indeed make objective statements about good and evil, I have explained the root of your hostility to theories about freedom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dokukaeru Member (Idle past 4645 days) Posts: 129 From: ohio Joined: |
The vitamin c genes are still in humans. One has mutated into a non-functioning gene (a psuedogene).
You still have done nothing to answer the question in Message 101 I refer back to my conclusion in Message 112 Got in new rubbish to spread on this fire Syamsu?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Hi Syamsu, long time listener 1446th time caller!
You are saying inanimate onjects are capable of good and evil? Edited by Larni, : Post count
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Thats smart, and it would take some explaining why that also isnt allowed, but its not so smart that you are simply positing a science of good and evil. No. I am telling you that toothbrushes and planets are incapable of good and evil due to their quite evident inability to make choices.
So having established that you do indeed make objective statements about good and evil, I have explained the root of your hostility to theories about freedom. My opposition to freedom theory has nothing whatsover to do with good or evil and everything to do with the insanity of the idea that toothpicks make decisions and choices (moral or otherwise).
As before in creationism there is no such problem, because there is a clear division between the spiritual and the material. Hmmmm. I would love it if the majority of creationists did subscribe to your idea of plant-pots facing moral dilemmas but alas I fear that your views are uniquely your own.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
According to Stragglers science these things are not capable of good and evil. So we are just discussung Stagglers science of good and evil in the science thread. I wisely made no mention about my personal opinion of toothbrushes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3472 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Hi all,
Post 104 : I was just pointing out, for the hundredth time or so... Post 107 : For the millionth time... Post 109 : For the billionth and 1 time... Iasion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024