Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 106 of 224 (480015)
08-31-2008 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Syamsu
08-31-2008 2:25 PM


Re: Scientific Theory?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Syamsu, posted 08-31-2008 2:25 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Syamsu, posted 08-31-2008 3:44 PM Straggler has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 107 of 224 (480016)
08-31-2008 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Straggler
08-31-2008 3:27 PM


Re: Scientific Theory?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2008 3:27 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2008 3:54 PM Syamsu has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 108 of 224 (480021)
08-31-2008 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Syamsu
08-31-2008 3:44 PM


Re: Scientific Theory?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Syamsu, posted 08-31-2008 3:44 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Syamsu, posted 08-31-2008 3:58 PM Straggler has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 109 of 224 (480022)
08-31-2008 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Straggler
08-31-2008 3:54 PM


Re: Scientific Theory?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2008 3:54 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2008 4:07 PM Syamsu has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 110 of 224 (480027)
08-31-2008 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Syamsu
08-31-2008 3:58 PM


Re: Scientific Theory?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Syamsu, posted 08-31-2008 3:58 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Syamsu, posted 08-31-2008 4:12 PM Straggler has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 111 of 224 (480028)
08-31-2008 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Straggler
08-31-2008 4:07 PM


Re: Scientific Theory?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2008 4:07 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by dokukaeru, posted 08-31-2008 4:25 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 113 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2008 4:26 PM Syamsu has replied

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 4615 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 112 of 224 (480032)
08-31-2008 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Syamsu
08-31-2008 4:12 PM


Re: Scientific Theory?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Syamsu, posted 08-31-2008 4:12 PM Syamsu has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 113 of 224 (480034)
08-31-2008 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Syamsu
08-31-2008 4:12 PM


Good Planets and Evil Toothbrushes
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Syamsu, posted 08-31-2008 4:12 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Syamsu, posted 08-31-2008 4:51 PM Straggler has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 114 of 224 (480039)
08-31-2008 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by dokukaeru
08-31-2008 3:22 PM


Re: Rubbish Syamsu
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by dokukaeru, posted 08-31-2008 3:22 PM dokukaeru has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by dokukaeru, posted 08-31-2008 5:02 PM Syamsu has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 115 of 224 (480040)
08-31-2008 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Straggler
08-31-2008 4:26 PM


Re: Good Planets and Evil Toothbrushes
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2008 4:26 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Larni, posted 08-31-2008 5:03 PM Syamsu has replied
 Message 118 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2008 5:32 PM Syamsu has replied

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 4615 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 116 of 224 (480043)
08-31-2008 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Syamsu
08-31-2008 4:35 PM


Re: Rubbish Syamsu
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Syamsu, posted 08-31-2008 4:35 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Syamsu, posted 08-31-2008 6:41 PM dokukaeru has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 117 of 224 (480044)
08-31-2008 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Syamsu
08-31-2008 4:51 PM


Re: Good Planets and Evil Toothbrushes
Hi Syamsu, long time listener 1446th time caller!
You are saying inanimate onjects are capable of good and evil?
Edited by Larni, : Post count

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Syamsu, posted 08-31-2008 4:51 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Syamsu, posted 08-31-2008 6:26 PM Larni has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 118 of 224 (480049)
08-31-2008 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Syamsu
08-31-2008 4:51 PM


Re: Good Planets and Evil Toothbrushes
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Syamsu, posted 08-31-2008 4:51 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Kapyong, posted 08-31-2008 6:29 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 121 by Syamsu, posted 08-31-2008 6:32 PM Straggler has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 119 of 224 (480057)
08-31-2008 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Larni
08-31-2008 5:03 PM


Re: Good Planets and Evil Toothbrushes
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Larni, posted 08-31-2008 5:03 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2008 6:40 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 149 by Larni, posted 09-01-2008 6:43 AM Syamsu has not replied

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3443 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 120 of 224 (480060)
08-31-2008 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Straggler
08-31-2008 5:32 PM


Re: Good Planets and Evil Toothbrushes
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2008 5:32 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2008 6:51 PM Kapyong has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024