Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

[Oncedeceived]

These aren't even links, much less quotes. You cited these other experiments as support for your position so presumably you own or have read them and can provide pertinent quotes.

You still haven't explained to me how you would tell the difference between free will and chemicareaction. How do you know your preference for rocky road is more than a complex chemical reaction?

I don't have the material. You said you wanted material from him and I am finding articles online that mention him in them but nothing from him personally.

If you aren't interested in looking them up yourself that is fine. I can get some quotes but of course they are not in context and are just a page of quotes.

Although the content of consciousness depends in large measure on neuronal activity, awareness itself does not.To me, it seems more and more reasonable to suggest that the mind may be a distinct and different essence.
Read more at: http://www.azquotes.com/author/26586-Wilder_Penfield

The mind has intentionality, is intentionality a property or have a relation to anything physical? We are observers of our lives, when in any way is an observer part of the system it is observing? The brain has mapped and there is no area showing "decision making". We have mental states about physical things, but mental states are not physical things. Thoughts are not material or physical things. We have history of being the me inside the body we call I. It is a continuing experience of the I inside. We don't have periodic experiences that do not relate to the self that experiences it. Rationality is dependent upon free will and free thought, to claim that we are just our brain means that we do not hold rationality but we only think that which came prior allows us to think.

It is parsimonious to conclude that the mind, self and free will as well the ability to make rational decisions is in fact actual rather than an illusion.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

All right. Let's imagine that we perform experiment X and get result Y. Then we do the experiment again with the same result. Then our colleagues do it and come up with result Y. Again and again, we always get result Y. At some point we want to say that:

1. Experiment X always results in Y.
or
2. The next time I do experiment X, I will get result Y.

So this is easy enough to do. We can say:

"Since I have repeatedly gotten result Y from experiment X in the past, I will always (or the next time) get result Y from experiment X."

The problem with this is that the premises do not entail the conclusion. We know this because there are words in the conclusion that are not mentioned in any of the premises. Depending on whether we are using the strong or the weak claim, we are either using the word "always" or the phrase "the next time" in the conclusion when it is not justified by the premises.

So there is another premise... a missing premise. We call this premise the assumption. By explicitly stating the assumption, our argument becomes logically valid.

P1. I have performed experiment X in the past and gotten result Y.
P2. The past is a good guide to the future.
C. Therefore, I will get result Y in the future when I do experiment X.

Now that we have a valid logical argument, we have to justify premise 2. How can we determine that the past is a good guide to the future? Some people may suggest that it is easy to do so. Someone might well say, "Since the past has been a good guide to the future in the past, it will continue to be a good guide to the future in the future." Whoops! That's circular logic, and what we call begging the question. This is a formal logical fallacy.

To date, there is no solution to the problem of induction. However, most scientists claim that Bayesian statistics resolves the problem. If you believe so, and if you think you can effectively argue that point, then I would greatly enjoy debating the matter with you. So far, I have found no takers.

There is a perfectly simple way to solve the apparant "fallacy". Simply acknowledge that we are dealing, not with certainy, but with high probability. There. No fallacy. Once the probability is high enough, one can take a step of faith and act as if the induction is true. No fallacy in that.

Your own religious faith can claim nothing more logical than that.

 

[Zosimus]

It's not a logical fallacy. Life couldn't function if we didn't base expectations on previous outcomes. You couldn't even walk. Or breath.

Actually, I think you have it all backwards. First of all, as far as I know, I cannot choose to stop breathing. At a certain point my body seems to rebel and start breathing on its own no matter how hard I tell it to just not breathe.

Second, I don't know about you, but when I started trying to walk, I wasn't very good at it. In fact, I fell on my tush quite a bit. Now if I had just said, "Well, I've tried to walk and failed 10 times in a row. I guess I just can't walk" then perhaps I would have been making what you deem to be a logical choice. In reality, however, I was undismayed by repeated failures and eventually learned how to walk.

So no, relying on the past as a good predictor of the future would not result in people failing to walk. It would result in them never learning to do so.

 

[Zosimus]

There is a perfectly simple way to solve the apparant "fallacy". Simply acknowledge that we are dealing, not with certainy, but with high probability. There. No fallacy. Once the probability is high enough, one can take a step of faith and act as if the induction is true. No fallacy in that.

Your own religious faith can claim nothing more logical than that.

How do you calculate the probability? How can you say, for example, that based on your experience that it's more (or less) likely that dragons or unicorns exist?

 

[joshua 1 9]

I would assume that you are claiming that our free will is only an illusion, an illusion so compelling that we don't realize it exists?

The Bible says that God gives us a choice. Sickness or health, blessing or curse, poverty or prosperity. He encourages us to make the right choice, to choose life and live, to choose to be healthy and to choose His prosperity, but that is our choice to make. He does not decide for us.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The Bible says that God gives us a choice. Sickness or health, blessing or curse, poverty or prosperity. He encourages us to make the right choice, to choose life and live, to choose to be healthy and to choose His prosperity, but that is our choice to make. He does not decide for us.

So how does that relate to the above quote?

 

[joshua 1 9]

So how does that relate to the above quote?

What verse are you referring to in the Bible for free will?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Provide some examples please.

People will die if they believe something is true, few if any will die if they know something is a lie.

You want examples of people that die for their beliefs?
Really?

You can't come up with such examples yourself?
Do you watch the news like...ever?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have read every word in the Bible AT LEAST five times. I know because I underline as I go and I actually have 7 Bibles that I have wore out reading them. I suggest that people read the Bible for themselves and be lead by the Holy Spirit of God. It is God that will help us to understand what we are reading. WE do not need other people to tell us what the Bible says. Of course it is always nice to know what God is doing in other peoples lives, but we should not rely on anyone for our understanding other then God. He will supply us with all the wisdom, knowledge and understanding that we would ever need.

Clearly, this is not true.
If it were true, then there wouldn't be more christian denominations then there are sentences in the bible.

 

[The Cadet]

Which of the multiple logical fallacies shall we investigate?

The problem of induction? Yeah, it's a problem. That's why in science, we talk about probabilities. Given what we know, it is most likely that walking out the door would be preferable to leaving via the 5th-floor window. It could be that gravity suddenly stops working, and I end up with a much faster route to my 5th-floor workplace in the inner city. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that you probably don't live your life like that, because if you did take those odd chances that the problem of induction says that science cannot rule out, you wouldn't last very long. Indeed, in every realm of thought, we necessarily are talking about probabilities, because solipsism completely rules out the possibility of "truth". And we constantly have to make decisions based on incomplete data.

I honestly don't care how many logical fallacies you think are involved. It works. It constantly makes our lives better in demonstrable, trivially observable ways. If you disagree, I welcome you to remove your computer, cell phone, games console, and whatever other electronic goods you may have in your house from your life. After all, they are all the direct byproduct of scientists exploring the natural world with the scientific method, and if you think science doesn't work, why would you want them?

 

[Jan Volkes]

The Christian worldview is internally and externally cohesive with reality.

If that's true then all religions are internally and externally cohesive with reality because they are all saying virtually the same thing, every one of them are about seemingly non-existent supernatural beings affecting our lives and the world we live in.

 

[Armoured]

There is a perfectly simple way to solve the apparant "fallacy". Simply acknowledge that we are dealing, not with certainy, but with high probability. There. No fallacy. Once the probability is high enough, one can take a step of faith and act as if the induction is true. No fallacy in that.

Your own religious faith can claim nothing more logical than that.

bingo.

 

[Armoured]

Actually, I think you have it all backwards. First of all, as far as I know, I cannot choose to stop breathing. At a certain point my body seems to rebel and start breathing on its own no matter how hard I tell it to just not breathe.

Second, I don't know about you, but when I started trying to walk, I wasn't very good at it. In fact, I fell on my tush quite a bit. Now if I had just said, "Well, I've tried to walk and failed 10 times in a row. I guess I just can't walk" then perhaps I would have been making what you deem to be a logical choice. In reality, however, I was undismayed by repeated failures and eventually learned how to walk.

So no, relying on the past as a good predictor of the future would not result in people failing to walk. It would result in them never learning to do so.

Ugh.

 

[Zosimus]

The problem of induction? Yeah, it's a problem. That's why in science, we talk about probabilities. Given what we know, it is most likely that walking out the door would be preferable to leaving via the 5th-floor window. It could be that gravity suddenly stops working, and I end up with a much faster route to my 5th-floor workplace in the inner city. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that you probably don't live your life like that, because if you did take those odd chances that the problem of induction says that science cannot rule out, you wouldn't last very long. Indeed, in every realm of thought, we necessarily are talking about probabilities, because solipsism completely rules out the possibility of "truth". And we constantly have to make decisions based on incomplete data.

I honestly don't care how many logical fallacies you think are involved. It works. It constantly makes our lives better in demonstrable, trivially observable ways. If you disagree, I welcome you to remove your computer, cell phone, games console, and whatever other electronic goods you may have in your house from your life. After all, they are all the direct byproduct of scientists exploring the natural world with the scientific method, and if you think science doesn't work, why would you want them?

You said, "It works." You even underlined it, bolded it, and italicized it. That's a marvelous statement of faith. It reminds me of every time a Christian assures me that accepting Jesus works or that the Bible is true. It's charming. It may even be true. However, simply asserting it (yes, even in boldface) does not make it true.

However, I'm tired of people saying that it's about probabilities. How many times have I heard Dawkins followers claim that it's very, very unlikely that God exists. Then I say, "Show your calculations." There are none. It's a bunch of bulls... er... malarkey.

Do you think you have a very high probability that theory x is true? Great -- show your work. I want to see those calculations.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You want examples of people that die for their beliefs?
Really?

You can't come up with such examples yourself?
Do you watch the news like...ever?

No, provide examples where people knew the claims they were dying for were false.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You said, "It works." You even underlined it, bolded it, and italicized it. That's a marvelous statement of faith. It reminds me of every time a Christian assures me that accepting Jesus works or that the Bible is true. It's charming. It may even be true. However, simply asserting it (yes, even in boldface) does not make it true.

However, I'm tired of people saying that it's about probabilities. How many times have I heard Dawkins followers claim that it's very, very unlikely that God exists. Then I say, "Show your calculations." There are none. It's a bunch of bulls... er... malarkey.

Do you think you have a very high probability that theory x is true? Great -- show your work. I want to see those calculations.

Exactly! I want to see it too.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If that's true then all religions are internally and externally cohesive with reality because they are all saying virtually the same thing, every one of them are about seemingly non-existent supernatural beings affecting our lives and the world we live in.

That statement just shows your ignorance of religions in the world, but that just confirms what I already knew.

 

[crjmurray]

No, provide examples where people knew the claims they were dying for were false.

Ahahahahaha

 

[AV1611VET]

Ahahahahaha

Why are you laughing?

That should be easy enough if you go by Mark Twain's definition of faith.

 

[The Cadet]

You said, "It works." You even underlined it, bolded it, and italicized it. That's a marvelous statement of faith.

No, it isn't. In every aspect of my life, I use technology that would not be possible without the rigorous application of the scientific method. You obviously use it during your free time quite extensively, and if I may be so bold, do you walk to work, and did your job exist in its current form 500 years ago? In every single part of my life, the results of the scientific method are at work, and I can check and test them to see if they are or not. What do you want from me, exactly? What do you expect me to do, demonstrate all of modern science from the ground up?