Evolution is not really a theory

[Subduction Zone]

You are just announcing yourself as an anti-scientist. It's just a psychological condition of denial that you put forward as if it was an argument.

Meanwhile everyone who accepts the fact choosing is real, and pays mind to how things are chosen in the universe, also supports some form of intelligent design theory. Because the evidence is consistent with it and points to it.

Your evaluation of creationism is meaningless because of you denial of free will. We are not communicating.

Hardly. I seem to understand The concept of evidence and the scientific method much better than you do. That is why I keep asking for evidence and you do not seem to be able to produce any.

Please don't make false claims about me. Let me explain how debates work, if a person makes a definitive claim such as "Free will exists" and others challenge him on that claim the person making the positive claim has the burden of proof. You do not seem to be able to support your claim at all, so you cannot declare it to be true and expect anyone to treat any of your claims with respect.

The reason that we are not communicating is due to your inability to support or explain any of your claims.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

The bit that I think everyone is having difficulty with is:
"pays mind to how things are chosen in the universe"

You have not made that clear. It's easy to find specific examples of choice, but you are implying that there is a general underlying truth that I can't see evidence for or even understand how it is supposed to work.

It almost seems like in your theology/philosophy choice is an analogue for "spirit" or "life force".

This is not an attempt to be flippant or insulting. I honestly find your explanations very unclear.

You simply deny free will, and never have taken the knowledge about how anything is chosen seriously. It's just more psychological condition on display, and no argumentation.

 

[Belk]

You simply deny free will, and never have taken the knowledge about how anything is chosen seriously. It's just more psychological condition on display, and no argumentation.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

Hitchens's razor - Wikipedia

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You simply deny free will, and never have taken the knowledge about how anything is chosen seriously. It's just more psychological condition on display, and no argumentation.

Why do you not understand that literally no-one else on this thread understands what you are saying, and that we just want you to explain what you are saying in simple, scientific terms?

 

[AV1611VET]

[nevermind]

 

[Belk]

[nevermind]

I never do.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

Why do you not understand that literally no-one else on this thread understands what you are saying, and that we just want you to explain what you are saying in simple, scientific terms?

You forget to mention you all deny free will. All who don't understand what I say, also all deny free will. Which is a psychological condition.

 

[Belk]

You forget to mention you all deny free will. All who don't understand what I say, also all deny free will. Which is a psychological condition.

I'm calling Poe.

 

[Speedwell]

You forget to mention you all deny free will. All who don't understand what I say, also all deny free will. Which is a psychological condition.

It appears that you think that anybody who disagrees with you about anything denies free will.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You forget to mention you all deny free will. All who don't understand what I say, also all deny free will. Which is a psychological condition.

It's not denying free will. It's asking you provide evidence of how DNA or a single celled organism can express free will.

Either that, you're being deliberately obtuse and condescending (an alternative way to say that you're a mythical creature that lives under bridges).

 

[Shemjaza]

You simply deny free will, and never have taken the knowledge about how anything is chosen seriously. It's just more psychological condition on display, and no argumentation.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that free will is an absolute fact. Humans and other conscious entities have freedom of choice.

Can you explain how that applies to non conscious things like single cells and long chain molecules?

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

For the sake of argument, let's assume that free will is an absolute fact. Humans and other conscious entities have freedom of choice.

Can you explain how that applies to non conscious things like single cells and long chain molecules?

You should not talk about things like consciousness when you deny free will.

I already explained 3 times, the stuff for the DNA bases is made available in a way that each base is equally likely. Then you get a future of zillions of possible permutations of DNA, and then it's chosen. This is not a complete hypothesis but it shows the power of choosing, that you can have zillions of permutations in the future.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You should not talk about things like consciousness when you deny free will.

I already explained 3 times, the stuff for the DNA bases is made available in a way that each base is equally likely. Then you get a future of zillions of possible permutations of DNA, and then it's chosen. This is not a complete hypothesis but it shows the power of choosing, that you can have zillions of permutations in the future.

You keep making this claim, and yet you provide absolutely zero evidence for you claim.
Like, and I've asked this probably a dozen times now, how does DNA CHOOSE anything?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You should not talk about things like consciousness when you deny free will.

I already explained 3 times, the stuff for the DNA bases is made available in a way that each base is equally likely. Then you get a future of zillions of possible permutations of DNA, and then it's chosen. This is not a complete hypothesis but it shows the power of choosing, that you can have zillions of permutations in the future.

Flapping one's arms is not explaining. When one explains specific claims are supported by evidence.

And one point, people disagreeing with you is not "denying free will". It would be nice if you could support your claims. Generally in debates those that cannot support their claims turn out to be wrong.

 

[sesquiterpene]

You should not talk about things like consciousness when you deny free will.

I already explained 3 times, the stuff for the DNA bases is made available in a way that each base is equally likely. Then you get a future of zillions of possible permutations of DNA, and then it's chosen. This is not a complete hypothesis but it shows the power of choosing, that you can have zillions of permutations in the future.

Just out of curiosity, are you the same Nando Ronteltap who was posting on talk.origins many years ago? I stopped reading it when I lost my last newsfeed, probably at least 15 years ago. It lives on on Google groups, but it's never been quite the same.

 

[HitchSlap]

You forget to mention you all deny free will. All who don't understand what I say, also all deny free will. Which is a psychological condition.

I have a psychological condition that rejects metanonsense.

 

[lasthero]

Oh boy.

neophilosophical.blogspot.com/2014/01/an-apology-to-mohammad-nur-syamsu.html?m=1

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

This is not how argumentation works. Deliver someone who straightforwardly accepts free will, then I have someone to debate with. I cannot debate a psychological condition of free will denial.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is not how argumentation works. Deliver someone who straightforwardly accepts free will, then I have someone to debate with. I cannot debate a psychological condition of free will denial.

We're not debating free will. That's for a whole different topic board. We're questioning your claim that single celled organisms and DNA can express free will.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

We're not debating free will. That's for a whole different topic board. We're questioning your claim that single celled organisms and DNA can express free will.

That's what I said, I am not debating free will, so provide me with someone who straightforwardly accepts free will to debate with. I cannot make argument with someone who is emotionally triggered whenever choice is referred to as a reality of physics.