Evolution is not really a theory

[AV1611VET]

Nando Roneteltap, you still haven't answered my question: But how can DNA and single celled organisms express free will, when they don't have the cognitive abilities to even know what a free will is?

You don't know my sister, or you woudn't be asking this.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

You are not reasoning properly. If you want to claim that free will exists the burden of proof lies upon you. When you utterly fail at supporting your claim it is not denial to say "I don't believe you."

Already answererd. We all basically have the same evidence of free will.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

if creation were true Christians could duplicate it in a lab......your level of logic

Creation isn't a scientific theory.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Create a star in a lab.

Creation isn't a scientific theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Already answererd. We all basically have the same evidence of free will.

So none then.

Okay, we have no evidence of free will, why believe that it exists?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Creation isn't a scientific theory.

That's true, it is a debunked religious belief. Still, you did not understand how that demand refuted your earlier claim.

 

[Belk]

Creation isn't a scientific theory.

Star formation is. Science is not limited to a laboratory no matter how many laymen demand it be so.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Star formation is. Science is not limited to a laboratory no matter how many laymen demand it be so.

Here's the fun part, we're discussing living organisms on this thread - not stars.

 

[Belk]

Here's the fun part, we're discussing living organisms on this thread - not stars.

That's nice. Dosen't change my point in any way shape or form.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

That's nice. Dosen't change my point in any way shape or form.

Perhaps start a new thread for your point... whatever it was.

 

[Belk]

Perhaps start a new thread for your point... whatever it was.

No, since it was pointing out how your claim that evolution must be observed in a lab to be valid is incorrect.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

No, since it was pointing out how your claim that evolution must be observed in a lab to be valid is incorrect.

No it didn't. And, again, if you want to discuss star formation - start a new thread.

 

[Belk]

No it didn't. And, again, if you want to discuss star formation - start a new thread.

Yes, it did. Do you want me to walk you through it? I would be happy to explain.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Yes, it did. Do you want me to walk you through it? I would be happy to explain.

Not discussing star formation with you any further on this thread. You may start a new thread if you desire to go on about it.

 

[Belk]

Not discussing star formation with you any further on this thread. You may start a new thread if you desire to go on about it.

I can go on about it in this thread as well. Do you wish to understand why it points out your error in claiming we must observe things in a lab in order to be science?

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

I can go on about it in this thread as well. Do you wish to understand why it points out your error in claiming we must observe things in a lab in order to be science?

Putting you on "ignore" now so as to no more contribute to your derailing of this thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Putting you on "ignore" now so as to no more contribute to your derailing of this thread.

Why not take him up on his offer? You might understand your error if you did so.

 

[Belk]

Putting you on "ignore" now so as to no more contribute to your derailing of this thread.

Ah well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

So none then.

Okay, we have no evidence of free will, why believe that it exists?

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.

 

[Shemjaza]

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.

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.