Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 3

Pages: (501) < ... 147 148 149 150 151 [152] 153 154 155 156 157 ... >

Badger3k Posts: 861 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,10:05    Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 18 2010,07:57) Quote (Maya @ Feb. 18 2010,06:20) Quote (MichaelJ @ Feb. 18 2010,05:47) To me "free will" is a meaningless concept. I think that free will as proposed by the UDiots can not be defined without God. Thank you.  I didn't want to come across as the geek who hasn't read enough philosophy, but I've never heard a coherent definition of "free will." I am concerned also.   Does this mean that we are about to be inundated by IDiots writing books about No Free Will, to go along with all the words wasted about No Free Lunch proving ID?   Then do we "change over time" to No Free Willy? We already have a "No Free Willy" - or, more often, "No Free Billy" -------------- "Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,10:08    Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 18 2010,09:54) The argument over free will assumes there is an agent separate from the physical body (brain/mind). Any system, whether human or animal, mechanical or biological, whose behavioral tendencies are modified by experience could be said to have free will. If you analyze less stupid cases than the baby in the microwave, the issues can be made clearer. Suppose the decision is whether to eat a second donut. The decision rests on the consequences, pleasure vs weight gain. Humans seem to have the ability to observe themselves weighing the consequences, so we "feel" like we are making a decision. But many animals can be observed weighing consequences. Cats or dogs deciding whether to approach a strange human, for example. The weighing of consequences is a major part of what brains do. The ability to weigh consequences obviously exists on a continuum, correlated with brain size and structure. Morality is not a special case. It merely invokes its own set of consequences, some learned through socialization and some hard wired as a result of evolution. I suspect the hard wired part varies from individual to individual, just like other traits. We have laws because some people lack compassion and empathy. Most people would gain no pleasure from microwaving a baby, and considerable pain. For those who lack this internal compass, we have laws and all-seeing sky-daddies. I don't understand--are you saying there is free will or not? I'm saying there is and have offered a model. It may be a crappy model, but people should say, a la Provine, that there is no free will, or they should say there is, and offer a model for how it operates. If they are pure naturalists, their model, obviously, must have only natural causes. I don't think your example was "less stupid" than the baby in the microwave, which was to demonstrate moral inability not free will (perhaps I wasn't clear) and I don't think your example of the donut makes anything clearer. -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,10:13    Quote (keiths @ Feb. 18 2010,10:03) Quote (dheddle @ Feb. 18 2010,07:33) Poor Judas. His actions were ordained--and yet he chose and must, barring some unrecorded conversion, pay. Thems the rules. Interesting.  That makes you a compatibilist. I guess so. I do think your will is free but determined. But the point is that it is not determined by God the puuppet master, or a cosmic differential equation with or without quantum fluctuations--it is self-determined. It is free only in the sense there is no external agent causing me to type this post. Instead, all things considered, there is nothing I want to do more at this instant than type this post, so I type this post. -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,10:18    Quote (dheddle @ Feb. 18 2010,08:13) Quote (keiths @ Feb. 18 2010,10:03) Quote (dheddle @ Feb. 18 2010,07:33) Poor Judas. His actions were ordained--and yet he chose and must, barring some unrecorded conversion, pay. Thems the rules. Interesting.  That makes you a compatibilist. I guess so. I do think your will is free but determined. But the point is that it is not determined by God the puuppet master, or a cosmic differential equation with or without quantum fluctuations--it is self-determined. It is free only in the sense there is no external agent causing me to type this post. Instead, all things considered, there is nothing I want to do more at this instant than type this post, so I type this post. Wait.  Then what do you mean when you say that Judas' actions were ordained?  Ordained by whom, if not by God? Ordained by Judas? -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

Joy Posts: 188 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,10:35    Richardthughes: Quote Christianity is an economy based on suffering. I thought that was health care. A futures market in human suffering that amounts to 17.3% of GDP...

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,11:04    Quote I don't understand--are you saying there is free will or not? I think the question is defective. People have been tossing this around for a couple thousand years without resolution or progress. One definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over with the expectation that next time the outcome will be different. That pretty much sums up what I think about the free will debate. I do think, however, that you can make an operational definition of free will. It won't satisfy philosophers and theologians, but it has the advantage of having observable and testable components. My operational definition of free will is that a free agent is one that modifies itself or its behavior as a result of consequences or experience. My definition does not require invisible agents or unobservable events. Species, for example, have free will under my definition, because they are modified by selection. Animals with brains of a minimal complexity have free will because their behavior changes as a result of experience. A free act is a bet placed on an uncertain outcome, or the result of weighing conflicting outcomes. Looking for a deciding agent is as futile and unproductive as looking for the cause of mutations. It's irrelevant. there doesn't need to be a deciding agent. the only requirement is that the system learns, or changes as a result of outcomes. To be more specific, the deciding state is preserved. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,11:38    Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 18 2010,06:04)     Quote I don't understand--are you saying there is free will or not? I think the question is defective. People have been tossing this around for a couple thousand years without resolution or progress. One definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over with the expectation that next time the outcome will be different. That pretty much sums up what I think about the free will debate. I do think, however, that you can make an operational definition of free will. It won't satisfy philosophers and theologians, but it has the advantage of having observable and testable components. My operational definition of free will is that a free agent is one that modifies itself or its behavior as a result of consequences or experience. My definition does not require invisible agents or unobservable events. Species, for example, have free will under my definition, because they are modified by selection. Animals with brains of a minimal complexity have free will because their behavior changes as a result of experience. A free act is a bet placed on an uncertain outcome, or the result of weighing conflicting outcomes. Looking for a deciding agent is as futile and unproductive as looking for the cause of mutations. It's irrelevant. there doesn't need to be a deciding agent. the only requirement is that the system learns, or changes as a result of outcomes. To be more specific, the deciding state is preserved. In essence, does anyone, anywhere, really not believe sentient beings can make choices. Even an E. coli bacillus can choose to maintain itself in prime nutrient concentration by resorting to a simple strategy of "swim and tumble". The only living person I can recall offhand who maintains there is strict determinism is John Davison. But, why does it matter to Dembski? How does arguing over the reality of free will help ID?

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,11:38    "It seems to me impossible for there to be any non-supernatural explanation of free will" - dheddle, upthread somewhere I have looked at this and thought about it, but I still don't have a clue why anyone would say this. I do understand that a definition of "free will" would be useful in proceeding, but I do think that the definition will include a deity, and so you just smuggle in that conclusion with the definition. Can you elaborate, Dave? It seems to me that free will is simply a behavior, and behaviors can be explained by natural mechanisms. So even if we don't have an explanation for this particular behavior yet, why is it special? -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,11:52    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2010,09:58) I'd be up for a free will thread is anyone else is. (I was destined to write that!). Also, redemption by proxy and original sin seem both logically and ethically incoherent to me. Christianity is an economy based on suffering. I think you are pre-ordanined to 1.  Put baby in microwave. 2.  Heat, uncovered at 50% power for 3o seconds 3.  Start ATBC thread about Free Will / Predestination/ Your Favorite Calvinist 4.  Enjoy! -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,12:06    Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 18 2010,06:52) Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2010,09:58) I'd be up for a free will thread is anyone else is. (I was destined to write that!). Also, redemption by proxy and original sin seem both logically and ethically incoherent to me. Christianity is an economy based on suffering. I think you are pre-ordanined to 1.  Put baby in microwave. 2.  Heat, uncovered at 50% power for 3o seconds 3.  Start ATBC thread about Free Will / Predestination/ Your Favorite Calvinist 4.  Enjoy! Makes sense to me!

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,12:21    Quote The only living person I can recall offhand who maintains there is strict determinism is John Davison. If is not determined, it must be random? We pick and chose whatever enters our mind? Do we have control over what enters our mind? There may be options but in the end only one choice can be made and is being made before we consciously are aware of it. By then it is too late for a different decision. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,12:29    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 18 2010,11:38) "It seems to me impossible for there to be any non-supernatural explanation of free will" - dheddle, upthread somewhere I have looked at this and thought about it, but I still don't have a clue why anyone would say this. I do understand that a definition of "free will" would be useful in proceeding, but I do think that the definition will include a deity, and so you just smuggle in that conclusion with the definition. Can you elaborate, Dave? It seems to me that free will is simply a behavior, and behaviors can be explained by natural mechanisms. So even if we don't have an explanation for this particular behavior yet, why is it special? The definition I am using is: the ability to make a choice that was not predetermined, coerced by an external agent, or random. If that's an acceptable definition, then either it does not exist (a la Provine) or the supernatural (some sort of dualism) is required. That's my claim. If the natural world is all there is, then what causes a given choice? It can only be the laws of physics. My next action, which is to pause and think about what I'll write next, is just the inevitable outcome of a differential equation being integrated in real time. Perhaps with some quantum indeterminacy tossed in. There is no sense in which that was free choice. It was either predetermined by the initial conditions of the universe, or it was random. And in such a situation, how does one assign moral culpability? This is not solely a question of strict determinism, which we agree is dead. You just cant say that Heisenberg saves the free will, because I can't control those quantum fluctuations--even if you believe they are coherent enough to affect a decision, which I don't. -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,12:31    I done did start a thread on free will.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,12:32    Doesn't someone usually play the "emergent propeties" card about now? -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,12:37    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2010,12:32) Doesn't someone usually play the "emergent propeties" card about now? -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,13:24    Quote If the natural world is all there is, then what causes a given choice? It can only be the laws of physics. I will repeat myself, moving one step closer to my own definition of insanity. Choices are probabilistic. Makes no difference if they are quantum events or merely analog computations resulting from neuronal firing rates. There is no reason to posit a ghost in the machine. The machine itself weighs the consequences of decisions. What makes "will" so fascinating is that behavior is based on a prediction of the future, something that can be known only probabilistically. Again, it isn't necessary to posit a ghost making the prediction. The prediction is embodied in the state of the predictor. Animals anticipate consequences, not as effectively as humans, but they nevertheless anticipate. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,13:48    Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 18 2010,13:24) Quote If the natural world is all there is, then what causes a given choice? It can only be the laws of physics. I will repeat myself, moving one step closer to my own definition of insanity. Choices are probabilistic. Makes no difference if they are quantum events or merely analog computations resulting from neuronal firing rates. There is no reason to posit a ghost in the machine. The machine itself weighs the consequences of decisions. What makes "will" so fascinating is that behavior is based on a prediction of the future, something that can be known only probabilistically. Again, it isn't necessary to posit a ghost making the prediction. The prediction is embodied in the state of the predictor. Animals anticipate consequences, not as effectively as humans, but they nevertheless anticipate. You gots my vote.  And I do this of my own free will.  D'OH! -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,14:07    Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 18 2010,13:24) Quote If the natural world is all there is, then what causes a given choice? It can only be the laws of physics. I will repeat myself, moving one step closer to my own definition of insanity. Choices are probabilistic. Makes no difference if they are quantum events or merely analog computations resulting from neuronal firing rates. There is no reason to posit a ghost in the machine. The machine itself weighs the consequences of decisions. What makes "will" so fascinating is that behavior is based on a prediction of the future, something that can be known only probabilistically. Again, it isn't necessary to posit a ghost making the prediction. The prediction is embodied in the state of the predictor. Animals anticipate consequences, not as effectively as humans, but they nevertheless anticipate. Then they are random. I have a certain probability to make a choice. Something beyond my control rolls the dice. I obey the results. Nothing there that resembles the usual notion of free will. -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Maya Posts: 702 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,14:14    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2010,12:32) Doesn't someone usually play the "emergent propeties" card about now? I'll counter your "emergent properties" with my "chaotic sensitivity to initial conditions" card.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,14:17    Quote I obey the results. Nothing there that resembles the usual notion of free will. Nothing in the usual notion of free will is particularly coherent or useful. Thousands of years, same shit. The notion of evolution and learning embody everything we can observe and study about the subject. It enables us to discuss things like mental illness and brain tumors, which can have implications in criminal cases. It can enable us to build emulations of evolving and learning systems, maybe even functionally equivalent systems. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,18:11    Quote (dheddle @ Feb. 18 2010,10:13)   Quote (keiths @ Feb. 18 2010,10:03)     Quote (dheddle @ Feb. 18 2010,07:33) Poor Judas. His actions were ordained--and yet he chose and must, barring some unrecorded conversion, pay. Thems the rules. Interesting.  That makes you a compatibilist. I guess so. I do think your will is free but determined. But the point is that it is not determined by God the puuppet master, or a cosmic differential equation with or without quantum fluctuations--it is self-determined. It is free only in the sense there is no external agent causing me to type this post. Instead, all things considered, there is nothing I want to do more at this instant than type this post, so I type this post. The problem is that any omniscient being knew eons before you were ever born that not only would you type that sentence, but the exact words you'd type and the exact mental states that would lead you to type it and there is absolutely nothing you can do to change any of this or the being would not be omniscient. It's been this way your entire life.  Every mental nuance that has ever flitted across your brain was pre-determined before you were even conceived and there is absolutely no way you can do anything else without making that being non-omniscient. Omniscience means knowing everything including the future and if the future is knowable then it is also fixed and if the future is fixed, there is no possibility of free will. Thems the rules.

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,18:12    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2010,09:58) I'd be up for a free will thread is anyone else is. (I was destined to write that!). Also, redemption by proxy and original sin seem both logically and ethically incoherent to me. Christianity is an economy based on suffering. I'm up for one.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,18:33    Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 18 2010,18:12)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2010,09:58) I'd be up for a free will thread is anyone else is. (I was destined to write that!). Also, redemption by proxy and original sin seem both logically and ethically incoherent to me. Christianity is an economy based on suffering. I'm up for one. Here: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=6603 -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,18:40    Slimy Sal fails to think things through again:             Quote 24 scordova Dahmer practiced cannibalism. There are a few commentaries on how cannibalism gains an advantage through selection. This how one researcher commented on the evolutionary benefits conferred to cannibals:    I hope it will become a textbook example of how evolution happens    It’s a striking and timely example, given the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species    Simon Mead Gene Change in Cannibals Reveals Evoluton in Action Well how about evolving the common sense not to eat another human being’s brains! Sheesh! Because the Fore people practice ancestor worship and eating their deceased relative's brains was part of their religion!  Sheesh! Additionally, if Slimy Sal had actually read the piece he cites, he'd see that far from it being "...how one researcher commented on the evolutionary benefits conferred to cannibals" as Slimy Sal says, the piece is actually about how evolution protected the Fore people of New Guinea from their religiously induced folly of eating the brains of their dead ancestors:         Quote In 51 survivors and their descendants, they discovered a hitherto-unknown variant of PRNP, the gene which makes prions, the proteins that spread the disease. These prions become malformed and in turn make all healthy prions they encounter malformed as well, in a chain reaction that ultimately destroys brains by turning them into a spongy mush. The change in the gene comes at a position called codon 127. Throughout the animal kingdom, the codon contains the same amino acid, called glycine or "G", from each parent, giving the form G127G. To their astonishment, Mead and his colleagues found a variant of the codon never seen in nature before, in which one of the glycines has been swapped for a valine amino acid, giving the new variant the name G127V. Initially, Mead and his colleagues thought that because the variant had never been seen before, it must have damaging rather than beneficial effects. "We thought we'd found the trigger for how kuru happens, that someone ate the brain of someone with the mutation and that's how the disease started spreading through the cannibalistic funeral feasts," he said. "Instead, we found the complete opposite, which is that it was protective." Cite

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,18:41    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2010,18:33)   Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 18 2010,18:12)       Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2010,09:58) I'd be up for a free will thread is anyone else is. (I was destined to write that!). Also, redemption by proxy and original sin seem both logically and ethically incoherent to me. Christianity is an economy based on suffering. I'm up for one. Here: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=6603 Let go of the rod!  Let go of the rod!

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,19:27    Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 18 2010,18:41) Let go of the rod!  Let go of the rod! -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,20:23    Uncommonly Denyse: Quote All I know is this: 1. He’s right about the demographics. Religious people do have more kids. To the point where some think it a big problem. 2. Most of the people I have ever met who have lots of kids have never heard of Darwinism, or have and don’t believe it. 3. Most of the people I have ever met who are passionate about Darwinism have few kids. 4. This means that Darwinism would not likely survive under natural circumstances, hence it must be compulsorily propagated through school systems. Hence all the school board court cases. That there is some whacky thinking. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,20:51    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 18 2010,18:23) Uncommonly Denyse:   Quote All I know is this: 1. He’s right about the demographics. Religious people do have more kids. To the point where some think it a big problem. 2. Most of the people I have ever met who have lots of kids have never heard of Darwinism, or have and don’t believe it. 3. Most of the people I have ever met who are passionate about Darwinism have few kids. 4. This means that Darwinism would not likely survive under natural circumstances, hence it must be compulsorily propagated through school systems. Hence all the school board court cases. That there is some whacky thinking. Darwin had 10.  What would she make of that? -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,20:53    Quote (didymos @ Feb. 18 2010,21:51) Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 18 2010,18:23) Uncommonly Denyse:   Quote All I know is this: 1. He’s right about the demographics. Religious people do have more kids. To the point where some think it a big problem. 2. Most of the people I have ever met who have lots of kids have never heard of Darwinism, or have and don’t believe it. 3. Most of the people I have ever met who are passionate about Darwinism have few kids. 4. This means that Darwinism would not likely survive under natural circumstances, hence it must be compulsorily propagated through school systems. Hence all the school board court cases. That there is some whacky thinking. Darwin had 10.  What would she make of that? Probably COFFEE!!! -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

utidjian Posts: 185 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,21:28    CannuckianYankee Quote Nakashima-san “and our societies provide the external reference” tribuney: “But what provides the external reference for our societies?” I wonder about this as well, because the Darwinists insist that the earth is not a closed system when talking about the laws of thermodynamics, yet they insist that society is a closed system when it comes to morality. There seems to be some cherry picking going on here, which contributes to an overall inconsistency with materialism. So, ummmm... morality comes from the sun and from the heat of thermonuclear reactions within the earth? I think that is what is called a "category error." Quote Society can no more be an external reference for morality than rain can be an external reference for oceans. We still need to ask where the rain came from. I know, I know.... it comes from the sky!? -DU- -------------- Being laughed at doesn't mean you're progressing along some line. It probably just means you're saying some stupid shit -stevestory

Pages: (501) < ... 147 148 149 150 151 [152] 153 154 155 156 157 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard