Why do people deny evolution?

@farmerman,

With freedom there is nothing forcing the result, nothing dictating. You say that freedom is that if the environment were different, then the result would be different. But freedom is that the object has alternative futures available and one is made the present.

That is why freedom is inherently spiritual, because it is categorically a matter of opinion what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does. The agency of a decision is matter of opinion, the available alternatives, the decision, and the result of the decision, are matters of fact.

So in doing science about choosing, you never describe what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does, you only describe how one decision relates to another, and all other parameters of decisions.

And you can solve problems with choosing. With sophisticated ways of choosing you can make coherent organisms that function as a whole more likely, by choosing them as a whole.

0 Replies

Quote:

You say that freedom is that if the environment were different, then the result would be different.

I never said this at all. Stop trying to change what people say. Thats cowardly. Try to be truthful and accurate.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Then you have to use words like choosing, decision, and alternative futures to describe freedom in nature. All you did was to say that different organisms depend on different environmental conditions, which depend on different variables in the environment.

That is simply cause and effect logic, the variable causes the environmental condition, the environmental condition causes the organism to be the way it is.

And that is what ultra-Darwinist Dennett says is the correct logic of free will, that free will has the logic of cause and effect.

You will simply become outcast by evolutionists if you regard freedom as a reality and relevant. If you say that decisions occur in nature, that there are alternative futures available one of which can be made the present.

Dennett, I could not have done otherwise, so what
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lormand/phil/teach/mmm/readings/Dennett%20-%20I%20could%20not%20have%20done%20otherwise--so%20what.pdf

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

What is so common and yet not understood well is that flu vaccines must evolve as the flu viruses evolve. That's proof of evolution and how humans are able to deter the changes in viruses.

Thank god for flu vaccines!

Evolution is proved every time we get cold. Goose bumps are our body's attempt to fluff up the fur that we don't have anymore. It's so ******* simple and obvious. The trolls are not worth anyone's time.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Thats cowardly.

In that respect it doesn't come close to you running away from saying that man is a machine or that man is not a machine.

Is your ugly dog a machine as Descartes maintained? Has anybody more scientific prestige that Descartes? He is often referred to as the father of the scientific revolution.

Your claque needs to know where you stand on the matter. That its declining number of members don't know that they need an answer is a measure of their incapacity to dare to risk being scientific.

The absolute logic of Darwin is that we are machines. As an atheist I don't see any alternative.

It might be said that artificial intelligence has existed ever since the Bible invented it. Setanta has been spotted using Pavlovian methods to get a pup to behave as he thinks it should. But who trained Setanta to think that way in the first place?

If you are frightened of the deep end, fm, your calling others cowards is a bit silly.

If the fact that we are machines is unbearable to you then you have more in common with Creationists than you have with atheists. Hence you are being dishonest.

You are using atheism to try to demolish Christian sexual morality for strictly personal reasons and you cannot yourself accept that it should be demolished generally or show that the machines will work more efficiently if it is.

It seems to me that you are also scared of relying on Pavlovian conditioning as the only other alternative to anarchy; which is evolution's trade mark.

0 Replies

@Wilso,

the fact that you guys keep the trolls from overtopping with their stupidity is good for the web being a purveyor of information that isn't bogus.
The Creationistorganizations spend tons of cash in posting these "Evolution debunked" web sites which try to retread old crap that mostly tries to update old lies and bullshit with new corrections .
Quahogs posts (above) where he listed those "dissenting" scientists come from a series of bogus attempts at an "appeal to authority" from way back in 2001 . We used the data in our hearings in Pa where the Creationists were attempting to influence the biology and natural science curriculum standards.
It was a cheap trick that gets retread and republished in increasingly slicker websites for kids to read and be influenced (mostly because they don't really require any individual thinking just "buying into" a simply written series of arguments.

1 Reply

@Wilso,

Quote:

Evolution is proved every time we get cold. Goose bumps are our body's attempt to fluff up the fur that we don't have anymore. It's so ******* simple and obvious. The trolls are not worth anyone's time.

Well, why is that proof?

0 Replies

@Syamsu,

Quote:

Then you have to use words like choosing, decision, and alternative futures to describe freedom in nature.

Nothing of the sort. I said precisely what I mean, if you disagree then make a point. Do not try to "readjust my words" to something you feel comfortable with.

Your repetition of "freedom" is meaningless in this context. Organisms respond to several stimulate. Natural selection is a process of elimination , not selection in the schoolroom sense.

2 Replies

@Wilso,

Quote:

Goose bumps are our body's attempt to fluff up the fur that we don't have anymore.

That is probably derived from reading an Agony Aunt in a dentist's waiting room.

Clothes being artificial fur eh?

Troll off Wilso. You are way out of your depth.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

PS Daniel Dennett is a philosopher, not a scientist. If you wish to rgue the "philosophy of his opinions" Id suggest finding someone who is really interested in that aspect. Im deeply involved in applications and applied sciences.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Jesus Crispy, spendi. That post was eons ahead of the drivel you keep posting.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

"Trolls". "Stupidity" "Old crap". "Old lies". "Bullshit". "Bogus". "Cheap trick".

A scientist strokes his own dick.

Quote:

We used the data in our hearings in Pa where the Creationists were attempting to influence the biology and natural science curriculum standards.

Somebody has to influence the biology and natural science curriculum standards. Are there Ethics Committees in the US. There are here. Lots of them.

Where would biology and natural science go if left to their own devices? Isn't the artistic consensus that it would be nightmarish? Another cause of goose bumps and hair standing on end.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

My point was already made, freedom is real and relevant in the universe, organisms come to be by a way of choosing. That is common sense, and why evolution theory is commonly rejected.

The people for (knowledge about) freedom are the good guys, the people against (knowledge about) freedom are the bad guys.

Natural selection is a sorting process, a sorting process does not require any freedom whatsoever. With sorting the endresult depends on the initial variables. The highest is always going to sort out as being the highest.

However the socalled random walk, or neutral selection, does have some of the logic that nature can turn out alternative ways. But evolutionists have no clue about it that decisions can be made in simple ways, and sophisticated ways.

Generally all evolutionists have this miserable attitude in regards to explaining the origins of anything in terms of the decisions by which they come to be. Regardless if it is people making decisions, or freedom in nature, evolutionists go out of their way to surpress and destroy any knowledge about it.

And evolutionists have billions of dollars of support from government and media. It is a veritable onslaught of information about evolution, and relatively a tiny budget, and tiny bit of information for creationism.

1 Reply

@Syamsu,

Quote:

And evolutionists have billions of dollars of support from government and media.

Which is suspicious. They both seek to promote mayhem. In the one case to pretend to be rescuing us from it and in the other to make money off it.

Obarmy made a big deal about guns and he sold a few million more guns in doing so. One gun dealer I saw interviewed said that Obarmy was the best thing that ever happened.

And Media has no interest in a calm and orderly society and is the capital City of fornication and sexual licence.

In fact it is coming close to being its own main story.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Dennett is an ultra-darwinist philosopher, related to that other ultra-darwinist Dawkins.

How you can apply free will in regards to survival, is for example that choosing provides for unpredictability in escape and attack. If an organism calculates the course of action, no matter how sophisticated it calculates, then as by logic, it is going to be 100 percent predictable, the course of action automatically follows from the initial conditions. Freedom is an optimal solution for many problems of survival.

Ofcourse to practically apply free will in science, then you have to do sophisticated mathematics, not just with attributing values for the object in the present, like it is in most science, but also attribute the potential alternative future values to objects.

2 Replies

@Syamsu,

Quote:

How science works is that if I put the cup on the leftside of the table, then the scientist records the fact that the cup is on the left. When I put it on the right, then the scientist records the fact that the cup is on the right. I choose, and with choosing new information is created, which the scientist can then model. You cannot get any more fundamental theory than choosing, because it describes origins, and origins is the most fundamental.

And that is complete nonsense. If you drop the cup and it bounces to the right and science records it and if you drop the cup and it bounces to the left and science records it does that mean you CHOSE which side the cup was going to be on when you dropped the cup?

Freedom may be real but far more of the universe happens without you choosing anything. You don't choose which atom you breathe. You don't choose which atoms will help carry the electrical signals you are sending when you use the internet.

1 Reply

@parados,

Left, right, left, right, go on and record those facts sciencefan.

1 Reply

@Syamsu,

sounds like your talking in another direction. Im interested in the biology not the philosophy. Even Daniel Dennett, in his contribution to "Intelligent Thought" a collection of essays about the pure religious nature of ID, kept to the scientific . His, and Barbara Forrests contributions to the Dover trial were limited to the substantive aspects of the "EStablishment Clause" as relate to high school science curricula. They investigated the history of ID, its close connection to the concept of
"Scientific Creationism", as well as the close religious connections that both demonstrate.

Your group wants (and I give no ground on this point) entirely to have ID and Creationism taught as scientific disciplines. Theres my interest (Im here to make sure that guys like you understand that we in the "trade" wont budge a centimeter no matter how you try to craft an argument.

As far as the philosophical "distinctions" you are trying to develop, they are not associated with anything of a scientific nature and to the development of valid scientific evidence regarding the origin and the train of life and its development on this plnet.
"freedom" is a fairly limited and most often a meaningless term in evolutionary mechanics.

1 Reply

@Syamsu,

Quote:

How you can apply free will in regards to survival, is for example that choosing provides for unpredictability in escape and attack

So I choose to develop legs to turn me into a prey faster than the predator?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Generally creationists do not have much scientific understanding, and do not care to have much of it. They only care to establish that freedom is real and relevant, and that it is regarded as a matter of opinion what the agency of any decision is, just as beauty is a matter of opinion. Then freedom of opinion, and religion, is secured, and life goes on.

It is your job to develop the science about choosing, you are a scientist. You go read up on how to do the mathematics of choosing. We already know that organisms come to be by a sophisticated way of choosing, because that is apparent from the way the organisms looks as a perfectly integrated whole. Now you go figure out the science about it, how these decisions are taking place.

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know