Creationists: what prevents you from accepting ToE?

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I am not an atheist. I do believe in free will. And everything else in this post is incoherent.
Nothing in evolution states that we have no free will.

It's not incoherent, you simply do not have a functional concept of free will, otherwise you would have immediately responded with the concept. BOGUS

 

[metis]

Nothing in evolution states that we have no free will.

Absolutely correct, and I do believe it's clear that Mohammed has somehow managed to put all sorts of attachments onto the the basic ToE and those of us that study it that simply do not make any sense. This is not that terribly unusual, btw, as one of my first lessons in my introductory anthropology course was to correct these attachments.

 

[metis]

I can put 2 and 2 together to make 4. Academics was more racist and eugenicist than any other non-political grouping. They still are essentially the most racist because of failing to accept the existence of the human soul on a subjective basis. Want to do statistics on predominantly black countries, vs predominantly white countries? Only the concept of the human soul can cut through the bull**** of statistics to appreciate a man for what he is, his true self as the owner of his decisions, as a matter of opinion.

You simply have no clue what you're talking about, and somehow you seem to "think" that if you throw a lot of dung against the wall that maybe some of it may stick. It doesn't "stick"-- it "stinks".

 

[Ouroboros]

The science about human behavior is split between sociology and psychology.

And biology. Genetics, nutrition, and bio-environmental factors do influence behavior too. Take the Toxoplasma gondii. It's an amoeba, a parasite. Infected by it, it will change brain chemicals and behavior.

In both the psychology and sociology class it was recognized that all three fields of study overlap. There's no clear line between them. Sometimes I encountered the term "biopsychosocial" as a term for combining all three into one concept.

Just wanted to throw that out there.

 

[Midnight Rain]

It's not incoherent, you simply do not have a functional concept of free will, otherwise you would have immediately responded with the concept. BOGUS

With what concept exactly? Your becoming increasingly harder to understand. Not because any potentially mind blowing information but because you seem to be addressing things that are not connected.

Can you reiterate your point? Include how evolution counteracts free will. What you believe "free will" to be that is somehow different than my own view, and lastly what is this "concept" you speak of?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You simply have no clue what you're talking about, and somehow you seem to "think" that if you throw a lot of dung against the wall that maybe some of it may stick. It doesn't "stick"-- it "stinks".

I know what I am talking about. I am the only one here who is open and reasonable about the concept of free will. My concept is on the table for everybody to see. I fully understand the alternative concepts presented. But in assessing the various concepts, the concept as like the spirit chooses, and the existence of the spirit is a matter of opinion, is the only functional concept that allows for actual alternative courses of action.

Now, how popular is this concept in academics?

The stereotype of the coldhearted calculating nazi is very similar to the stereotype of the coldhearted calculating scientist. So much so that in the TV show the big bang theory it is a matter of course to have a scientist conjure up delusions of a master race.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

With what concept exactly? Your becoming increasingly harder to understand. Not because any potentially mind blowing information but because you seem to be addressing things that are not connected.

Can you reiterate your point? Include how evolution counteracts free will. What you believe "free will" to be that is somehow different than my own view, and lastly what is this "concept" you speak of?

Eh no, I already did the work. Demonstrating point for point exactly how creationism validates both fact and opinion. Now you can go study it.

 

[metis]

I know what I am talking about. I am the only one here who is open and reasonable about the concept of free will. My concept is on the table for everybody to see. I fully understand the alternative concepts presented. But in assessing the various concepts, the concept as like the spirit chooses, and the existence of the spirit is a matter of opinion, is the only functional concept that allows for actual alternative courses of action.

Now, how popular is this concept in academics?

The stereotype of the coldhearted calculating nazi is very similar to the stereotype of the coldhearted calculating scientist. So much so that in the TV show the big bang theory it is a matter of course to have a scientist conjure up delusions of a master race.

It's obvious that you have nothing to offer and that you just love using stereotypes, so I'll just take a pass.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It's obvious that you have nothing to offer and that you just love using stereotypes, so I'll just take a pass.

Actually ofcourse you identify people solely based on measurable properties in body or brain, or acts, because you don't acknowledge the human soul, or anything, on a subjective basis. People with same measurable properties then......have the same worth. Now let's look at the statistics again for predominantly black and predominantly white countries. Given the procedure of not acknowledging anything on a subjective basis, the only conclusion can be racism.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Eh no, I already did the work. Demonstrating point for point exactly how creationism validates both fact and opinion. Now you can go study it.

I assume you didn't do it in this thread. I've read most if it and I haven't seen it. I have been lectured and even read up into creationism. Its nothing but bunk. It sounds good to people that don't actually know better and that is part of the problem. You have people with these ideas about how the world should be and then foster a distrust for the evil "science" that is controlled by atheists.

 

[metis]

I assume you didn't do it in this thread. I've read most if it and I haven't seen it. I have been lectured and even read up into creationism. Its nothing but bunk. It sounds good to people that don't actually know better and that is part of the problem. You have people with these ideas about how the world should be and then foster a distrust for the evil "science" that is controlled by atheists.

The irony is that he distrusts science, and yet how many people historically were butchered because of differing beliefs about god(s)?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The irony is that he distrusts science, and yet how many people historically were butchered because of differing beliefs about god(s)?

Facts were known prior to science. And people inserted factual certitude into matters of opinion prior to social darwinism. That is the real main cause of butchery, as can be argued sensibly.

If people considered people to have a soul, and knew to be subjective, make opinion, about who they themselves are as being the owner of their decisions, and the other, then people would be generally very peaceful.

How praising and appreciative we must be of science and scientists and the technology, while for the creation of man and woman no thanks is given at all. None at all.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I assume you didn't do it in this thread. I've read most if it and I haven't seen it. I have been lectured and even read up into creationism. Its nothing but bunk. It sounds good to people that don't actually know better and that is part of the problem. You have people with these ideas about how the world should be and then foster a distrust for the evil "science" that is controlled by atheists.

Go look for it huh. Your responses solely consist of prejudice, you have no argumentation, like an actual concept of free will that one can reasonably and openly assess.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Go look for it huh. Your responses solely consist of prejudice, you have no argumentation, like an actual concept of free will that one can reasonably and openly assess.

This isn't even a rebuttal. You haven't added anything to the debate but simply wasted space on this site with your whining. Present your argument. Don't say you've already presented it or that I need to go research it because I have researched it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

This isn't even a rebuttal. You haven't added anything to the debate but simply wasted space on this site with your whining. Present your argument. Don't say you've already presented it or that I need to go research it because I have researched it.

Ridiculous. Go fight somebody else then darwinist. You don't even keep up appearances of open and honest discussion.

 

[McBell]

Ridiculous. Go fight somebody else then darwinist. You don't even keep up appearances of open and honest discussion.

Seems you have lost track of your own "argument".

Not something that lends to taking you seriously...

 

[Midnight Rain]

Ridiculous. Go fight somebody else then darwinist. You don't even keep up appearances of open and honest discussion.

Why do you think Darwinist/Evolutionist ect is an insult?

If you actually want to debate bring your points and I will address them. If you want me to bring up evidence FOR evolution then you can try to break it down. But you keep saying that you have established something but I haven't found it when I searched the thread. Can you tell me the post number then?

 

[McBell]

Why do you think Darwinist/Evolutionist ect is an insult?

If you actually want to debate bring your points and I will address them. If you want me to bring up evidence FOR evolution then you can try to break it down. But you keep saying that you have established something but I haven't found it when I searched the thread. Can you tell me the post number then?

Seems to me he knows he has not established anything and is thus attempting to divert attention from his blatant lie.

Which is ironic given his accusation of your alleged dishonesty.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Seems to me he knows he has not established anything and is thus attempting to divert attention from his blatant lie.

Which is ironic given his accusation of your alleged dishonesty.

Anybody would see evolutionists such as Mestemia here, do nothing else accept to smear creationists with innuendo.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I can not imagine human behavior being one or the other. There are instinctive reactions to stimuli that can (may?) be over-ridden by some variable and inconstant level of will. Why must it be a binary, one or the other choice?

Yes, exactly. I don't think it must be binary at all. Like anything else, things are rarely that clear-cut.