Evolution theory turns colleges into hellholes of depression

[MARCELLO]

For the ones who reject evolution,even in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia,evolution is taught as an obligatory lesson in medicine and biology classes. What a sad truth is this as well as how wonderful you are!

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

MNS, your poor English makes it very difficult to understand what you are trying to say. Also, you could not be more misguided on your interpretations of evolutionary theory, and of science in general.

That is all, I am going to quit wasting my time with someone as deluded as you clearly are. I hope religion gives you peace because your intelligence is certainly not going to get you very far. I will say this just one more time: SCIENCE IS NOT INTERESTED IN SUBJECTIVITY. SCIENCE USES EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AND OBJECTIVITY TO MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT THE WORLD.

Answer me this one question please Muhammad: if you are so concerned in human agency, subjectivity etc, why pick on evolution? In other words, why do you not feel that the theory of gravity poses the same problem (of not recognizing subjectivity)?

What a lot of garbage again from the evolutionist.

 

[MARCELLO]

For the ones who reject evolution,even in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia,evolution is taught as an obligatory lesson in medicine and biology classes. What a sad truth is this as well as how wonderful you are!

So let me repeat this....

 

[Demonslayer]

What a lot of garbage again from the evolutionist.

You know what's garbage? Being a full grown adult in 2015 and still walking around believing in cosmic overlords and silly creations myths. Wake up and smell the future.

 

[viole]

Credit where it's due, the Bible correctly stated that the universe did in fact begin in a specific creation event.

If I had been the author of the Bible I would have written exactly the same thing.

'Big Bang' was the term atheist scientists used to mock the priest Lemaitre's primeval atom. Calling it 'religious pseudo-science' , complaining of religious concepts being imported into science.
They overwhelmingly preferred static/eternal models for the opposite rationale (no creation = no creator)

Are we talking about the same priest that advised the pope not to draw any theological significance from his discovery?

Similarly with classical physics- ' immutable laws' which made God redundant by presenting a complete explanation for the physical universe. Only the ignorant religious masses believed that there must be deeper, mysterious, unpredictable forces at work. Again no coincidence that Max Planck was a skeptic of atheism also.

Are the forces of nature unpredictable? How is that different from saying that they are random?

Did God create the Universe so that it follows probability laws?

i.e. many of these big questions have been a battle of science v atheism. Perhaps science would have progressed faster if the latter had been kept out of the classroom?

Do you accept evolution? I ask because there does not seem to be any priest around that managed to kill it.

So, it seems that some atheistic theories die while others remain, despite them being older than any Big Bang theory.

How would you explain that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You know what's garbage? Being a full grown adult in 2015 and still walking around believing in cosmic overlords and silly creations myths. Wake up and smell the future.

The scientists don't even accept free will of people is real. The truth is that the best scientists at present, the one's who get nobel prizes and stuff, they have less knowledge about how choosing works than any 5 year old. That is because they have surpressed the knowledge that comes naturally to every human being.

While we have little problems in talking in terms of choosing things in daily life, to describe it mathematically, the physics of it, is still elusive. It may involve technical issues like; conceiving of objects as consisting of the laws of nature, and; positing values for anticipation and retardation of an object in regards to future and past.

The smart thing to do is to say that freedom is real, because you have direct evidence of it, and simply support the best theory on it. The only functional concept of choosing has the agency of the decision as a subjective issue. That a decision is made, what the available options are, and the result of it, are still matters of fact. Therefore the concepts of God, and the soul, are not arbitrary inventions of religious fantasy, but they are proper subjective terms, which enable us to deal with agency of decisions in a proper subjective way.

Failing to have a scientific theory about how choosing works, we still have the logic used in common discourse when we talk in terms of choosing, as our hypothesis. Common discourse "discovered" the whole idea of choosing, not science. It is wrong for science to take the word choosing from common discourse and then change the logic of it, and then say it is the correct definition of choosing. Anybody who researches common discourse will come to the conclusion, that any statement about what the agency of a decision is, can only be arrived at by choosing it. By expression of emotion with free will. There is thus an issue which science can know nothing about, agency, where only subjectivity is valid.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The scientists don't even accept free will of people is real.

There is no way you can prove this claim. Sure, many will deny it, and many won't. However, I suspect most will probably see the answer as somewhere between the two.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is no way you can prove this claim. Sure, many will deny it, and many won't. However, I suspect most will probably see the answer as somewhere between the two.

I suspect that many will say....
How would we even test for it?

 

[leibowde84]

You know these evolutionists are all alike, and have no idea about the truth in the heart.

Lol.

 

[leibowde84]

That's true. In general it is ill advised to go to university if you value your soul, because all are evolutionist, and you can well see all around what sort of person you then become.

What kind of person do you become?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

There is no way you can prove this claim. Sure, many will deny it, and many won't. However, I suspect most will probably see the answer as somewhere between the two.

More of your socalled skepticism, which means to be hyper critical of any claim you don't like. It is a fair enough claim, from many different impressions.

Also I would have no problem with it if anybody can point to any single scientist who accepts free will is real, who accepts subjectivity is valid. That would tend to undermine my claim, go ahead and undermine my claim. I would be delighted to find a single scientist who accepts subjectivity is valid. They just don't exist.

 

[Deathbydefault]

More of your socalled skepticism, which means to be hyper critical of any claim you don't like. It is a fair enough claim, from many different impressions.

Also I would have no problem with it if anybody can point to any single scientist who accepts free will is real, who accepts subjectivity is valid. That would tend to undermine my claim, go ahead and undermine my claim. I would be delighted to find a single scientist who accepts subjectivity is valid. They just don't exist.

Neil Degrasse Tyson, and pretty much every single other scientist alive to this date.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Credit where it's due, the Bible correctly stated that the universe did in fact begin in a specific creation event.

'Big Bang' was the term atheist scientists used to mock the priest Lemaitre's primeval atom. Calling it 'religious pseudo-science' , complaining of religious concepts being imported into science.
They overwhelmingly preferred static/eternal models for the opposite rationale (no creation = no creator)

Similarly with classical physics- ' immutable laws' which made God redundant by presenting a complete explanation for the physical universe. Only the ignorant religious masses believed that there must be deeper, mysterious, unpredictable forces at work. Again no coincidence that Max Planck was a skeptic of atheism also.

i.e. many of these big questions have been a battle of science v atheism. Perhaps science would have progressed faster if the latter had been kept out of the classroom?

Wow, um....

The name "Big Bang" for the famous theory was actually just an off handed remark about the universe some time after the Hubble telescope came about.
Click Here for the basics.

If you're trying to insinuate that scientists, whom are also mostly atheists, are trying to undermine religious values via their careers, you'll need to do a bit better of a job.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

More of your socalled skepticism, which means to be hyper critical of any claim you don't like. It is a fair enough claim, from many different impressions.

It's not a fair claim, as you can't lump an entire group like that. It just doesn't work if you want your statement to be accurate.

Also I would have no problem with it if anybody can point to any single scientist who accepts free will is real, who accepts subjectivity is valid. That would tend to undermine my claim, go ahead and undermine my claim. I would be delighted to find a single scientist who accepts subjectivity is valid. They just don't exist.

http://www.wired.com/2014/09/belief-free-will-threatened-neuroscience/
Some neuroscientists, like Sam Harris, have argued that this shows our sense of free will is an illusion, and that lay people would realize this too if they were given a vivid demonstration of the implications of the science (see below).
....
However, in a new paper, Eddy Nahmias, Jason Shepard and Shane Reuter counter such claims.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Neil Degrasse Tyson, and pretty much every single other scientist alive to this date.

I can't find it. I just found some denial of him of the universe having a purpose. How is that not simply discarding subjectivity as invalid?

By free will is meant that you have several courses of action available, any of which can be made the present. With this concept of choosing, what the agency of a decision is, is a matter of opinion.

Many scientists use choosing with the logic of being forced, so as that when somebody is forced to do what they did, this they call choosing. As similar to a chesscomputer calculating the best result. The computer cannot arrive at any other result, yet scientists will call this choosing.

I require a scientist who simply states like, I have a soul, my soul is real, that is my opinion, same as the painting is beautiful is my opinion. Opinions are categorically different from facts, each valid in their own right.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It's not a fair claim, as you can't lump an entire group like that. It just doesn't work if you want your statement to be accurate.

http://www.wired.com/2014/09/belief-free-will-threatened-neuroscience/
Some neuroscientists, like Sam Harris, have argued that this shows our sense of free will is an illusion, and that lay people would realize this too if they were given a vivid demonstration of the implications of the science (see below).
....
However, in a new paper, Eddy Nahmias, Jason Shepard and Shane Reuter counter such claims.

Nonsense...it's a fair claim. If only there was 1 who provided unequivocal acceptance of the validity of subjectivity. If only any of you accepted subjectivity is valid. But you all don't, and they all don't, and you fight tooth and nail against subjectivity. That is the truth.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nonsense...it's a fair claim. If only there was 1 who provided unequivocal acceptance of the validity of subjectivity. If only any of you accepted subjectivity is valid. But you all don't, and they all don't, and you fight tooth and nail against subjectivity. That is the truth.

Do you realize that you've built your own argument just to argue with yourself?
People have shown you are wrong, people have shown you people don't discard subjective thinking, people have shown you evolution does not have anything to do with free-will or subjectivity, no one agrees with you, but you still keep at it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Do you realize that you've built your own argument just to argue with yourself?
People have shown you are wrong, people have shown you people don't discard subjective thinking, people have shown you evolution does not have anything to do with free-will or subjectivity, no one agrees with you, but you still keep at it.

That is just an illusion in your head. People have not shown I am wrong at all, they have only provided more and more evidence that I am right. Now Tyson is referred to, I look it up, I can't find much of anything on it, other than Tyson denying the universe has a purpose. This you classify as proof, while I classify it as more evolutionist garbage. You have also just only produced garbage.

First of all, there is no evolutionist who can put a coherent thought together about having several courses of action available. I mean the level of intelligence about it is beyond abysmal. Second the evolutionists don't do subjectivity, so they never muster up any courage to admit their ignorance, so they never learn anything.

There is absolutely never a rational discussion with an evolutionist on for instance, how organisms can be chosen to be the way they are. If evolutionists allowed that, then they would immediately see that intelligent design is a reasonable theory. So their tactic is to be as ignorant about how choosing works as is possible. Drag the discussion down to a level that is so stupid that it becomes impossible to deal with. And then of course they have enflamed emotions joined to that utter ignorance. Because they make a point of not giving a crap about their emotions when doing science, their emotional basis is a horrendous collection of naive prejudices.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I can't find it. I just found some denial of him of the universe having a purpose. How is that not simply discarding subjectivity as invalid?

By free will is meant that you have several courses of action available, any of which can be made the present. With this concept of choosing, what the agency of a decision is, is a matter of opinion.

Many scientists use choosing with the logic of being forced, so as that when somebody is forced to do what they did, this they call choosing. As similar to a chesscomputer calculating the best result. The computer cannot arrive at any other result, yet scientists will call this choosing.

I require a scientist who simply states like, I have a soul, my soul is real, that is my opinion, same as the painting is beautiful is my opinion. Opinions are categorically different from facts, each valid in their own right.

You seem to have something confused here.
A human being, of normal status, has the ability of free will or whatever you are talking about.
Almost every single human alive, or that has ever been alive, developed the ability to form opinions.

For some odd *** reason, you treat scientists as though they are not human beings.
They aren't freaking flesh robots, and they are not emotionless objective seeking, barely sentient shells with human like functions.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The scientists don't even accept free will of people is real.

Huh. You should be sure to tell us all what we believe:
Balaguer, M. (2010). Free Will as an Open Scientific Problem. MIT Press.
Baumeister, R., Mele, A., & Vohs, K. (Eds.). (2010). Free Will and Consciousness: How Might They Work?. Oxford University Press.
Hodgson, D. (2012). Rationality + Consciousness= Free Will. Oxford University Press.
Murphy, N., Ellis, G. F., & O'Connor, T. (Eds.) (2009). Downward Causation and the Neurobiology of Free Will (Understanding Complex Systems). Springer.
Suarez, A., & Adams, P. (Eds.). (2012). Is Science Compatible with Free Will? Exploring Free Will and Consciousness in the Light of Quantum Physics and Neuroscience. Springer.
Tse, P. (2013). The Neural Basis of Free Will: Criterial causation. MIT Press.

...and so on.