It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Abiogenesis - The Origin Of Life Conspiracy

page: 20
6
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   
I think we have no ideo how we got here. Evolution doesn't make since and the world is older than 2000 years.

Another thing they don't know is how the universe was made or how old it is or how many stars and galaxies there are. they just bs out of their arses. I think that is just way above our heads. Theres no proof to any of their claims.




posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by melatonin
And unless J. is the most hubristic individual I've ever come across, he would accept that his reasoning and logic is not perfect.


I don't think he will now. It would be hypocritical to say that his logic isn't perfect, after the arguments he's made.
It really wouldn't be hypocritical, i never said that logic isn't perfect. I said that you can not know that your logic is flawed through logic that is flawed.


The funny thing to me is the fact that even if you claim to not know if your logic is perfect, that in itself is proof that it's not perfect, as perfect logic would know that it's perfect (based on our definition/understanding of the word 'perfect').
It's almost a paradox
.
If your logic were perfect, then you would know that through the use of your perfect logic. There's really no problem within that hypothetical situation.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
but psychology is only applied biology, biology is applied chemistry, chemistry is applied physics, physics is applied math and math is applied logic. You can’t use psychology to analyze logic.


But the evidence suggests otherwise, because that's exactly what psychologists do. The problem is that you are wrapping up logic as something apart from a mind. It's just a mechanism/process that organisms use. And we can study it in action.

Don't buy such extreme reductionism, sorry.


but you can’t say that it really doesn’t exist because all inferences which lead you to that conclusion were based on LOGIC. You can say that you believe it doesn’t because it is something you could only know by intuition. It’s illogical to say otherwise.


lol

I think I'd rather call it reasoning. Logic is just a formal mechanism for reasoning. Again, the evidence is very clear.


No beef. I just enjoy debating things because I learn a lot. I’ve learned many things from you and TP from our discussion. Instead of looking into dictionaries or paying for information, I think it’s much more opportunistic to teach each other.


So, you are in no better position than anyone else for your supposed paradox.


when I said “natures will” it was short hand for necessity/laws of nature. It simply easier to write in context and i thought you’d see the connection without me having to really get into it, pay no mind.


So what's the point of the point?

Of course we are constrained by the laws of nature.


No not 100% freedom, freedom of will.


Cool, no problem then.


I’m not even sure I do. Though, the idea of taking true responsibility for my actions might be a start.


And in the main, you are.


we build houses, dams, roads, etc. this is where I was leading you. If we have the ability to build cities and “apparently” “defy” nature, does that not suggest to you that we have free-will already?


But this doesn't make sense now. You said it was about being constrained by nature's will in that there are laws of nature. Even this sort of 'defiance' is still constrained by laws of nature.

But I'm quite happy to accept I have free-will, obviously.


but if you are unaware of that chip, you would be none the wiser.


At last, what I see as a good problem!

lol

Possibly, I would hope if I had issues a brain scan might find it - of course, MRI would perhaps just kill me, so maybe a CAT scan first. The same applies to me being brain in vat - how would we know? I haven't time to expand on this now - have 'kids' with the will to learn waiting for me, so maybe you'll focus on this specifically. But just a taster, we have no evidence that people are capable of such actions...at the moment at least. You could invoke supernatural 'controllers', but it's not something I find a problem - you might. It would be a potential issue for any conception of free will.

There are comparable examples in the real-world, though. For example, the all but normal patient with the brain lesion that caused the desire for paedophilia. When removed, the desire went. It grew back and the desire came back. Removed once again, it seems to have gone for good.


If 92837574837563828 grains of sand is a beach and you remove one grain. Is it still a bach?


It's a very, very poor analogy.


Not the ability to control nature, the ability to operate independent of nature on at least some level.


Which would then imply supernatural. Just an attempt to suggest free will = supernatural?


I don’t think so.


Nor do I. I was using your example and claim.


This might sound familiar to you. . . If I role a ball on a table and you stop it as it reaches the edge of the table. Does that mean that you prevented it from falling off the edge of the table?


I would tend to think so.


Although that is an interesting way of looking at it, which seems viable, my intuition tells me otherwise. You’re thinking of time as linear and I’ve always had qualms with that. I do like the way you said that “the future only exists in a representation in our minds and unfolds before us.” It’s excellent imagery which conveys the concept well.


Glad you like it. Ultimately, I'm not attempting to change your own position anyway - I don't really aim for such things. Just thought you'd be a worthy theistic sounding board.


SPOILER WARNING the whole point of Minority Report was that the future was not written in stone. Those men that were incarcerated had a choice, but they were never allowed to choose because the system assumed they would follow their impulses.


Heh, maybe I should go back and watch it again, gulp! So it's not a problem?

I think Laplace's demon is a better example of the ultimate future prediction mechanism - completely impractical, of course.


Unless I’m mistaken, free-will is more about the ability to make decisions, not actions.


Perhaps. I see it more as being able to express our intentions and desires.


So then you agree that “free-will” as it is understood by most of the world is not applicable in a naturalist universe or other hypothetical universes?


Nope, to some it is. The sort of position I'm expressing is fairly well established and has a longish history.


That’s debatable. I believe that any “tic” that can naturally be executed by will, can be stopped by will as well.


Yes, a pseudo-tic could be intentionally enacted. But I wouldn't say those of a Tourette's sufferer are - plus many are beyond control, as I'm sure they would if they could. I do like the idea of 'free won't' as well as 'free will', though.


That’s not a decision anyway. It’s strictly a reflex.


lol, I know. The point is that I did not will the behaviour.


I think perhaps you underestimate your ability to be lucid while drugged.


I think sufficient barbs might say otherwise, but I get your drift.



That would be less determinism. In a naturalist universe, determinism is all you have.


Depends. Even the sort of free will I suggest can exist in a naturalistic universe with an element of indeterminism. It depends where it lies - if at the subatomic level but not macro - certainly. If in general in nature but not impinging on our intentions - certainly. If it is present in our brains/mind, then that's more problematic.



Free-will is an idea; you can’t observe it or express it. All you can do is think about it.


I can express it


And I will, as I'm off to see the (trainee) wizard(s), the wonderful...

[edit on 17-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
I’m not saying you must, but this is almost as odd as when my friend told me he didn’t believe that he exists. That’s why I brought the story up before. There are certain things that I’d like to think of as apparent to everyone. One of those things for certain is that you can acknowledge your own existence.


I agree.
Wouldn't one of those things also be that our logic is not perfect?

Perfect - entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings


Originally posted by JPhish
If it seems logical to you, I can never expect you to see the paradox. But it is very apparent to me and many others I’ve spoken to.


It seems very logical to me to accept the evidence that my logic is not perfect.



Originally posted by JPhish

It neither seems contradictory (to me) nor is it contradictory.

What is the point of the prefix of this sentence? Just say “it’s not contradictory to me.” no?


Yeah, I say a lot of redundant things.
Just ignore the flaws of my imperfect logic
.



Originally posted by JPhish

How is it illogical?
because beliefs are based on intuition. Possible known truths are based on logic. To believe that logic is flawed would be based on intuition, not based on any form of logic, faulty or otherwise. That’s why the sentence is illogical and contradicts itself.


But it is based on logic. Logic assesses the evidence and comes to the conclusion that that assessment is not always accurate but is still a useful source to derive facts.



Originally posted by JPhish
“I believe that dragons exists, because a dragon told me it exists”



Originally posted by JPhish
Never said it was a paradox, but it is certainly illogical. It would be intuition that leads me to believe that the dragons exist; not logic.


It would be physical evidence which is then interpreted by logic.
The logic comes in to assess the possibility of hallucination - from the setting, to talking to the locals, to what you ate that morning, all can be reviewed to determine probability.



Originally posted by JPhish
“I believe John sometimes tells the truth, because John told me he does.”



Originally posted by JPhish
Never said it was a paradox. But it is illogical to believe something just because some one said it. If you believe or disbelieve John, it is because of intuition, not logic.


True, unless you know for a fact (oh snap, I said 'fact') that he has been honest with you in the past.



Originally posted by JPhish
See now you are in a falsidical paradox. You said “it’s a fact that logic is not always accurate.” How do you know this fact? If it is a fact it must be from evidence that everyone can readily test and observe. We must interpret that evidence with our logic. If our logic is flawed it can not be a fact that our logic that lead us to know that are logic was flawed was not flawed. You are in the paradox again . . .


Well then it matters what you mean by fact.
I get what you're saying, but at the same time, if everyone were so anal we would consider nothing a fact.

Personally, I see a fact as something which is true within our system - but hold the possibility that the system itself may be false.




Originally posted by JPhish

How is the sentence itself illogical?
The sentence itself is very logical - to base opinion off evidence.

No, it’s not, because you interpreted the evidence with your logic.


And you are interpreting what I am saying with your logic.
But it doesn't become illogical just because the conclusion may be flawed.
It's still very logical to look at the evidence and conclude that our logic is not perfect.
And ultimately, there is no contradiction.



Originally posted by JPhish
These aren’t even the same. This is about an illogical logical pretense, discussing logic, based on intuition, which claims to be based on logic. Not something being perfect or imperfect, you’re obviously still missing what makes the sentence a paradox.


But it's not intuition - there is evidence.
How many times have you used logic to form a theory and then found out the answer is completely different?
Also, how many times have you used logic to form a conclusion and found out you were correct?

It's purely logical to conclude that if your logic were perfect you would never have formed a false hypothesis in the first place.

It's not illogical or based on intuition, its logical based on evidence.



Originally posted by JPhish
An illogical logical pretense, evaluating logic, based on intuition, which claims to be based on logic, is paradoxical.


Replace 'intuition' with 'evidence'.


I'll let you have the last word, but I think I'm done with this debate.
We can just agree to disagree if nothing else.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by JPhish
but psychology is only applied biology, biology is applied chemistry, chemistry is applied physics, physics is applied math and math is applied logic. You can’t use psychology to analyze logic.


But the evidence suggests otherwise, because that's exactly what psychologists do. The problem is that you are wrapping up logic as something apart from a mind. It's just a mechanism/process that organisms use. And we can study it in action.

Regardless of where you think logic comes from, you need logic/reasoning to interpret evidence. You’re in the paradox again.


Don't buy such extreme reductionism, sorry.
I’m not simplifying anything.


I think I'd rather call it reasoning. Logic is just a formal mechanism for reasoning. Again, the evidence is very clear.

When I say logic I am using it synonymously with reason. You interpret the evidence with your logic/reason.


So, you are in no better position than anyone else for your supposed paradox.
actually, I am, because I don’t follow your ideology, so I don’t fall victim to its blunders.


Of course we are constrained by the laws of nature.

Not constrained . . . completely controlled.


And in the main, you are.

In the main? If I were a naturalist, I would take no responsibility for my actions. There would be no point to.


But this doesn't make sense now. You said it was about being constrained by nature's will in that there are laws of nature. Even this sort of 'defiance' is still constrained by laws of nature.

It was a “loaded” question.
I don’t actually believe this.


But I'm quite happy to accept I have free-will, obviously.

Accept? You believe you have free-will?


At last, what I see as a good problem! lol

Possibly, I would hope if I had issues a brain scan might find it - of course, MRI would perhaps just kill me, so maybe a CAT scan first. The same applies to me being brain in vat - how would we know? I haven't time to expand on this now - have 'kids' with the will to learn waiting for me, so maybe you'll focus on this specifically. But just a taster, we have no evidence that people are capable of such actions...at the moment at least. You could invoke supernatural 'controllers', but it's not something I find a problem - you might. It would be a potential issue for any conception of free will.

Yeah, I’m not sure what you’re saying or how it relates.


There are comparable examples in the real-world, though. For example, the all but normal patient with the brain lesion that caused the desire for paedophilia. When removed, the desire went. It grew back and the desire came back. Removed once again, it seems to have gone for good.
or maybe the sick f*ck was using the lesion as an excuse.



It's a very, very poor analogy.

I was trying to form a contrast to show how inane it is to break down a priori knowledge.


Which would then imply supernatural. Just an attempt to suggest free will = supernatural?
I don’t see it happening any other way. If you’re in a naturalist universe, and everything is predetermined by nature. It seems to me that something would have to exist “outside” of nature so as to not be bound by it.


Originally posted by JPhish
This might sound familiar to you. . . If I role a ball on a table and you stop it as it reaches the edge of the table. Does that mean that you prevented it from falling off the edge of the table?



Originally posted by melatonin
I would tend to think so.
several points/possibilities . . .
1. You didn’t have a choice; you were predetermined to stop it. Hence you did not stop it from rolling off the table because it never could have.
2. Something else may have stopped it from rolling off the edge of the table.
3. It was never going to roll off the table.


Heh, maybe I should go back and watch it again, gulp! So it's not a problem?
certainly worth the watch. The system they had in place was a problem, because the world within the story was a non deterministic universe. Things were not written in stone.


I think Laplace's demon is a better example of the ultimate future prediction mechanism - completely impractical, of course.
it’s not the angle I was going for. You see . . . if the criminals detained by the pre-crime system in Minority Report had followed their natural impulses, the system would have been flawless. But the characters learn that they have choice. They aren’t slaves to their nature.


Perhaps. I see it more as being able to express our intentions and desires.

Expression of intentions or desires are nothing if they are not truly our own.


Nope, to some it is. The sort of position I'm expressing is fairly well established and has a longish history.
and the longevity of your position is a testament to what exactly?


Yes, a pseudo-tic could be intentionally enacted. But I wouldn't say those of a Tourette's sufferer are - plus many are beyond control, as I'm sure they would if they could. I do like the idea of 'free won't' as well as 'free will', though.

Perhaps I’m just a cynic, but I have trouble swallowing that entire position. Sounds to me like people not taking responsibility for them selves. It’s almost as contrived as “restless leg syndrome”. Classifying people in such ways does not serve to help these individuals; it only serves to enable them to continue their inappropriate behavior under the specious asylum of a diagnosed illness.


Depends. Even the sort of free will I suggest can exist in a naturalistic universe with an element of indeterminism. It depends where it lies - if at the subatomic level but not macro - certainly. If in general in nature but not impinging on our intentions - certainly. If it is present in our brains/mind, then that's more problematic.

OK I can recognize that.


I can express it
(free will)
And I will, as I'm off to see the (trainee) wizard(s), the wonderful...

Ah me . . .



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
I agree.
Wouldn't one of those things also be that our logic is not perfect?

Perfect - entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings
Just to clarify, logic itself is perfect in every sense of the word. There’s nothing observably wrong with it. It is human beings application of logic which is questionable.


It seems very logical to me to accept the evidence that my logic is not perfect.
scary stuff.


But it is based on logic. Logic assesses the evidence and comes to the conclusion that that assessment is not always accurate but is still a useful source to derive facts.
it is illogical to assume that anything derived from a flawed source is a fact . . .


It would be physical evidence which is then interpreted by logic.

You’re logic is flawed. No true insight can be had.


The logic comes in to assess the possibility of hallucination - from the setting, to talking to the locals, to what you ate that morning, all can be reviewed to determine probability.
probability of a truth is not a truth.


Well then it matters what you mean by fact.
I get what you're saying, but at the same time, if everyone were so anal we would consider nothing a fact.

Duly noted.


Personally, I see a fact as something which is true within our system - but hold the possibility that the system itself may be false.
fair enough. But that’s not what a “real” fact is.



And you are interpreting what I am saying with your logic.
But it doesn't become illogical just because the conclusion may be flawed.
It's still very logical to look at the evidence and conclude that our logic is not perfect.
And ultimately, there is no contradiction.
logic is used to deduce truths. Not possibilities.


But it's not intuition - there is evidence.
you need to interpret with your logic . . .


How many times have you used logic to form a theory and then found out the answer is completely different?

Only when I have doubted something; Doubt is logic getting ahead of itself.


Also, how many times have you used logic to form a conclusion and found out you were correct?
apparently, many times, but logically, only once.


It's purely logical to conclude that if your logic were perfect you would never have formed a false hypothesis in the first place.
that’s illogical. Because any flaws within a logical proof may be the result of faulty inferences.


It's not illogical or based on intuition, its logical based on evidence.
it isn’t logical to interpret evidence with flawed logic.


Originally posted by JPhish
An illogical logical pretense, evaluating logic, based on intuition, which claims to be based on logic, is paradoxical.



Originally posted by TruthParadox
Replace 'intuition' with 'evidence'. .

Intuition is no way shape or form is evidence; but regardless, it would still be illogical.


I'll let you have the last word, but I think I'm done with this debate.
We can just agree to disagree if nothing else.

Eh . . .



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Logic is not something we are borne with. Logic is something we acquire through experience.

But Logic can still be divided by two different experiences. 1. Day to day experiences. 2 what you are thought.

You have all heard the saying: Theory and practice could be two different things. Like the theory might not work in practice.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


JPhish....I was impressed by the response from 'Spy66'.

I did try to read your last two posts....and, again, started to get a headache.

Now, without 'flaming'....please tell me why it is necessary to 'pull-apart' a post by someone else in order to make YOUR point?

I write this, after giving up on trying to make any sense of your two responses (no offence).

Just....as has been repeated, over and over in this thread, 'abiogenisis' is an entirely separate discipline from 'evolution'. One should be careful not to conflate the two, except as inasmuch as they might intertwine....which is the problem here. (edit)....a most awkward sentence, sorry....stet.

Or, to be more specific....the concept of 'abiogenisis' is well-founded in organic chemistry (plenty of YouTube videos to research, and decide for yourself).

But....set that aside, for the moment....

I perceive this as a failure of imagination. That is, modern evolution 'deniers' view it (abiogenesis) as happening in one place, in one part of the planet. See where I'm going with this???

In all of the World's Ocean's, and given the 'infinite time' that God believers ascribe to him/her....why not just let the 'spark of life' happen, and realize that the rest is, as they say, 'History'???

Who cares whether it was Divine, or not???? It's what's in our brains that matter.....








[edit on 3/23/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
It really wouldn't be hypocritical, i never said that logic isn't perfect. I said that you can not know that your logic is flawed through logic that is flawed.



wouldn't you have to have the opinion your logic is flawed before you can have the opinion you cannot know your logic is flawed by the same opinion your logic is flawed?



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


macchi.....ytou are trying to make a mockery of my siggy....it would seem.

Or maybe not.....either way, we are BOTH way off-topic, so although I accepted your bait, this time, I will not get stuck on the hook!!!!

I'm the one that got away!!!!!



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JPhish
 


JPhish....I was impressed by the response from 'Spy66'.

I did try to read your last two posts....and, again, started to get a headache.

Now, without 'flaming'....please tell me why it is necessary to 'pull-apart' a post by someone else in order to make YOUR point?

I write this, after giving up on trying to make any sense of your two responses (no offence).

Just....as has been repeated, over and over in this thread, 'abiogenisis' is an entirely separate discipline from 'evolution'. One should be careful not to conflate the two, except as inasmuch as they might intertwine....which is the problem here. (edit)....a most awkward sentence, sorry....stet.

Or, to be more specific....the concept of 'abiogenisis' is well-founded in organic chemistry (plenty of YouTube videos to research, and decide for yourself).

But....set that aside, for the moment....

I perceive this as a failure of imagination. That is, modern evolution 'deniers' view it (abiogenesis) as happening in one place, in one part of the planet. See where I'm going with this???

In all of the World's Ocean's, and given the 'infinite time' that God believers ascribe to him/her....why not just let the 'spark of life' happen, and realize that the rest is, as they say, 'History'???

Who cares whether it was Divine, or not???? It's what's in our brains that matter.....

[edit on 3/23/0909 by weedwhacker]


I would think otherwise, if evolution says we came from a common ancestor and most of that is speculation. Most of the tenets of evolution are based on what they extrapolate going backwards trying to get to that common ancestor. So lets assume they go all the way back to the amoeba. Does not evolution keep going back? or was their no more evolution before that? I think if evolution wants to equivocate like it most certainly does when it is going forward I think it is fair to do it going backwards as well. Their is evolution happening during abiogenesis is there not? This is the scary part for evolutionists and the area they dare not go for it is what I believe separates the natural from the super natural, the finite from the infinite, time from timelessness, belief from non belief and man from his creator.

Why would a Science, not want to go there unless it is one that has more to lose more to be totally and utterly dismantled then the one we know as

DARWINIAN EVOLUTION



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


macchi.....ytou are trying to make a mockery of my siggy....it would seem.

Or maybe not.....either way, we are BOTH way off-topic, so although I accepted your bait, this time, I will not get stuck on the hook!!!!

I'm the one that got away!!!!!


HUH? No I am asking Jphish a serious question weed. what was it I said that makes a mockery of your sig?


On second look at your sig, which by the way is intriguing after I read it. I see why you would think that looking at the question I asked. But no lol I really am asking a serious question it just looks circular like your sig does.

No bait weed we're koO



[edit on 23-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


macchi....with all respect.....

There are plenty of YouTube videos to explain.

An open mind will look, and listen. I've been open....and have made my decision.

Please look up, and realize my point....life did NOT originate in ONE place, in one obscure spot on the Earth.....to think that is to be ignorant of the immensity of the diversity of llife on the Earth....even today.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


macchi....with all respect.....

There are plenty of YouTube videos to explain.

An open mind will look, and listen. I've been open....and have made my decision.

Please look up, and realize my point....life did NOT originate in ONE place, in one obscure spot on the Earth.....to think that is to be ignorant of the immensity of the diversity of llife on the Earth....even today.


Assuming it did originate in more than one place and assuming you could prove that which you cannot but regardless the question remains. was there or was there NOT evolution going on at that time and before it in as many places as you want to assume there were? yes or no?



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Oh???

Aermacchi, asking me directly???

Well, yes, as to one of your questions.....it is a big planet, and I would imagine that since it is mostly water, even billions of years ago, the potential for abiogenesis, knowing how chemistry works, would have a virtually limitless ability to form.....aminio acids, etc, etc, etc, etc.....

But, I wasn't there billions of years ago......

Science is your friend...



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
Regardless of where you think logic comes from, you need logic/reasoning to interpret evidence. You’re in the paradox again.


Only if you think it is one. Again, just because the evidence shows that human reasoning is open to errors, does not mean all human reasoning is open to errors. Logic is just intellectual masturbation until applied to the real-world.

The evidence is pretty clear and any kind of special pleading to pull yourself from your own supposed paradox is laughable. Indeed, your earlier two-step jig to dodge questions on this issue is great stuff.


I’m not simplifying anything.


Simply saying that psychology is applied biology is missing the whole range of what psychology is. I agree to a degree, as some areas are, but there are wide areas of psychology that barely touch on biology.


When I say logic I am using it synonymously with reason. You interpret the evidence with your logic/reason.


Yes, and it isn't a flawed inference. It's a very clear one supported by a wealth of evidence. Even you're own claims here are evidence of the issue. Some sandwiches are made of ham, therefore all sandwiches are made of ham.


I actually, I am, because I don’t follow your ideology, so I don’t fall victim to its blunders.


A fallacy - special pleading. And I suppose to solve the problem you make stuff up about supernatural influences. The problem is that your claim of a paradox had nothing to do with ideology. Nor does my acceptance that human reasoning is less than perfect, it is purely evidence-based and you are only helping to bolster that position.

Blunders? lol

[edit on 23-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Of course we are constrained by the laws of nature.

Not constrained . . . completely controlled.


Nope, constrained.


In the main? If I were a naturalist, I would take no responsibility for my actions. There would be no point to.


Lucky that you're not, then. I suppose that's a bit like theists who think that without god morals don't exist. Amazing that atheists and determinists aren't just psychopaths, eh?

But I suggest that you cling onto your theism, it's probably for the best.


It was a “loaded” question.
I don’t actually believe this.


Errmm, OK.


Accept? You believe you have free-will?


Either-or.


Yeah, I’m not sure what you’re saying or how it relates.


lol


or maybe the sick f*ck was using the lesion as an excuse.


lol

The dude was previously an excellent father and husband, and he was afterwards. Throw off the shackles of dualism, it's a useless fantasy and is not consistent with neuroscience.

The evidence is pretty clear that you are a result of your brain. The little homonculus 'you' is a result of brain activity.


I was trying to form a contrast to show how inane it is to break down a priori knowledge.


Cool. Still a very, very poor analogy.


I don’t see it happening any other way. If you’re in a naturalist universe, and everything is predetermined by nature. It seems to me that something would have to exist “outside” of nature so as to not be bound by it.


Yup, I wuz right.


several points/possibilities . . .
1. You didn’t have a choice; you were predetermined to stop it. Hence you did not stop it from rolling off the table because it never could have.
2. Something else may have stopped it from rolling off the edge of the table.
3. It was never going to roll off the table.


Okie doke.


it’s not the angle I was going for. You see . . . if the criminals detained by the pre-crime system in Minority Report had followed their natural impulses, the system would have been flawless. But the characters learn that they have choice. They aren’t slaves to their nature.


Cool.


Expression of intentions or desires are nothing if they are not truly our own.


I guess so.


and the longevity of your position is a testament to what exactly?


That this:


So then you agree that “free-will” as it is understood by most of the world is not applicable in a naturalist universe or other hypothetical universes?


is not correct.


Perhaps I’m just a cynic, but I have trouble swallowing that entire position. Sounds to me like people not taking responsibility for them selves. It’s almost as contrived as “restless leg syndrome”. Classifying people in such ways does not serve to help these individuals; it only serves to enable them to continue their inappropriate behavior under the specious asylum of a diagnosed illness.




[edit on 23-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Oh???

Aermacchi, asking me directly???

Well, yes, as to one of your questions.....it is a big planet, and I would imagine that since it is mostly water, even billions of years ago, the potential for abiogenesis, knowing how chemistry works, would have a virtually limitless ability to form.....aminio acids, etc, etc, etc, etc.....

But, I wasn't there billions of years ago......

Science is your friend...


You weren't there? Then who was? and if no one was then how do we falsify this weed? How do we even consider this "Scientific" using the same standards that exclude theories such as ID for instance?

“first-cause” scenarios require something non or super natural. If it is true that everything which has a beginning requires a cause, then seeing science has told us the universe, i.e. nature, had a beginning, it also had a cause. Nature by definition could not have originated via natural processes because natural processes exist only in nature.
just because something is conceivable, that does not also make it possible.. When I was programming for games such as FPS like quake 3 for instance. “collision theory” is a HUGE part of that and is very similar to computer models I have heard about to explain best conceivable naturalistic explanation for the formation of the Earth and Moon HOWEVER they do not mean that such a scenario is even possible in most cases.

Like we have seen so often in computer models for how the towers fell NIST used their computer models to substantiate their explanation regardless that such a scenario was impossible to repeat using scaled down physical models and tests were inconclusive. Same with global warming and same with Nature. SOMETHING is ALWAYS MISSING or Fudged data is a culprit in proving them. In all cases they are NOT scientifc then. What they are becomes a conspiracy to prove a point.





having said, that What evolutionists try to do is to either re-define science to only include “natural” processes, (as if intelligent causes are non-natural), or try to tie other the competing theory such as ID to the supernatural.

They think that if ID is tied to the supernatural then it has violated some arbitrary rule of science because as everyone knows super natural = God = Religion = not science = Judge Jones, Dover vs Kitzmiller = Them right, us wrong etc, etc blah blah blah.

Who makes up such rules? Especially when those same rules seem to never apply to Science anyway, only to the ones you and others claim is NOT science.

Either that or they try to hold it to some other arbitrary rules of science, never thinking that the reigning paradigm of evolution has no chance of meeting those same standards of the Scientific method. They DON'T!

EXAMPLE:

If anyone were to hold evolution to the same rigors of the scientific method, it trips over the logical fallacy for assuming the consequent EVERY TIME. The admit it too and yet most science's like cosmology and the statement weed makes as to life just "poofing" into existence as if by magic, does the same exact thing. When Ben Stein asks Prof. Richard Dawkins in the movie "No intelligence allowed" where life began how did it happen, Richard says " We don't know". He is right to say that and most of the evolutionists would counter saying something like "Well what are we supposed to say,, GOD DID IT?"

I happen to think God did it but am told that is a stupid answer because it doesn't answer the question so it is not scientific. My question is, why not? what is so un-scientific that my statement should be labled stupid when Dawkins statement gives no more an answer LESS in fact than mine does. AT least mine gives a possibility, albeit does'nt explain how but that was not it's intention. Their are lots of forces in nature we have called scientific that we can measure and test yet we have no clue what the hell it is.

Gravity is one even lightning we still know very little about.

We see Creationists giving statistics and impossible odd and probability for all the intricate components of life to have taken place in one place at one time yet what do we get for an answer from Evolutionists to explain this away from the argument??

"Yet we exist!"

I say Yeah and??

Then you give the life happened in many places or many other give the multi universe explantion. The universe we live in exists and since it is the only observable verse we have or knew ablout we labeled it the universe. Yet you refuse as does most of the denying science community in evolution, the same prejudice and discrimination used against Sciences like Intelligent Design yet are completely oblivious to the monumental hypocrisy that exists when they give us answers like that.

If the multi-verse hypothesis is held to the same standards as ID it has to be able to tell us, at a minimum, how many verses there are, where those verses exist and what number we live in. Yet what do we get for an answer?

we exist.

hehe just as corny as saying "God did it"

What are the options to our existence? They just make up more "just so" fables and YOU KNOW IT WEED! YOu know this is true! I have seen yo usay you are agnostic and the reason I think you are is because deep down in your heart of hearts YOU REFUSE to believe in God but at the same time you refuse to lie to yourself.

When it comes to LIFE, I mean Life itself the essence of life what it is?

What is the differnce between the blood of an animal that has died the body laying there next to a living one? They both have the same arteries the same heart lungs, brain, etc. but one has living blood cells and another doesn't. What is it that makes the one blood cell living and the other non living. What is it that we call life.

In 1981 there was a Court case (McLean v. Arkansas) involving Creation. In it Michael Ruse testified for a theory to be scientific it must be:

guided by natural law
explanatory by natural law
testable against the empirical world
tentative in its conclusions
falsifiable


Is the origin of life explained by natural law?

Nope.

Is all of life’s diversity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown population of single-celled organisms via common descent/ descent with modification explained by natural law?

Nope.

Is the origin of nature explained by natural law?

Nope.

The origin of nature, by definition, could not have been guided by natural law.

And yes, what about the origins of those natural laws themselves?

THIS is why they don't want to go there weed and if you did you know what conclusion you would be forced to come to??


yeah uh huh



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


It's simple, macchi....just look up a search on YouTube.

I can't bring the appropriate clip to you, you should search on your own, in order to learn.

Short explanation....the biological evidence of evolution is compelling.

Oh!!! We are talking about abiogenesis....well, as I've said, it is a BIG planet!!!

Please, educate yourself....look at the videos that are available. They explain far better than I can....how the chemistry works.

Yes....even how cells can form!!!!!

It is there....if you open your mind......



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


It's simple, macchi....just look up a search on YouTube.

I can't bring the appropriate clip to you, you should search on your own, in order to learn.

Short explanation....the biological evidence of evolution is compelling.

Oh!!! We are talking about abiogenesis....well, as I've said, it is a BIG planet!!!

Please, educate yourself....look at the videos that are available. They explain far better than I can....how the chemistry works.

Yes....even how cells can form!!!!!

It is there....if you open your mind......


Umm Chemistry is something I know a little more than the average bear about so I don't have a problem with it. I WILL take your suggestion and hit Youtube for something on it. I won't be able to answer you right away I live in a rural area and am dialup so these things take more time than I am usually prone to give but Ill do this out of respect for your intention I will gain some insight from it. I am going to see a colleague of mine at AZ State University to have dinner at his house. He is a Prof. of statistics and has super fast connection speed so Ill do some research there.

Till then

- Aermacchi



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join