Stupid Creationist!

[polarkrackin]

Originally Posted by Guado

Well I think you just proved natural selection wrong. Or rather you will if you are allowed to reproduce. Never have I seen so much inane nonsensical logical fallacies in a single post. It was meaningless incoherent ramblings based on nothing remotely provable in the slightest.

Here ya go kiddo! Since I doubt you actually read the first post I made I will make this clear as I can.

Also, I said people who have committed sexual offense are more likely to repeat than someone who never has. I did not say victims of it had a chance to do something. I have no idea where you got that idea from.

Ok Guado here it is. Behavior spelled out for ya, and let's see where free will fits.

Of all the factors of behavior, it has been boiled down into three parts.

Firstly, genetics- this defines your senses capabilities and your body's potential. Some people grow up to be very tall, very short, double jointed and have red hair! There are some chemical factors involved that can alter our growth, so genetics is simply our potential. Also, many personality traits have been researched and concluded to be heritable (not all of course).

Second, history- This is everything we have experienced and learned. This is our habits and our conditioning. Some people would say this is all of our skills. Well the second something is absorbed through our senses and stored in our memory, it becomes our history. History of events, and history of environments. Such as understanding the world you live in now based on your view of it in the past. And the past is anywhere between 1 second ago to 1 million years ago.

Third, environment- This is the last factor that impacts behavior. The air pressure in the room, the amount of lighting, how hungry you are, how much caffeine is in your system, how much sleep you've had, the social forces at work, and so on. Clearly your history with the world helps inform you how to interpret each environment. And clearly your genetics help give you the information through your senses.

So my genetics give me the information through my senses, my history tells me how to interpret the data, and my environment normally tells me what I want and where I am(such as what urges am I under the impression of right now).

If the unit of analysis is behavior, the person really isn't that important. It is simply where the behavior is taking place. Oh no, I probably pissed someone off by saying that! So as a scientist we try to understand what combinations of genetics/history/environment will yield replications of results. Seems reasonable, but people hate the idea of no free will and take to attacking me personally. Yes, a good defense is calling me a loon!

Anyways, I think the absolute best example I can leave you with is this.

What happens when we take someone with no long term memory and test them in the same situation multiple times? Interesting direction to take this, I know. The reason this is so important is that it gives the researcher a new level of control over the subject. History will never change for this person. They will not add more data to their history, so that is controlled for. Also, genetics never change from day to day (well im sure somehow they could...) so they will be considered controlled for. So if we test someone with no long term memory function again and again the only thing we do not have direct control over is the environment. The environment is internal and external. We can control the room they are in, the temperature, the humidity, the lighting, but we cannot readily control their level of stress fatigue, amount of sleep they got that day, how frustrated they are, etc. One would assume if you made them conform to a pattern they would be easier to deal with, but that would be simply unethical. In light of that, I predict that if one tests a person with no longer term memory multiple times in the same situation, they will yield identical results. <------ that is a prediction. I am putting it all on the line. I haven't seen a creationist do that. I haven't seen someone defending free will do that. That is an enormous difference.

The famous saying is, you cannot step in the same river twice. Controlling every aspect of an environment is practically impossible. If nothing else, the subject will continue to grow older day by day. I am unsure how that would impact anything.

Also, I think I put a lot more into this thought process than you gave me credit for. A good theory offers a more fruitful explanation. Free will is just a cop out. "why did that person do that, because he chose to!" Failing to want to dissect and analysis the causes of behavior is rather hilarious. It's like saying, "why is the sky blue, because god wanted it to be!"


In closing, psychology has a long way to go. Their correlations are pretty weak most of the time, and it's hard to see the effects of what they do. However, each and every day we find out that people are in less control of themselves than they believe. It's just like as science finds out more about the world, less and less is attributed to god. "Why are their mountains, because of god!" Well we know that to be wrong, as we learned more about the world. This is why I do not hold it against you that you basically called me an idiot, you just didn't have control of yourself. Though, failure to recognize that this direction has a lot to offer is a bit... odd to me at least.

[Guado]

Originally Posted by polarkrackin

Yes, a good defense is calling me a loon!

Anyways, I think the absolute best example I can leave you with is this.

What happens when we take someone with no long term memory and test them in the same situation multiple times? Interesting direction to take this, I know. The reason this is so important is that it gives the researcher a new level of control over the subject. History will never change for this person. They will not add more data to their history, so that is controlled for. Also, genetics never change from day to day (well im sure somehow they could...) so they will be considered controlled for. So if we test someone with no long term memory function again and again the only thing we do not have direct control over is the environment. The environment is internal and external. We can control the room they are in, the temperature, the humidity, the lighting, but we cannot readily control their level of stress fatigue, amount of sleep they got that day, how frustrated they are, etc. One would assume if you made them conform to a pattern they would be easier to deal with, but that would be simply unethical. In light of that, I predict that if one tests a person with no longer term memory multiple times in the same situation, they will yield identical results. <------ that is a prediction. I am putting it all on the line. I haven't seen a creationist do that. I haven't seen someone defending free will do that. That is an enormous difference.

The famous saying is, you cannot step in the same river twice. Controlling every aspect of an environment is practically impossible. If nothing else, the subject will continue to grow older day by day. I am unsure how that would impact anything.

Also, I think I put a lot more into this thought process than you gave me credit for. A good theory offers a more fruitful explanation. Free will is just a cop out. "why did that person do that, because he chose to!" Failing to want to dissect and analysis the causes of behavior is rather hilarious. It's like saying, "why is the sky blue, because god wanted it to be!"

More likely isn't an absolute. Because that absolute does not exist is a vicious point against your argument

The only thing I haven't refuted yet, the rest was you reiterating your own points without attacking my rebuttals.

I didn't call you a loon I called your point stupid. I think you are taking incomplete data and making an assumption based on incomplete data. More commonly known as a logical fallacy. That very long and ultimately fruitless conclusion you have reached is the definition of a logical fallacy. I'm actually near overload on specifically where to start.

Here goes:

First I think that the word you are looking for is short term memory. Short term memory is day to day memories if a person had no longer term memories but had short term memories they would make a history each and every day. Well actually they'd be regressed to an infantile stage since your long term memory is (assuming I'm remembering correctly) also where you keep functions like walking and talking.

In any case assuming they forgot each day is what I'm guessing you're trying to get at and I have to say you don't really have anything to say.

All of your point is based on assumption and unlike creationism which cannot be proven or disproven via science and thus trying will inevitably lead to frustration, your point IS subject to proof and you have offered none. You are literally preaching (irony most delicious) about a subject you thought of with zero back up. Even some of your assumptions were proven to be fallacies.

Your example is an extreme to a ridiculous extent. It's almost as bad as saying a person offered a choice between getting stabbed to death or winning a million dollars will always decide to pick a million dollars. BRILLIANT!

But your example is just silly a person given the exact same choices if they have nothing raising them or any memory of things raising them would do the exact same thing isn't really saying much. Now if there were some way to put in morally questionable tests like a guy losing his wallet on whether or not the person would return it but since they have no memories they don't even know what a wallet is they'd probably just pick it up and try to determine what the hell it is. Others probably would be to shy to pick it up perhaps their curiosity would get the best of them perhaps it wouldn't. I doubt even their sleeping patterns would remain consistent. They also would be influenced on how the hell they felt. That right there is free will! Free will isn't choosing to do something else it is merely the ability to do so.

You risked absolutely nothing since your prediction cannot be tested. I can tell you that you're wrong but ultimately you'll stick with your dogma. And thus bad for something like science.

The point you seem to be missing is you can only be influenced by your surroundings, memories or anything. You make the choice to do something or decide not to. That seems to be what you keep missing.

You are amusingly self assured that what you think you know to be scientific fact and that you actually have to bolster your own faith in your opinions to make it seem more valid only speaks volumes that you yourself aren't to convinced by it. You don't want to believe your opinion is wrong and that mentality is the exact opposite of science.

[darththeo]

How come in every topic about Evolution someone mentions the Big Bang ... honestly, it is quite annoying. I had to explain to people that the Big Bang Theory is outdated and very few scientists believe that a "singularity exploding" was the cause of the universe anymore.

[polarkrackin]

Originally Posted by Guado

First I think that the word you are looking for is short term memory. Short term memory is day to day memories if a person had no longer term memories but had short term memories they would make a history each and every day. Well actually they'd be regressed to an infantile stage since your long term memory is (assuming I'm remembering correctly) also where you keep functions like walking and talking.

Short term memory last about 7 seconds. I question your background in psychology if you have any at all. Clearly psychological functions aren't an area of your expertise. Short term memory is often called "working memory." From working memory our hippocampus takes it and begins to encode it. There is a next part, called the medium term memory, and then long. Issues that effect the hippocampus normally effect medium and long term, but each case is different. Most common would be a massive vitamin B deficiency often found in alcoholics. I see the error I made in referring to "no long term memory." My original version of the post named the disease, but I felt like it was going to warrant too much explaining. I meant to say it like this, "unable to create new long term memories." With that in mind, you may be able to make sense of the comments I made. Clearly a person with no long term memory would certainly be an oddity.


Next, you are saying I am working off an assumption. However, free will is also an assumption. So the best you can do is give both ideas the same amount of merit. However, you have gone out of your way to say it's foolish, though you may argue that isn't what you said, it's simply the tone. I'm not sure what more I can say on the idea. Both ideas are assumptions. One theory is more fruitful, more parsimonious, answers more questions... so empirically speaking it is more useful. I know it does not make it true.

I think you missed the part of my posts where I said, "I have faith in my assertions, oh no, faith, now it sounds like I am part of the problem."

I understand my position and my limitations. However, I am willing to explain it, and give examples of FALSIFIABILITY more-so than a creationist view. Falsifiability is paramount to a theory. Though, I know currently we lack the sophistication to carry out a procedure with enough control to show what I wish to show.

Then ya said this "Your example is an extreme to a ridiculous extent. It's almost as bad as saying a person offered a choice between getting stabbed to death or winning a million dollars will always decide to pick a million dollars. BRILLIANT!"

My extreme example of what? I left it open ended. I said if we put someone in a situation where they had to make a choice I predicted they would make the same choice over and over if they could not add to their history. So just to spell it out to you, it could be innocuous and simple. Three playing cards laying face down. We ask him to pick one. He picks the middle one. We replicate the situation to the perfect degree and ask him once his history is control for, and ask him again. If he does again and again and again... what does that mean? The level of control required is the only thing that is extreme. For me to say that I can create an environment in which he will absorb his environment the same way over and over sure is questionable. Let's imagine he is about to make his choice. He looks at me, he looks at the cards, he looks at me again, then chooses. Then the next time, he looks at me and then the cards and picks without looking at me again. Suddenly I realize a portion of the control has been lost.

(Now I understand your comments were made based on my poor explanation of "no long term memory" instead of "unable to create any more long term memories." So you may have not meant all of that, or perhaps your responses will remain the same.)

If you wanted to point out the obvious flaws with this, you could have chosen this route instead of saying silly things like "tea cake or DEATH." I understand how almost impossible it is. However, I feel it is the best route to take.



"The point you seem to be missing is you can only be influenced by your surroundings, memories or anything. You make the choice to do something or decide not to." -- Well, much like you are holding it against me. PROVE IT. You are critiquing me for my lack of a provable example, so I must hold the same to you. In the end, we are left with the consensus that they are both currently assumptions. One is a more useful theory, one isn't. That much could be up to debate. However, simply ignoring the idea doesn't do anyone any favors.

[Guado]

Originally Posted by polarkrackin

My extreme example of what? I left it open ended. I said if we put someone in a situation where they had to make a choice I predicted they would make the same choice over and over if they could not add to their history. So just to spell it out to you, it could be innocuous and simple. Three playing cards laying face down. We ask him to pick one. He picks the middle one. We replicate the situation to the perfect degree and ask him once his history is control for, and ask him again. If he does again and again and again... what does that mean? The level of control required is the only thing that is extreme. For me to say that I can create an environment in which he will absorb his environment the same way over and over sure is questionable. Let's imagine he is about to make his choice. He looks at me, he looks at the cards, he looks at me again, then chooses. Then the next time, he looks at me and then the cards and picks without looking at me again. Suddenly I realize a portion of the control has been lost.

Then I will leave you with this. You are basing your "experiment" on the belief that free will is choosing something different. (Picking the same card would be proof to you) but as I continue to inform you over and over and over again THAT.... IS.....NOT...... FREE WILL. Free will is the ability to do so your experiment wouldn't determine anything whether or not the subject picked the same card four hundred times or a different one four hundred times. That would be merely showing the out come of free will or a lack there of if you decide to falsely believe. To actually see if free will exists you would have to find out if they have the ability to pick a different card and that is quite impossible.

The Qur'an is horrifying, as are the New and Old Testement. Otherwise good people can be made to condone and perform heinous acts in the name of religion.

Oh do tell the new Testament has horrifying parts in it? Please post these horrible parts as you have a tendency to come up with some pretty wacky posts without actually reading the bit your commenting on.

Edit: My money is on either Revelations or the letters of Paul. Mentioning either will betray your ignorance of the Bible.

[genderhazard]

The beheading of John the Baptist by Herod Antipas.

Herod had imprisoned John because he reproved Herod for divorcing his wife (Phasaelis), and unlawfully taking his brother Herod Philip I's wife, Herodias.

On Herod's birthday, Herodias' daughter (Salome) danced before the king and his guests. Her dancing pleased Herod so much that in his drunkenness he promised to give her anything she desired, up to half of his kingdom.

When the daughter asked her mother what she should request, she was told to ask for the head of John the Baptist on a platter. Although Herod was appalled by the request, he reluctantly agreed and had John executed in the prison.

That wasn't very civilized.

[Guado]

Originally Posted by genderhazard

The beheading of John the Baptist by Herod Antipas.

Herod had imprisoned John because he reproved Herod for divorcing his wife (Phasaelis), and unlawfully taking his brother Herod Philip I's wife, Herodias.

On Herod's birthday, Herodias' daughter (Salome) danced before the king and his guests. Her dancing pleased Herod so much that in his drunkenness he promised to give her anything she desired, up to half of his kingdom.

When the daughter asked her mother what she should request, she was told to ask for the head of John the Baptist on a platter. Although Herod was appalled by the request, he reluctantly agreed and had John executed in the prison.

That wasn't very civilized.

Which has nothing to do with teachings on which to live by. Just something that happened. It was not exactly a fun time to live in. It was more about finding teachings that were bad not just a bad thing that happened. Unless of course Gandhi's message is now meaningless because the British Empire was beating thousands upon thousands of people to death in India.

I remember a time I was criticizing the bible and was called on to find something wrong with it. I picked a page completely at random from the new testament just to be fair and what I got was a passage basically saying women are fit to be seen and not heard.

Called it. That would be from Paul who was writing to a specific culture that had a tendency to kill women that didn't do that. Paul also wrote his opinions. (and usually states such right before he does so)

Guado, can you manage a post without insulting someone?

When someone doesn't even bother to read a post before posting the exact opposite of what I said I shall insult.

[genderhazard]

Originally Posted by Guado

Which has nothing to do with teachings on which to live by.

That was not part of your criteria.

The Massacre of the Innocents is an episode of mass infanticide by the King of Judea, Herod the Great, that appears in the Gospel of Matthew 2:16-18

[Vengeance1701]

Originally Posted by Guado

When someone doesn't even bother to read a post before posting the exact opposite of what I said I shall insult.

Which dilutes your opinion considerably.

Even if you're right, nobody'll care because nobody cares about the opinions of someone who can't make their points without resorting to schoolyard tactics.