update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside

This is utterly untrue.
The most simple physical macroscopic systems with the least number of relevant factors to be taken into account with regard to initial conditions are also the most accurately predictable. Exactly as would be expected by conventional science.Freedom on the other hand gives no reason as to why a simple system is more predictable and therefore less free than a complex system. The logical prediction of freedom as you have described it would be that all systems are equaly unpredictable. Which of course they are not.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Observers do not make decisions.CLARIFICATION REQUEST
Can you describe how, by who/what and at which point in the process such a "choice" is made according to your theory. Use an atom undergoing radioactive decay if you are unable to think of your own example.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Never mind mainstream science. I very much doubt that you could even get another creationist to state that toothbrushes make decisions and that paper-clips are capable of love.You have actually, and apparently in all seriousness, asserted both these things in the course of this discussion. I have direct experience and practical common knowledge of reading books, posting on internet forums, getting drunk and a whole host of other very human specific things. This does not mean that it is reasonable to extrapolate this to a general principle that concludes that toasters and plug sockets have needs, wants, desires, favorite books or a preference for beer over wine.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Are you saying that conventional science allows for no alternate futures.
What leads you to think this?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

What you seem to be describing is logical determinism or mechanistic determinism.
QM is not deterministic nor even causal. Nor does the uncertainty principle allow the perfect knowledge of any system required to make it perfectly predictable. In principle or in practise.The inherently probabalistic nature of QM, the resulting inherent uncertainty in the precise initial state of any system and the ideas of chaos theory, whereby tiny fluctuations in initial conditions can have exponential effects, means that modern science expects the very opposite of that which you are claiming.A degree of unpredictability is fully integrated into, and even necessitated by, current scientific theories. You do not need to invoke decision making toothbrushes or toasters to account for this.Your whole argument is against a strawman version of science of your own creation.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No modern scientist I have ever heard of has claimed that the universe is wholly mechanistically deterministic and utterly predictable in principle or in practise. Quite the opposite in fact.Which scientists do you think have said this? What did they say exactly? There are indisputably causes for people's tendancies and behaviours. Genetic and environmental causes indisputably and demonstrably exist.
That is not the same as saying that everything is mechanistically predetermined and wholly predictable. Not at all.If that is your understanding you have misunderstood. The most common interpretation of QM amongst scientists in my experience is the 'Many Worlds' interpretation. Far from denying alternate futures and demanding a single predetermined destiny this interpretation of QM suggests that there are an almost infinite variety of possibilities. But not all possible variations are the result of decisions. Randomness, probability, unpredictability and a multitude of possible futures are not just explained by current scientific theories. These things are innately part of modern scientific theories. Even by the depressingly low standards of creationist thinking it has to be said that your position with regard to decision making toothbrushes and paper-clips capable of love is pretty 'Out There'.So - Come on creationsists - How many of you are willing to stand up and be counted with Syamsu on the issue of breadsticks, bottletops and bananas making decsions? Are the desires and choices of tennis balls and pepper grinders the method by which future possibilities are realised? How many of you think paper-clips are capable of love?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well that is your wholly unsupported assertion. This sentance makes no sense. What do you mean? The alternate futures according to science are all of those physically possible. There is no decision making involved in determining these futures. Every physical possibility is included. If your argument has any worth at all you need to supply some evidence or reasoning regarding this key point beyond simply stating that you think it is obvious.The idea of coathangers and cardboard boxes making decisions is not obvious. Is not common sense. And is not supported by other creationists.So just telling us it is obvious really isn't a good enough argument.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The available alternatives are all those that are physically possible. The randomness is due to the inherently probabalistic nature of QM.
Example: At any given point in time a particular atom will, or will not, decay. According to QM we can calculate the statistical likelihood of that atom decaying at each point in time. However we can never say for certain exactly when it actually will decay. An element of non-causal, non-deterministic randomness is an innate and inherent part of quantum theory and thus reality (if such interpretations of QM are true).As far as I am aware this view is consistent with the dominant interpretations of QM amongst scientists.Therefore your assertion that all scientists are somehow advocates of a mechanistically deterministic universe whereby everything is predermined and any notion of freewill is impossible seems to be false.
And we do not have to invoke decision making toothbrushes, evil door knobs or loved-up tangerines in order to allow for these things. Which is a bonus in the eyes of most sane people.

Maybe you are being too simplistic? To the point of idiocy at times. How does this experience of my ability to choose to go left or right necessarily, or even possibly, equate to the ability of a toothbrush to go left or right? Science? A "theory" that cannot be experimentally verified because it predicts nothing and claims no results that can possibly differentiate it from real science. A "theory" that says all of the predictions of conventional science will remain true whilst also saying that all of conventional science is in fact wrong. I am going to keep pointing out to you that you have claimed that toothbrushes make decisions until you realise just how ridiculous you are (or until this thread is eventually closed )Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So in place of comprehension you decide that decsion making walnuts are a valid and even probable alternative? Congratulations on that piece of astute thinking.

That which you have presented as your argument frankly deserves little else. Chance. Which is a very non-spiritual answer. It can indeed be interesting to consider what could have been. This however gives no support to your claims. Again you state this unsupported assertion. Repeatedly asserting it neither makes it true nor adds any weight to your almost non-existant argument. Why? Why, and on what basis other than theistic philosophical bias, do you deny any role for blind random chance?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Unsurprisingly interpretations of quantum mechanics seems to be a bit beyond you. So lets try a less conceptually difficult line of questioning instead.DECISIONS AND BRAINS
Hopefully we can both agree that a mouse appears to display some level of decision making ability. Able to make choices and seemingly able to demonstrate some level of freewill. Yes?
If we remove the brain of this mouse I think it is fair to say that an evident diminishment of it's ability to make decisions would be observed. It's ability to demonstrate freewill would, I hope we can agree, be somewhat impaired.THE GLUE THAT HOLDS IT ALL TOGETHER
Now lets take a toothbrush. Does this demonstrate any observable ability to make choices? Does it undertake any noticeable acts of apparent freewill? Is there any part of the toothbrush that we could remove that would have any apparent effect on it's behavior? If we cut it in half would each half exhibit independent behaviour or would they still act as a composite body with a single will with regard to decision making? Is each bristle an independent decision-making entity or does the glue that holds it all together transform the toothbrush entity into something that is greater than the sum of it's parts?QUESTION
Given all of the above what on Earth leads you to the conclusion that brains and the ability to make decisions are independent of each other?

This is the basis of your whole position but you yet again assert it with no supporting argument, evidence or reason. You have no case that anyone can see.Why is blind random chance not a working concept? I didn't even use the word "realized"

Straggler Writes Syamsu Replies Syamsu you seem to be completely incapable of making any actual case or even answering any direct question put to you with respect to the position that you are apparently advocating.And then you wonder why mockery, ridicule and frustration are the result.I will ask again -
Question: Given all of the observable evidence to the contrary what on Earth leads you to the conclusion that brains and the ability to make decisions are independent of each other?

You are back to quantum interpretations again!!! You have already demonstrated a gross inability to comprehend that topic.
But anyway.......what has this got to do with the question asked? How do you account for the quite apparent difference in ability to make decisions between a mouse with a brain as compared to a mouse without a brain? Or indeed a toothbrush?I ask yet again - Can you just answer the question?