update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside

So according to freedom theory are the decision making capablities of a living mouse with a brain present and intact the same as or less than the decision making capabilities of a mouse with it's brain removed?In terms of freedom theory what, if any, is the difference between the two in terms of their ability to make decisions and choices?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

What does that mean?
Can you give a more specific practical example of the difference?

Well I would say that the brainless mouse is incapable of making decisions. It's dead. It has no brain.
Are you saying that according to freedom theory the dead, brainless mouse is now incapable of making decisions too?

You have repeatedly asserted that it is common sense and obvious that freedom is true. However I do not think many sane people would consider it common sense or obvious that dead mice with their brains removed continue to make choices and decisions.
Despite the fact that your asertions seem literally insane to me I am prepared to put that on hold for one moment to further investigate your thinking.Surely you must admit that the apparent and observable ability of living creatures with functioning brains to make choices and decisions beyond those of inanimate objects or dead brainless creatures? Do you indeed recognise this? Or not?How do you account for this via freedom theory?
If you cannot account for, or even acknowledge, all the observational evidence that brainless entities appear to exhibit less freedom than their brained conterparts via freedom theory is this not a fairly significant flaw in the theory as a whole?A theory of decisions that explains none of the observational evidence regarding the ability to make decisions. That is a pretty weak position wouldn't you agree?

Where? I have yet to see you directly answer a single question in this thread. You keep asserting this but it is false and it obviously demonstrates the exact opposite to that which you claim to be true.I can decide to go left or right. You can decide to go left or right. The living, functioning brain owning mouse can decide to go left or right. The thing we all have in common is that we all have functioning brains (well....arguably partially functional in your case)A toothbrush, a planet or a dead, de-brained mouse however give no observable indication of being able to decide to go left, right or anywhere else. These things do not have functioning brains.Can you see a pattern emerging here at all? Brains = Ability to decide to go left or right.
No brains = No ability to decide to go left or right.
Is this not what the obervable evidence suggests?Even using your own simplistic left/right example just demonstrates the opposite to everything you are asserting.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

None of this tackles the issue of why things with brains are observed to have considerably more freedom than those things that do not have brains.Not explaining this rather obvious observation would seem to be a particularly fundamental flaw in your theory.How do you address this?

The fact that you think that creationism is true regardless of evidence, regardless of argument, regardless of reason and regardless of any comprehension of anticipation theory is indeed very very very clear.What is less clear is what exactly you think freedom is, what it is freedom actually applies to and why any of this would conceivably support any creationist position?Your whole argument seems to amount to: I can decide to go left or right therefore creationism is true.The problem with this is that conventional science does not deny you the ability to decide to go left or right. In fact conventinal science suggests that you do have this ability to decide whilst a toothbrush or a dead brainless mouse do not. As observed.