A Stupid "Argument" Against Free Will

-
People love to argue for the sake of arguing. Obviously Jonathon MS Pearce didn't have a choice but to write his tripe about free will- LoL!

Is Society Accepting That Free Will Is an Illusion?

This is a joke of an article. He sez the following is evidence against free will:

1. We can predict criminality based on children’s ability at age three to show fear conditioning (that is, if they show no fear responses at age three, they appear to be less likely to worry about consequences and end up being more likely to be convicted of a crime some twenty years later).

That would mean that the people who didn't fall into criminality but met that criteria would have free will.

2. We can predict achievements (SAT scores, life outcomes, body mass index, and the like) of adolescents based on whether they could delay their gratification at ages five and six (whether they can put off eating one cookie now to get two cookies when the experimenter returns).

That would mean that the people who didn't fall into the prediction but met that criteria would have free will.

3. Certain autistic people are less likely to believe in God than neuro-typical people, and men less likely than women; 

4. We know that two-thirds of students who cannot read proficiently by the fourth grade will end up in jail or on welfare. 

5. We can predict who one will vote for based on one’s threshold of disgust. 

6. We can show that priming can heavily influence one’s “choices” in any given situation. 

7. There are umpteen genetic markers for behavior (such as psychopathic and sociopathic behavior) and so on, ad nauseam. 

All these say is that some people are predisposed to certain things. Perhaps they are INFLUENCED by their genetics and/ or upbringing.

Free will is predicated on CHOICES. Choices are predicated on ATTRACTIONS.

Free will is the lynchpin of our society. Our laws depend upon it.

The following are articles supporting free will: Free Will Lives!

I would love to see Pearce debate Egnor on free will. That will never happen as Pearce is a wanker who can only write for the chorus.

 

 

The Genetic Code is Indisputable Evidence for Intelligent Design

-
The genetic code is a real code- it is not a metaphor nor analogy. The genetic code is a code in the SAME sense as Morse code. The problem is codes only come from an intelligent agency. Nature cannot produce codes. If someone can demonstrate the contrary, that nature can produce codes, they will be a millionaire:

The Origin of Information: How to Solve It

To date no one has made a submission. That is because to do so requires science and materialism is the antithesis of science.

Kevin R. McCarthy of Smilodon's Retreat is an Ignorant Moron

-
Kevin doesn't understand the Galileo affair. He doesn't understand that the accepted SCIENCE of the day was geocentrism- the earth is in the center and the sun revolves around it. He doesn't understand that the SCIENTISTS of the day convinced the Church that the SCIENCE supported their interpretation of the Bible. Kevin is an ignorant moron.

He is also confused about creationists- they do not deny evolution, Kevin. The debate is not about evolution but the extent evolutionary processes can change a population. And if your position had some science creationists couldn't deny it.

Climate change- the climate has always been changing. That is what it does regardless of us.

Read Kevin's whiny post - Science vs money...

Evolutionists have all the resources, ie money, and they still have nothing. Climate change has governments behind it- plenty of money- yet still cannot explain the 18 year pause.

Richard T. Hughes- Willfully Ignorant and Proud of it

-
It doesn't matter how many times Newton's four rules of scientific investigation, Occam's Razor and parsimony are explained to Richie, he still manages to ignore it all. He also loves to equivocate. Case in point-> Over on TSZ The cupcake spews:

Sal, have you read WEIT? How much of it is a negative case against design? Compare that to ID and how much is a negative case against evolution.

1. ID is not a negative case against evolution. ID is not anti-evolution.

2. Science mandates that  that purely materialistic processes, such as those posited by evolutionism, be eliminated first. It is also the flow of the explanatory filter.

Unfortunately Richie will continue to do this because he is a pathological asshole.