Creationist theory
nando_r...@yahoo.com
response.
--
Creationism is really just quite straighforward valid science, it is
also common knowledge which we use every day, and really can't do
without. Far from being unscientific, creationism covers a huge, and
rich class of knowledge, which knowledge is oppressed by mainstream
science because mainstream science can't deal with things turning out
one way or another, indeterminacy.
Creationist theory depends on the three principles of creator, act of
creation, and the created object. I will illustrate the principles of
creationism with Michealangelo's painting in the sixtine chapel.
The creator:
Who is Michealangelo? It is not sufficient in creationism (or actually
it is mostly irellevant) to say how tall Michaelangelo is, or how much
he weighs in considering him as the creator of the painting. Within the
context of creationism identity-issues are solely about who is
Michealangelo as the owner of his choices. Who is Michaelangelo in his
heart, in his soul etc. Who does Michealangelo love and hate etc. Who
Michaelangelo is this way can only be approached subjectively by
relating your spirit to his, through your own choices.
To somehow pretend to make some objective appraisal of who
Michealangelo is in his heart, to try to rule out subjectivity from
judgement, merely results in coldhearted merciless judgement. But it is
a judgement nevertheless, and such knowledge of the heart can never
attain the status of fact.
So in this sense of identity-issues creationism is not objective, and
generally opposes objectivity. There is no science about who
Michaelangelo is as the owner of his choices, this is an art of
judgement. So creationism here stands opposed by social-darwinist
pseudoscience, such as evolutionary psychology, which proposes to
objectively know emotions. So the statement "Michaelangelo is a loving
person", might be a statement of fact to an evolutionary psychologist,
but the same statement is regarded as an art of judgement by a
creationist. Also what pseudoscientists commonly do is to assert as
objective fact that a decision has no spiritual or emotional owner at
all (such selfproclaimed "objective" assertions of lack of spirit are
usually attached to findings of randomness).
The act of creation:
Creation is an effort of choice. Unlike identity issues, this is simply
science. We may simply search and find the precise location of a
decision. At this location we will find nothing, or zero, meaning no
material, also called creatio-ex-nihilo. Why we find nothing at the
location of a decision is because material predetermines a result. Our
consideration of material is based on a past effecting a present. So it
would make no sense if we would find a material thing at the location
of a decision, because material, in our concept of it, only
predetermines, and never decides.
Consider for instance Michaelangelo choosing what to do in painting the
picture. Now if we consider Michaelangelo merely as a material object,
we might suppose that the painting just flows directly from some
genius-genes mediated by the environment unto the canvas. But the
problem with such a theory is that it negates the possibility of an
alternative result. So in this materialist scenario there is no actual
choosing, because any alternative result is impossible.
So it is demonstrated, merely by definition, that it is impossible that
we would find a material thing at the location of a decision, because
of the impossiblity of material leading to an alternative.
The evidence is, that there is indeed nothing at the point of decision.
Some credible scientists told me that the origin of randomness in a
zener-diode was at the socalled "quantum mechanical zeropoint". From
this point random noise is generated, meaning more or less, one can't
deduce the pattern of electrons coming out of the diode, from the
pattern of electrons coming into the diode. So it means the "pattern"
of electrons is decided at the precise location of the qmz-point.
Some scientists consider the qmz point real, and that nothing exists
there, others consider the qmz-point not real, since there is nothing
there.
Further evidence to illustrate the logical coherency of the creationist
interpretation of quantum mechanics in terms of chances getting
decided, is the probability-distribution of an electron around an atom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HAtomOrbitals.png
The creationist interpretation of this picture is that at the qmz point
(which is in the center of the probabilitydistribution) is the location
where the chance where the electron might be is decided. So this theory
says among other things that;
- the location of the electron changes per decision
- and consequently that there is a speed or sequence of decisions
- it says that chances are basically real, and inhabit the future
- it says the location where the decision is made on the chance where
the electron ends up, is not neccessarily the same as the location
where the electron ends up. So the decision is at one location, the
result may be at another location.
Now we have basically "seen" how creationism is true, seen a chance,
and seen the location at which the decision on the chance is made.
>From these basic assertions of fact follows the question, how does one
decision relate to another decision?
The creation:
The creation in the sense of relating one decision to another, is only
an informational entity. We derived the principle of creation from the
principle of choosing, the simplest representation of choices are
binary in the sense of 1 or 0. And so we must guess that somehow from
choosing we derive informational entities constructed in terms of
zero's and ones.
When Michealangelo created his painting, the purpose of his painting
was not so much the painting itself, but it was for instance, the
decision whether he liked the painting or not. So we can see how in
creation one decision relates to another, and the creation (the
painting) is the medium by which one decision relates to another.
And it is a similar principle with God and His original creation by
choice of His free will, which choice in the end will relate to another
decision, which is of course His Final Judgement on judgementday.
Some more points for consideration:
- the point at which a chance changes, or is realized or negated
(becomes 1 or 0), is called a decision. So creationist science is
largely based around tracing back the probabilities of the appearance
of a thing, to the decisions at which those probabilities were
determined. One might easily imagine this for instance in terms of a
line chart of the probability of human beings coming to be. For
instance we might say that the probability of people appearing later
on, was already 90 percent at the start of the universe, given normal
development of the universe. And so we might draw a chart where the
probability goes up and down, and every turn in the chart relates to a
decision at a location, until final appearance. That is how creationist
science works.
- decisions relate a future of chances to a present, effects relate a
past of causes to a present. One must always be aware of the
timeperspective when criticizing creationism, because creationism is
not a cause and effect principle, it is a principle of free will. It is
very easy to fall into the trap of discounting creationism by applying
the usual rules for criticizing scientific theories. Many of these
rules in science only apply to cause and effect principles, and are
irrellevant to principles of free will.
- again; the owners to decision are covered by identity-issues which
fall outside of science. Such identities can only be approached
subjectively through an art of one's own judgement. This broadly
includes emotions, spiritual, what's in the heart the soul, God etc,
all manner of judgement of good and evil, or loving and hateful etc. So
it would be no use to ask for objective evidence of God, because within
creationism such evidence is fashioned by an art of judgement.
- since emotions may be manifest at a point of decision, scientists
must be ethically constrained to investigate points of decision. The
reason why scientists are currently constrained in investigating people
for instance, should be interpreted to be because of this reason. That
is to say, we know at which location human decisons are, and we know
that emotions may be manifest at a point of decision, we know that pain
may be manifest at a point of decision, therefore we don't allow
scientists to experiment with human beings at these particular points
of decision for the reason that in doing so they may induce pain there.
The safe side of ethics demands that we acknowledge in principle a
spiritual owner to any decision anywhere.
and so on, and so on...
One can easily see that most of creationism is highly credible, because
much of the knowledge is already engrained within common knowledge, and
religion, and science also in many ways. Basically creationism is as
credible as it is credible that things may turn out one way or another.
The current mode of interpretation of quantum-mechanics which basically
omits decisions, and generally denies chances are real, has been
heavily criticized from it's conception (Schroedinger's cat for
instance). So creationism here only competes to a mode of
interpretation that has already been acknowledged as weak.
Remembering that creationism gives insight into decisions and chances,
and how one decision relates to another, decisionspeed etc., the sort
of technological application we might expect creationism to lead to are
things like:
- artificial consciousness in computers
- artifical beings of massive potential for emotions
- pseudo-superconductivity by centralizing many points of decision to
one point and so the electron will pass through a collective of atoms
per instance, rather then pass through many individual atoms per
instance.
- increased efficiency of jetengines by the atoms being blown out of
the engine being rapidly precisely stacked for optimal push ie. one
relates the points of decison one to another, giving a structure.
- teleporting of objects through the quantumtunnels that appear at
concentrated qmz-points, related to a concentration of qmz points
elsewhere
- wheathermodels that locate points of decision in the weathersystem
Well of course, these are just conjectural technological applications
that I thought of at the top of my head just now. But although the
reasoning behind these creationist technologies is lacking, it is still
reasonable to assume that there would be lots of technological
application following from science about decisions, the location of
them, how they relate to one another, the decisionspeed etc. simply
because knowledge about "decision" comprises a fundamental class of
knowledge. How much technological application follows from knowledge of
chance and decision, may be equal to how much technology followed from
knowledge of cause and effect, these are both fundamental classes of
knowledge.
One may find in nature "natural democracies", and "natural
dictatorships", that is to say that there is a potential for rich and
meaningful knowledge of structures of decisionpoints that exist
presently in nature, but are outside of our sight simply because we
aren't looking for points of decision. And so creationism gets us
closer to the truth, which was the purpose in the first place.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Dan Luke
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is what I posted over at evcforum some days ago, but to no
> response.
Maybe they can't stand this much craziness so early in the morning, either.
[snip absolute nonsense]
Dunc Harris
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> This is what I posted over at evcforum some days ago, but to no
> response.
Probably had a "don't feed the trolls" rule
> Creationism is really just quite straighforward valid science
(snip the rest)
What pathetic nonsense. It doesn't deserve any replies.
Wakboth
nando_r...@yahoo.com kirjoitti:
> This is what I posted over at evcforum some days ago, but to no
> response.
[total snip]
That's probably because you're writing incomprehensible essays about an
incoherent worldview (based on fatal misunderstanding of everything
from biology to mathematics) that no one, even other creationists,
follows.
-- Wakboth
nando_r...@yahoo.com
know that Darwinist conception of choice is generally along the lines
of Konrad Lorenz, Ernst Heackel, Cosmides, Tooby, Dawkins, Dennet,
Rushton etc. conception of it.
That is to say the Darwinist conception of choices revolve around
nazism, racism and atheism.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
CreateThis
> However much you disparrage creationist conception of choice
Nando's Nutball Ideas are not 'creationist conception of choice'. Even
creationists know you're a nutcase, and they'll believe anything!
CT
nando_r...@yahoo.com
creator, the act of creation, and the created object.
That many creationists do not know the exact location of a choice on a
quantum-mechanical level, does not mean that they think choices are not
real, or that choices are irrellevant in creation science.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Frank J
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> This is what I posted over at evcforum some days ago, but to no
> response.
>
> --
> Creationism is really just quite straighforward valid science, it is
> also common knowledge which we use every day, and really can't do
> without. Far from being unscientific, creationism covers a huge, and
> rich class of knowledge, which knowledge is oppressed by mainstream
> science because mainstream science can't deal with things turning out
> one way or another, indeterminacy.
(snip)
Interesting. I see none of the usual "creationism" stuff about how old
life is, which species are related to which others, etc.
What I did see is much like the ID rants.
You do realize that by calling your "theory" "creationism" you
undermine the IDers' efforts to distance themselves from creationism?
Frank J
Actually I should give you credit for taking it beyond ID and almost
completely conceding evolution. That quantum indeterminacy could be
where the Creator (or designer) intervenes was suggersted by an
"evolutionist" and chief critic of ID and creationism, Kenneth Miller.
Of course the difference is that he doesn't pretend that such
speculation is science.
bullpup
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149428158.0...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Citation?
Boikat
--
<42><
bullpup
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149422234.5...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> This is what I posted over at evcforum some days ago, but to no
> response.
>
> --
> Creationism is really just quite straighforward valid science,
Is it?
> it is
> also common knowledge which we use every day, and really can't do
> without.
You must have some private definition of "creation theory", and some
completely alien definition of "science".
> Far from being unscientific, creationism covers a huge, and
> rich class of knowledge, which knowledge is oppressed by mainstream
> science because mainstream science can't deal with things turning out
> one way or another, indeterminacy.
Oh. Still on that strawman line of idiocy, I see.
>
> Creationist theory depends on the three principles of creator, act of
> creation, and the created object. I will illustrate the principles of
> creationism with Michealangelo's painting in the sixtine chapel.
Right off the bat, false analogy, since we have evidence of the existance of
a painter, Michelangelo, and his paintings, the Sistine Chapel among others,
including sculptures.
>
> The creator:
>
> Who is Michealangelo? It is not sufficient in creationism (or actually
> it is mostly irellevant) to say how tall Michaelangelo is, or how much
> he weighs in considering him as the creator of the painting. Within the
> context of creationism identity-issues are solely about who is
> Michealangelo as the owner of his choices. Who is Michaelangelo in his
> heart, in his soul etc. Who does Michealangelo love and hate etc. Who
> Michaelangelo is this way can only be approached subjectively by
> relating your spirit to his, through your own choices.
Blathercrap. Michelangelo was this guy, y'know.
>
> To somehow pretend to make some objective appraisal of who
> Michealangelo is in his heart, to try to rule out subjectivity from
> judgement, merely results in coldhearted merciless judgement. But it is
> a judgement nevertheless, and such knowledge of the heart can never
> attain the status of fact.
It is a fact that a guy by the name of Michelangelo existed. How I feel
about that is irrelevent. What kind of person he was is irrelevent, and
what he had for breakfast on Jan 17th, 1555 is also irrelevent.
>
> So in this sense of identity-issues creationism is not objective, and
> generally opposes objectivity. There is no science about who
> Michaelangelo is as the owner of his choices, this is an art of
> judgement. So creationism here stands opposed by social-darwinist
> pseudoscience, such as evolutionary psychology, which proposes to
> objectively know emotions. So the statement "Michaelangelo is a loving
> person", might be a statement of fact to an evolutionary psychologist,
> but the same statement is regarded as an art of judgement by a
> creationist. Also what pseudoscientists commonly do is to assert as
> objective fact that a decision has no spiritual or emotional owner at
> all (such selfproclaimed "objective" assertions of lack of spirit are
> usually attached to findings of randomness).
That's a load of blathercap, and in no way supports anything that *might*
resemble some sort of "creationist theory".
>
> The act of creation:
>
> Creation is an effort of choice.
For one definition of "creation".
> Unlike identity issues, this is simply
> science. We may simply search and find the precise location of a
> decision. At this location we will find nothing, or zero, meaning no
> material, also called creatio-ex-nihilo. Why we find nothing at the
> location of a decision is because material predetermines a result. Our
> consideration of material is based on a past effecting a present. So it
> would make no sense if we would find a material thing at the location
> of a decision, because material, in our concept of it, only
> predetermines, and never decides.
This "decision" line of reasoning is idiotic. But that particular strawman
argument appears to be your last crutch that you are using to justify your
religious belief.
>
> Consider for instance Michaelangelo choosing what to do in painting the
> picture. Now if we consider Michaelangelo merely as a material object,
A material object that existed, bad a brain, and used it.
>
> we might suppose that the painting just flows directly from some
> genius-genes mediated by the environment unto the canvas. But the
> problem with such a theory is that it negates the possibility of an
> alternative result.
Because an "alternate outcome result" is not required.
> So in this materialist scenario there is no actual
> choosing, because any alternative result is impossible.
You cannot change the past. I'm sure it would be great fun to speculate
about different outcomes if Michelangelo had access to a good camera and a
computer automated paint by number machine, but that is irrelevent.
>
> So it is demonstrated, merely by definition, that it is impossible that
> we would find a material thing at the location of a decision, because
> of the impossiblity of material leading to an alternative.
And you are wrong, since Michelangelo is an intelligent being. What this
has to do with "creationist theory" is anyone's guess.
>
> The evidence is, that there is indeed nothing at the point of decision.
> Some credible scientists told me that the origin of randomness in a
> zener-diode was at the socalled "quantum mechanical zeropoint". From
> this point random noise is generated, meaning more or less, one can't
> deduce the pattern of electrons coming out of the diode, from the
> pattern of electrons coming into the diode. So it means the "pattern"
> of electrons is decided at the precise location of the qmz-point.
>
And zener diodes are not intelligent beings.
> Some scientists consider the qmz point real, and that nothing exists
> there, others consider the qmz-point not real, since there is nothing
> there.
>
> Further evidence to illustrate the logical coherency of the creationist
> interpretation of quantum mechanics in terms of chances getting
> decided, is the probability-distribution of an electron around an atom.
>
How is that logically consistant with the "creationist theory" (which hasn't
been presented yet, BTW)?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HAtomOrbitals.png
>
> The creationist interpretation of this picture is that at the qmz point
> (which is in the center of the probabilitydistribution) is the location
> where the chance where the electron might be is decided. So this theory
> says among other things that;
What theory?
>
> - the location of the electron changes per decision
Who's decision?
>
> - and consequently that there is a speed or sequence of decisions
What decisions?
>
> - it says that chances are basically real, and inhabit the future
So? The only thing that means is that thee are alternatate outcomes based
upon random events. Big whoopty-doooo!
>
> - it says the location where the decision is made on the chance where
> the electron ends up, is not neccessarily the same as the location
> where the electron ends up. So the decision is at one location, the
> result may be at another location.
What "decision"?
>
> Now we have basically "seen" how creationism is true,
Not even close, bubba.
> seen a chance,
> and seen the location at which the decision on the chance is made.
What "decision" was made and by who?
>
> From these basic assertions of fact follows the question, how does one
> decision relate to another decision?
Why do I get the feeling you're jumping context here?
>
> The creation:
>
> The creation in the sense of relating one decision to another, is only
> an informational entity. We derived the principle of creation from the
> principle of choosing, the simplest representation of choices are
> binary in the sense of 1 or 0. And so we must guess that somehow from
> choosing we derive informational entities constructed in terms of
> zero's and ones.
>
Again, you are mixing apples and mudballs. Not to mention, your conclusions
seems to be a total non-sequitor.
> When Michealangelo created his painting, the purpose of his painting
> was not so much the painting itself, but it was for instance, the
> decision whether he liked the painting or not. So we can see how in
> creation one decision relates to another, and the creation (the
> painting) is the medium by which one decision relates to another.
Some guy painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel does not lend any
support to you "creationist theory".
>
> And it is a similar principle with God and His original creation by
> choice of His free will, which choice in the end will relate to another
> decision, which is of course His Final Judgement on judgementday.
What God? Are you proceeding from an a priori conclusion? That's
pseudo-science, which means you "creationist theory" is invalid.
>
> Some more points for consideration:
>
> - the point at which a chance changes, or is realized or negated
> (becomes 1 or 0), is called a decision.
Find another word, or make one up for that concept, since "decision" is too
easily equivocated, which you do constantly.
> So creationist science is
> largely based around tracing back the probabilities of the appearance
> of a thing, to the decisions at which those probabilities were
> determined.
So, "creationist science" is based upon equivocation. I see.
>One might easily imagine this for instance in terms of a
> line chart of the probability of human beings coming to be. For
> instance we might say that the probability of people appearing later
> on, was already 90 percent at the start of the universe, given normal
> development of the universe. And so we might draw a chart where the
> probability goes up and down, and every turn in the chart relates to a
> decision at a location, until final appearance. That is how creationist
> science works.
By looking at history, drawing some squiggly lines based upon wild assed
guesses, and then saying "goddidit!"? That's not real science.
>
> - decisions relate a future of chances to a present, effects relate a
> past of causes to a present. One must always be aware of the
> timeperspective when criticizing creationism, because creationism is
> not a cause and effect principle, it is a principle of free will. It is
> very easy to fall into the trap of discounting creationism by applying
> the usual rules for criticizing scientific theories. Many of these
> rules in science only apply to cause and effect principles, and are
> irrellevant to principles of free will.
Creationism is also a religious dogma based upon a priori conclusions.
>
> - again; the owners to decision are covered by identity-issues which
> fall outside of science. Such identities can only be approached
> subjectively through an art of one's own judgement. This broadly
> includes emotions, spiritual, what's in the heart the soul, God etc,
> all manner of judgement of good and evil, or loving and hateful etc. So
> it would be no use to ask for objective evidence of God, because within
> creationism such evidence is fashioned by an art of judgement.
I noticed you left out the word "logic".
>
> - since emotions may be manifest at a point of decision, scientists
> must be ethically constrained to investigate points of decision. The
> reason why scientists are currently constrained in investigating people
> for instance, should be interpreted to be because of this reason. That
> is to say, we know at which location human decisons are, and we know
> that emotions may be manifest at a point of decision, we know that pain
> may be manifest at a point of decision, therefore we don't allow
> scientists to experiment with human beings at these particular points
> of decision for the reason that in doing so they may induce pain there.
> The safe side of ethics demands that we acknowledge in principle a
> spiritual owner to any decision anywhere.
Again, it appears you are equivocating with the use of the word "decision",
and again, coming to a non-sequitor conclusion.
>
> and so on, and so on...
>
Yes, you do go on, and on, and on, with your bablle about "choice",
"decision point" and the endless stream of falutly conclusions based upon
non-sequitor conclusions.
> One can easily see that most of creationism is highly credible,
Pthhhh!
> because
> much of the knowledge is already engrained within common knowledge, and
> religion, and science also in many ways. Basically creationism is as
> credible as it is credible that things may turn out one way or another.
But is it testable? Nope. Not to mention it's nothing more than a
religious dogma based upon apriori assumptions based upon religious beliefs.
>
> The current mode of interpretation of quantum-mechanics which basically
> omits decisions, and generally denies chances are real, has been
> heavily criticized from it's conception (Schroedinger's cat for
> instance). So creationism here only competes to a mode of
> interpretation that has already been acknowledged as weak.
No, creationism only competes because soem people have no clue as to how
science actually works, and want to prop up their personal religious beliefs
by attempting to lend credibility to their religious belief by pretending
their religious belief has scientific justification, and thereby,
validationg their religious belief by claiming it has scientific support.
>
> Remembering that creationism gives insight into decisions and chances,
> and how one decision relates to another, decisionspeed etc., the sort
> of technological application we might expect creationism to lead to are
> things like:
>
Any *practical* application?
> - artificial consciousness in computers
>
> - artifical beings of massive potential for emotions
"Creationism" would not be needed in making any sort of decisions in those
matters, unless you are equating "moral" with creationsim, in which case,
you are again attempting to usurp the word for you own made-up use.
>
> - pseudo-superconductivity by centralizing many points of decision to
> one point and so the electron will pass through a collective of atoms
> per instance, rather then pass through many individual atoms per
> instance.
What? How is that an application of "creationism"?
>
> - increased efficiency of jetengines by the atoms being blown out of
> the engine being rapidly precisely stacked for optimal push ie. one
> relates the points of decison one to another, giving a structure.
How is that an application of "creationism"?
>
> - teleporting of objects through the quantumtunnels that appear at
> concentrated qmz-points, related to a concentration of qmz points
> elsewhere
How does that utilize "creationism"?
>
> - wheathermodels that locate points of decision in the weathersystem
More meaningless blathercrap.
In none of your above examples have you demonstrated any way to practically
apply your "creationism theory", though you are clearly stateing that there
is a practical application. Care to provide a demonstration of that
practical application?
>
> Well of course, these are just conjectural technological applications
> that I thought of at the top of my head just now.
Drinking again?
> But although the
> reasoning behind these creationist technologies is lacking,
Understatement of the year!
> it is still
> reasonable to assume that there would be lots of technological
> application following from science about decisions, the location of
> them, how they relate to one another, the decisionspeed etc. simply
> because knowledge about "decision" comprises a fundamental class of
> knowledge. How much technological application follows from knowledge of
> chance and decision, may be equal to how much technology followed from
> knowledge of cause and effect, these are both fundamental classes of
> knowledge.
>
> One may find in nature "natural democracies", and "natural
> dictatorships", that is to say that there is a potential for rich and
> meaningful knowledge of structures of decisionpoints that exist
> presently in nature, but are outside of our sight simply because we
> aren't looking for points of decision. And so creationism gets us
> closer to the truth, which was the purpose in the first place.
No. It is nothing but a religious dogma, and has no practical application
at all. None. Not only that, it doesn't even explain natural phenomena for
the sake of curiosity. it's worthless rubish.
Boikat
--
<42><
bullpup
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149430527.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
By not quoting who wyou are responding to, you look like a babbling idiot.
But then again, even if you did quote who you are responding to, you'd still
look like a babbling idiot.
Boikat
Wakboth
nando_r...@yahoo.com kirjoitti:
Interesting, considering that I'm a Christian, strongly opposed to
racism and fascism (Nazism being a subclass of the latter), and accept
evolution as a scientific fact.
You might get people take you seriously, if you remained in more close
connection with reality.
-- Wakboth
nando_r...@yahoo.com
That is simply because you ignore everything Dawkins, Lorenz, Heackel,
Cosmides, Tooby, Dennet and Rushton etc. have to say about choices and
emotions and such. And that is good advice to ignore everything
Darwinists have to say about those things.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149422234.5...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> This is what I posted over at evcforum some days ago, but to no
> response.
>
Yeah, that's because your a crank. Take your "qmz point decision making"
crap somewhere else.
JR
nando_r...@yahoo.com
creation science. What all these Darwinists object to, and find crazy,
is *any* science about choices.
That is choices in the way we usually understand them, as having a
possible alternative outcome. There's lots of Darwinist science about
choices which don't have an alternative possible outcome. It's the kind
of choices people have in dictatorships, without alternatives.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Lee Oswald Ving
news:1149436492.7...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Actually, it's a much better idea to seperate opinion from fact.
You obviously don't like that, but it's obvious few (if any) really care
about your illucid opinion, either.
bullpup
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149437713....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Whatever. You will basically find no science about choices outside of
> creation science. What all these Darwinists object to, and find crazy,
> is *any* science about choices.
Whatever. Pepends upon context, which is something *you* have a problem
with.
>
> That is choices in the way we usually understand them, as having a
> possible alternative outcome. There's lots of Darwinist science about
> choices which don't have an alternative possible outcome. It's the kind
> of choices people have in dictatorships, without alternatives.
If I drop a rock, it has no "choice" in not falling. The only "decision"
being made is me deciding to drop the rock. The rock does not hover in the
air for any amount of time trying to "decide" to fall since there is no mind
in the rock, it just falls under the influance of gravity. That is
something completely different than people living under a dictatorship,
political or theocratic.
One has to wonder what sort of mental trauma you've experianced that makes
you whinge about "choice" and "Decision Point" the way you do. Did
something bad happen to you, and you're looking for someone to blame?
Boikat
--
<42><
nando_r...@yahoo.com
said to choose the option that gives the greatest chance of survival,
eventhough it is admitted the organism can't possibly choose the option
which has lesser chance of survival. So it is a choice without possible
alternatives, and that is generally how Darwinists think about choices.
Generally also the behaviour of Darwinists is just a logical function
of the scientific method. They don't actually choose anything. We could
just program the scientifc method into a computer, and we would have a
Darwinst automaton. And every time you put in the same material
scenario, which may lead to one of several possible results, the
computer would give the message <error does not compute>, same as you
all do here, because the scientific method can't handle indeterminacy.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Ray
<c17...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
>
><nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> This is what I posted over at evcforum some days ago, but to no
>> response.
>
>Maybe they can't stand this much craziness so early in the morning, either.
Well it always easier to call something nonsense than to admit that it
may just be beyond your comprehension...
Lee Oswald Ving
news:1149441736.0...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
> I am just referring to Darwinist concept of choice, where organism are
> said to choose the option that gives the greatest chance of survival,
I seem to have missed that concept in any of Darwin's works.
Where is it?
Wakboth
nando_r...@yahoo.com kirjoitti:
> Wakboth wrote:
> > nando_r...@yahoo.com kirjoitti:
> >
> > > However much you disparrage creationist conception of choice, we all
> > > know that Darwinist conception of choice is generally along the lines
> > > of Konrad Lorenz, Ernst Heackel, Cosmides, Tooby, Dawkins, Dennet,
> > > Rushton etc. conception of it.
> > >
> > > That is to say the Darwinist conception of choices revolve around
> > > nazism, racism and atheism.
> >
> > Interesting, considering that I'm a Christian, strongly opposed to
> > racism and fascism (Nazism being a subclass of the latter), and accept
> > evolution as a scientific fact.
> >
> > You might get people take you seriously, if you remained in more close
> > connection with reality.
>
> That is simply because you ignore everything Dawkins, Lorenz, Heackel,
> Cosmides, Tooby, Dennet and Rushton etc. have to say about choices and
> emotions and such.
To my best knowledge, none of them have said anything about choices
and/or emotions that would be somehow objectionable or impossible to
accommodate with Christian beliefs. Dawkins is a vocal atheist, but
that doesn't detract from the quality of his scientific works.
> And that is good advice to ignore everything Darwinists have to say
> about those things.
Why, if I may ask?
-- Wakboth
pbx43k
> I am just referring to Darwinist concept of choice, where organism are
> said to choose the option that gives the greatest chance of survival,
> eventhough it is admitted the organism can't possibly choose the option
> which has lesser chance of survival. So it is a choice without possible
> alternatives, and that is generally how Darwinists think about choices.
Wow. No one says that organisms choose options that give them greatest
survival. Many 'options' are 'chosen' by random mutation. Natural
selection favors those 'options' which give the greatest chance of
survival. Its really quite simple. There are possible alternatives,
they just don't lead to survival, and thus die out.
You can choose whether to drink poison or not. If you choose do so, you
die and can make no further choices. If you choose not to drink the
poison, you live on until your next life-or-death choice.
Desertphile
> This is what I posted over at evcforum some days ago, but to no
> response.
NASA ignores flat-earth harangues emailed at them for the same reason.
Dan Luke
"Ray" wrote:
>>
>><nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This is what I posted over at evcforum some days ago, but to no
>>> response.
>>
>>Maybe they can't stand this much craziness so early in the morning,
>>either.
>
> Well it always easier to call something nonsense than to admit that it
> may just be beyond your comprehension...
I freely admit that most of what nando posts is beyond my comprehension.
--
Dan
"Relax; we're cops."
--a cop on "Cops"
Desertphile
> That is to say the Darwinist conception of choices revolve around
> nazism, racism and atheism.
Golly; I accept evolution as a fact and evolutionary theory as valid,
and yet I reject Nazism, racism, and atheism. *POOF!* goes your
assertion.
Do try again, though.
Steve O
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149422234.5...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> This is what I posted over at evcforum some days ago, but to no
> response.
>
> Creationism is really just quite straighforward valid science, it is
> also common knowledge which we use every day, and really can't do
> rich class of knowledge, which knowledge is oppressed by mainstream
> science because mainstream science can't deal with things turning out
> one way or another, indeterminacy.
>
> creation, and the created object. I will illustrate the principles of
> creationism with Michealangelo's painting in the sixtine chapel.
As opposed to the paintings he has in the seventine chapel?
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way
that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?"
Jim
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Creationism is really just quite straighforward valid science,
Well, other than the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of the
existence of the Great Space Alien that started all This.
I wish that were not the case but I'm afraid it is.
Jim
> By not quoting who wyou are responding to, you look like a babbling idiot.
But, hey, at least your posts are getting through now. ;)
--
Jim Fisher
(ran into you over in Bellsouth)
bullpup
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149441736.0...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> I am just referring to Darwinist concept of choice, where organism are
> said to choose the option that gives the greatest chance of survival,
> eventhough it is admitted the organism can't possibly choose the option
> which has lesser chance of survival. So it is a choice without possible
> alternatives, and that is generally how Darwinists think about choices.
Waht are you babbling about? Are you talking about an individual organism
9some of which have no brains or ability to "reason", or are you talking
about the filter effect of natural selection? If the former, "decision"
does not always apply if the latter, NS is not a "decision" in the "thought
process" sense.
>
> Generally also the behaviour of Darwinists is just a logical function
> of the scientific method. They don't actually choose anything. We could
> just program the scientifc method into a computer, and we would have a
> Darwinst automaton. And every time you put in the same material
> scenario, which may lead to one of several possible results, the
> computer would give the message <error does not compute>, same as you
> all do here, because the scientific method can't handle indeterminacy.
Neither can you, apparently.
Boikat
--
<42><
bullpup
"Ray" <r...@addr.invalid> wrote in message
news:cq568292ilq437q55...@4ax.com...
Please translate Nando's inane prattle into something more easily
understood, then.
Boikat
--
<42><
>
>
bullpup
"Jim" <1...@321.com> wrote in message
news:PlFgg.74488$iB2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> "bullpup" <bul...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > By not quoting who wyou are responding to, you look like a babbling
idiot.
>
> But, hey, at least your posts are getting through now. ;)
Hi ya!
Your's too. :}
Well, at least that one did. :}
Boikat
Ernest Major
<r...@addr.invalid> writes
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.1/355 - Release Date: 02/06/2006
Steven J.
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I am just referring to Darwinist concept of choice, where organism are
> said to choose the option that gives the greatest chance of survival,
> eventhough it is admitted the organism can't possibly choose the option
> which has lesser chance of survival. So it is a choice without possible
> alternatives, and that is generally how Darwinists think about choices.
>
organism doesn't get a choice of what genes it has, and very little
choice as to how they interact with the environment.
>
> Generally also the behaviour of Darwinists is just a logical function
> of the scientific method. They don't actually choose anything. We could
> just program the scientifc method into a computer, and we would have a
> Darwinst automaton. And every time you put in the same material
> scenario, which may lead to one of several possible results, the
> computer would give the message <error does not compute>, same as you
> all do here, because the scientific method can't handle indeterminacy.
>
prizes given out for scientific works that deal with indeterminacy.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
-- Steven J.
Ross Langerak
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149422234.5...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> This is what I posted over at evcforum some days ago, but to no
> response.
>
> Creationism is really just quite straighforward valid science, it is
> also common knowledge which we use every day, and really can't do
> without. Far from being unscientific, creationism covers a huge, and
> rich class of knowledge, which knowledge is oppressed by mainstream
> science because mainstream science can't deal with things turning out
> one way or another, indeterminacy.
>
> Creationist theory depends on the three principles of creator, act of
> creation, and the created object. I will illustrate the principles of
> creationism with Michealangelo's painting in the sixtine chapel.
[snip]
Scientific theories are based upon evidence. A valid scientific theory must
explain the evidence. What is the evidence that creationism explains, and
what is the creationist explanation? How does creationism explain the order
and forms of fossil species? How does creationism explain the similarities
and differences in the biochemistry of various species? How does
creationism explain the similarities and differences in the anatomy of
various species? How does creationism explain the existence of shared
pseudogenes?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> To my best knowledge, none of them have said anything about choices
> and/or emotions that would be somehow objectionable or impossible to
> accommodate with Christian beliefs. Dawkins is a vocal atheist, but
> that doesn't detract from the quality of his scientific works.
Except of course that all of them oppose to acknowledge a spiritual
owner to any choice. None of them acknowledge the heart and soul of
people. This leaves about no room for Christianity.
> > And that is good advice to ignore everything Darwinists have to say
> > about those things.
>
> Why, if I may ask?
Because their concept of choice is phony, because they don't allow for
an alternative outcome in a choice.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> Individual organisms don't evolve; populations do. An individual
> organism doesn't get a choice of what genes it has, and very little
> choice as to how they interact with the environment.
Spoken with a tone of authority, but.. you don't know the first thing
about choices. Steven has no clue at all what he is talking about
folks.
> You have never heard of quantum mechanics? There have been Nobel
> prizes given out for scientific works that deal with indeterminacy.
Ah the reason Steven refers to some unnamed works that supposedly deal
with indeterminacy, is because he can't handle indeterminacy.
I refer you to Bohr's interpretation of quantum-mechanics, and
Schroedinger's cat counter example to Bohr. That example fairly
indicates how far scientists can actually handle indeterminacy. It is a
big joke of cat's being alive and dead at the same time, that is how
much scientists can handle indeterminacy.
It is just a charade being played here people. When it comes down to it
Darwinists such as Stew Dean and Andre Isaak which I have just debated,
and countless other Darwinists I have debated before them, they *all*
without *any* exception, don't affirm indeterminacy as a scientific
fact. It is solely creationists who affirm indeterminacy as a
scientific fact, and that is because creationists accept the concept of
choice, and the concept of a spiritual owner to choices.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Jon Fleming
wrote:
"I don' like evolution but can't find any problems with it. So I'm
going to babble about irrelevant and undefined stuff and hope
somebody's fooled. It makes me feel so scientific all over!"
HTH. HAND.
--
jrf
replace nospam with group to email
Dan Luke
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Steven has no clue at all what he is talking about folks.
Uh, nando? The "folks" pretty much regard you as a lunatic. Appealing to
them is probably not your best move.
--
Dan
"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
- Chief Inspector Dreyfus
wf3h
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> This is what I posted over at evcforum some days ago, but to no
> response.
>
> Creationism is really just quite straighforward valid science
funny, then, that christianists/islamists do no science, and no
scientist agrees with your statement. other than that, it's fine.
, it is
> also common knowledge which we use every day, and really can't do
> without. Far from being unscientific, creationism covers a huge, and
> rich class of knowledge, which knowledge is oppressed by mainstream
> science because mainstream science can't deal with things turning out
> one way or another, indeterminacy.
?? science doesn't need what you say it needs. it's useless. and
science does not 'oppress' anything. science is decentralized, spread
around the world. it is not a church, not a religious belief with a
vatican or magisterium to decide what to 'oppress'.
your paranoia is typical, however, of religious fanatics.
> > >
> To somehow pretend to make some objective appraisal of who
> Michealangelo is in his heart, to try to rule out subjectivity from
> judgement, merely results in coldhearted merciless judgement. But it is
> a judgement nevertheless, and such knowledge of the heart can never
> attain the status of fact.
irrelevant. cold hearted merciless judgement exists. if you toss a coin
it really doesn't matter what you WANT the result to be. the result
exists. you seem to think that the universe depends on your self
centered egotistical view of nature.
good luck. try walking out a 10 story window. see how merciless nature
can be.
>
> So in this sense of identity-issues creationism is not objective, and
> generally opposes objectivity. There is no science about who
> Michaelangelo is as the owner of his choices, this is an art of
> judgement. So creationism here stands opposed by social-darwinist
> pseudoscience, such as evolutionary psychology,
ah. creationism. the same creationism that led jefferson davis,
president of the confederacy, to write a pro slavery tract based on the
creationist idea that blacks were under the curse of ham so deserved
slavery.
yes....creationism is merciless.
> The act of creation:
> >
> Consider for instance Michaelangelo choosing what to do in painting the
> picture.
and consider walking into a volcano. if your choice is that you don't
WANT the volcano to turn your body to ash, do you think the volcano is
going to make a choice to agree with you?
nature exists independent of our choices. sorry.
the problem you face is that of the independence of nature. it doesn't
matter what you want. you''re a medievalist and think, like children,
that the world responds to your thoughts.
prove it.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
The folks consider the creationist talk about the heart and soul the
truth.
Uh you are not folks obviously, you are just another nerd.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
bullpup
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149452625....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Wakboth wrote:
>
> > To my best knowledge, none of them have said anything about choices
> > and/or emotions that would be somehow objectionable or impossible to
> > accommodate with Christian beliefs. Dawkins is a vocal atheist, but
> > that doesn't detract from the quality of his scientific works.
>
> Except of course that all of them oppose to acknowledge a spiritual
> owner to any choice. None of them acknowledge the heart and soul of
> people. This leaves about no room for Christianity.
That's because, unless you are researching religious beliefs, there's no
reason to take religious beliefs into account. If a scientists is
researching isotope decay rates, what does his religious beliefs have to do
with the research?
>
> > > And that is good advice to ignore everything Darwinists have to say
> > > about those things.
> >
> > Why, if I may ask?
>
> Because their concept of choice is phony, because they don't allow for
> an alternative outcome in a choice.
That is utter bullshit. *Looking* for alternative outcomes of experiments
are integral to the scientific method. If an experiment is conducted using
the same parameters yeald completely different results, then something is
wrong with the experiment, or the theory underlying the experiment.
Boikat
--
<42><
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> If an experiment is conducted using
> the same parameters yeald completely different results, then something is
> wrong with the experiment, or the theory underlying the experiment.
>
outcomes by same parameters, then the conclusion is not indeterminacy,
but the conclusion is that the experiment or the theory is wrong.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
bullpup
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149453825.5...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Steven J. wrote:
> > Individual organisms don't evolve; populations do. An individual
> > organism doesn't get a choice of what genes it has, and very little
> > choice as to how they interact with the environment.
>
> Spoken with a tone of authority, but.. you don't know the first thing
> about choices. Steven has no clue at all what he is talking about
> folks.
Define your context of "choice" you are using.
>
> > You have never heard of quantum mechanics? There have been Nobel
> > prizes given out for scientific works that deal with indeterminacy.
>
> Ah the reason Steven refers to some unnamed works that supposedly deal
> with indeterminacy, is because he can't handle indeterminacy.
>
> I refer you to Bohr's interpretation of quantum-mechanics, and
> Schroedinger's cat counter example to Bohr. That example fairly
> indicates how far scientists can actually handle indeterminacy. It is a
> big joke of cat's being alive and dead at the same time, that is how
> much scientists can handle indeterminacy.
>
> It is just a charade being played here people. When it comes down to it
> Darwinists such as Stew Dean and Andre Isaak which I have just debated,
> and countless other Darwinists I have debated before them, they *all*
> without *any* exception, don't affirm indeterminacy as a scientific
> fact. It is solely creationists who affirm indeterminacy as a
> scientific fact, and that is because creationists accept the concept of
> choice, and the concept of a spiritual owner to choices.
They dismiss *you* concept of "spiritual ownership" because "spiritual
ownership" is irrelevent. You've never been able to provide *any* logical
reason to include the condept of "spiritual ownership" in any event that has
any "alternate outcome" based upon some "decision" having to be made when
the "choice" does not involve a concious entity making a "decision", such as
which path a stone will take when it rolls down a hill as a result of
errosion.
Boikat
--
<42><>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
bullpup
"Jon Fleming" <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:u2j6825vnjimh62vi...@4ax.com...
That's pretty much what I figured, but waas hoping that Ray had a more
up-to-date Nando to English translation.
Boikat
--
<42><
Gary Bohn
news:1149452625....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> Wakboth wrote:
>
>> To my best knowledge, none of them have said anything about choices
>> and/or emotions that would be somehow objectionable or impossible to
>> accommodate with Christian beliefs. Dawkins is a vocal atheist, but
>> that doesn't detract from the quality of his scientific works.
>
> Except of course that all of them oppose to acknowledge a spiritual
> owner to any choice. None of them acknowledge the heart and soul of
> people. This leaves about no room for Christianity.
>
Then it appeears that Christianity needs to adjust their beliefs to fit
the scientific findings of brain function.
There is no separation of mind from brain. The heart pumps blood. The
emotions you assign to the heart are a combination of biochemicals and
bioelectrics.
>> > And that is good advice to ignore everything Darwinists have to say
>> > about those things.
>>
>> Why, if I may ask?
>
> Because their concept of choice is phony, because they don't allow for
> an alternative outcome in a choice.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
>
What about the physicality of the mind reduces to pure determinism as
you seem to posit?
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
bible.
Gary Bohn
news:qrCgg.46665$qd2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
<snip>
>
> Boikat
I can't believe you really went through that crap and refuted it point
by point.
My hat's off to you.
bullpup
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149456351.3...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Ah that is just a matter of context.
>
> The folks consider the creationist talk about the heart and soul the
> truth.
I see you do not understand the concept of "metaphore". Is that some
indication of a faulty education?
>
> Uh you are not folks obviously, you are just another nerd.
Speaking of "context", it'd be nice if you could learn to quote who you are
responding to. But I guess that would be beyond your limited intellectual
capability.
Boikat
--
<42><
bullpup
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149456745.4...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
And the problem with that is?
Boikat
Steven J.
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Ah that is just a matter of context.
>
> The folks consider the creationist talk about the heart and soul the
> truth.
>
that appear, creationists are very badly outnumbered (and even among
creationists, those who see "indeterminacy" or "choice" (which are not
the same concept at all) as central to creationism are few indeed.
>
> Uh you are not folks obviously, you are just another nerd.
>
That is a reprehensible choice of stances, a decision to dehumanize
your opponents and legitimize their persecution rather than engage
their ideas. Of course, that assumes it is a choice; perhaps, as a
total loon, you simply can't help taking that position any more than a
rock can help falling when it's dropped.
bullpup
"Gary Bohn" <gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns97D89F0AA...@130.133.1.4...
> "bullpup" <bul...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> news:qrCgg.46665$qd2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > Boikat
>
> I can't believe you really went through that crap and refuted it point
> by point.
>
> My hat's off to you.
I'm an obsessive compulsive when it comes to idiocy. :}
Boikat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> They dismiss *you* concept of "spiritual ownership" because "spiritual
> ownership" is irrelevent.
Ah and all those Christians that bought into the evolution-lie may be
surprised to find, that the spiritual ownership of choices is discarded
by the Darwinists they supported.
> You've never been able to provide *any* logical
> reason to include the condept of "spiritual ownership" in any event that has
> any "alternate outcome" based upon some "decision" having to be made when
> the "choice" does not involve a concious entity making a "decision", such as
> which path a stone will take when it rolls down a hill as a result of
> errosion.
You have never shown the precise location at which it is decided which
path the stone takes. In fact you don't believe there exist such a
point of decision anywhere in nature, you don't believe the stone could
roll down any alternative way. This is well shown by you putting the
word decision between quotationmarks.
Yes folks it is impossible to describe possible alternatives without
using the concept of decision to denote the point at which the one
alternative possibility is resolved from the other. And you see that
this Darwinist doesn't even accept the concept of decision *at all*,
which is why he puts the word between quotes.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Gary Bohn
news:1149437713....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> Whatever. You will basically find no science about choices outside of
> creation science. What all these Darwinists object to, and find crazy,
> is *any* science about choices.
>
> That is choices in the way we usually understand them, as having a
> possible alternative outcome. There's lots of Darwinist science about
> choices which don't have an alternative possible outcome. It's the
> kind of choices people have in dictatorships, without alternatives.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
>
Let's see. The human brain traces multiple possibilities to their
conclusion and then compares those conclusions to stored memory in a big
feedback loop. Seems like the human brain can develop and choose between
alternatives without some imaginary soul.
SRNissen
You know, I think I've _finally_ found out what you mean when you say
"choice."
And, I might add, you are quite correct - both I and the rest of the
scientific community deny that it exists. The universe is not
schizophrenic. It operates according to certain laws that cannot be
disobeyed unless other laws act in counter. Variance can occur on the
quantum scale, that is all. A rock can not choose to not-fall, gravity
_will_ act on it and drag it to the ground. Air resistance _will_ act on
the fall and push it upwards with less force than gravity pulls. Gravity
cannot choose to not-pull. Air resistance cannot choose to not-counter.
- SRNissen
FABRICATE DIEM, PVNC
nando_r...@yahoo.com
central to the concept of creation.
> So people are "obviously" not really people unless they agree with you.
> That is a reprehensible choice of stances, a decision to dehumanize
> your opponents and legitimize their persecution rather than engage
> their ideas.
Ah now the person who won't acknowledge that people have a heart and a
soul goes accusing me of dehumanizing people...
> Of course, that assumes it is a choice; perhaps, as a
> total loon, you simply can't help taking that position any more than a
> rock can help falling when it's dropped.
You have no idea about choices huh, that is simply the truth. You
oppress people's knowledge about choice, but then you oppress your own
knowledge about choice also.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> Then it appeears that Christianity needs to adjust their beliefs to fit
> the scientific findings of brain function.
>
> There is no separation of mind from brain. The heart pumps blood. The
> emotions you assign to the heart are a combination of biochemicals and
> bioelectrics.
Any Christian who accepts that is obviously no longer a Christian.
Of course what you write is merely pseudoscience, and most all
scientists do actually recognize such rubbish as you write as
pseudoscience. Most scientists simply acknowledge the weakness of
science in dealing with indeterminacy, in stead of mindlessly asserting
that they really know how emotions work.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
bullpup
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149457708....@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> bullpup wrote:
>
> > They dismiss *you* concept of "spiritual ownership" because "spiritual
> > ownership" is irrelevent.
>
> Ah and all those Christians that bought into the evolution-lie may be
> surprised to find, that the spiritual ownership of choices is discarded
> by the Darwinists they supported.
They do not accept evolution base upon their religious beliefs, they accept
evolution based upon the evidence, and most would probably say they believe
that evolution is the tool God used to create man, but at the same time,
they would point out that that is their *belief*, an is not grounded in
evidence., but *only* belief.
>
> > You've never been able to provide *any* logical
> > reason to include the condept of "spiritual ownership" in any event that
has
> > any "alternate outcome" based upon some "decision" having to be made
when
> > the "choice" does not involve a concious entity making a "decision",
such as
> > which path a stone will take when it rolls down a hill as a result of
> > errosion.
>
> You have never shown the precise location at which it is decided which
> path the stone takes.
There is no "decision" involved, precies or otherwise. Rocks roll down a
hill completely devoid of any "decision" on the part of the rock because the
rock has no mind.
> In fact you don't believe there exist such a
> point of decision anywhere in nature, you don't believe the stone could
> roll down any alternative way. This is well shown by you putting the
> word decision between quotationmarks.
That's because I refuse to allow you to equivocate. "decision" could mean
the result of a concious evaluation of possible paths by a concious entity.
I am not going to let you get away with the rhetorical trickery of
equivocation. It's as simple as that.
>
> Yes folks it is impossible to describe possible alternatives without
> using the concept of decision to denote the point at which the one
> alternative possibility is resolved from the other. And you see that
> this Darwinist doesn't even accept the concept of decision *at all*,
> which is why he puts the word between quotes.
Actually, I think thye are seeing that you are playing word games
(equivocation), and they don't need me to point that out. And you are wrong
when you claim that I do not accept the concept of "decision", I accept the
concept of decisions when a mind is involved. The problem is that you seem
to think rocks have a mind of their own, and decide how to roll down a hill.
If that were so, how come nobodies ever seen a rock fall from the bottom of
a hill or cliff to the top of the hill or cliff? If a rock had a mind and
could make decisions, why haven't any decided to fall to the top of a cliff
for a better view?
Boikat
--
<42><
nando_r...@yahoo.com
One can well see that you have reduced choice to calculation and....
there aren't actually possible alternatives in a calculation as you
describe it sonny. In your conception of it the same parameters would
*always* give the same result. Doesn't sound like possible alternatives
to me, so it doesn't sound like choice to me.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
rolling down alternative possible ways.
Right.
Creationists can.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
indeterminacy and then suppose that this indeterminacy doesn't affect
the world because quanta are small. There is no logical progression in
your argument.
And actually there is an observed band of variance in the circling of
planets around the sun for instance. Scientists are just *guessing*
that this variance is not actual indeterminacy, but that this is just
illusional variation due to chaotic determinants.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
SRNissen
No, Mohammad. _You_ can. Creationists, in general, accept the scientific
method on every subject except evolution.
Gary Bohn
news:1149453825.5...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Yet the very assignation of omniscience to your God removes all
indeterminacy.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
location of decision being at the center of a probability distribution.
But you are quite mistaken that creationists do not acknowledge
decisions everywhere.
One may typically hear creationists speak of changes in the weather in
terms of acts of God. This generally denotes the power of God to act
anywhere, rather then that it denotes that God actually did act in the
weather at that particular time. But such talk shows that the principle
of decisions that are spiritually owned is universally recognized among
creationists.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>This is what I posted over at evcforum some days ago, but to no
>response.
No wonder - it was a load of rubbish.
--
Bob.
bullpup
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149459720.0...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Ah so basically what you are saying is that you can't describe rocks
> rolling down alternative possible ways.
No, I'm saying there are no decisions involved. "Decisions" have a context
that implies "mind", and you use that to equivocate.
>
> Right.
>
> Creationists can.
Sure. By asserting "Goddidit!". No science there, however.
Boikat
--
<42><
bullpup
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149460469....@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Everything exists of quanta sonny. You can't posit quantum
> indeterminacy and then suppose that this indeterminacy doesn't affect
> the world because quanta are small. There is no logical progression in
> your argument.
>
> And actually there is an observed band of variance in the circling of
> planets around the sun for instance. Scientists are just *guessing*
> that this variance is not actual indeterminacy, but that this is just
> illusional variation due to chaotic determinants.
No. Variations in orbits are due to gravitational effects of other
planetary bodies present or effects of relativity (observed in the case of
Mercery).
Boikat
bullpup
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149461973.5...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
In other words, "Goddidit!". So much for your pretending to do science.
You've squashed the, so called, "creationist theory".
Boikat
--
<42><
Gary Bohn
news:1149460469....@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
In that case, perhaps Roger Penrose is correct that the 'mind' is a
result of quantum superposition of neuron/synaptic connections in the
brain. This still doesn't give your separation of mind from brain any
support.
Earle Jones
"Wakboth" <Wakbo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> nando_r...@yahoo.com kirjoitti:
>
> > Wakboth wrote:
> > > nando_r...@yahoo.com kirjoitti:
> > >
> > > > However much you disparrage creationist conception of choice, we all
> > > > know that Darwinist conception of choice is generally along the lines
> > > > of Konrad Lorenz, Ernst Heackel, Cosmides, Tooby, Dawkins, Dennet,
> > > > Rushton etc. conception of it.
> > > >
> > > > That is to say the Darwinist conception of choices revolve around
> > > > nazism, racism and atheism.
> > >
> > > Interesting, considering that I'm a Christian, strongly opposed to
> > > racism and fascism (Nazism being a subclass of the latter), and accept
> > > evolution as a scientific fact.
> > >
> > > You might get people take you seriously, if you remained in more close
> > > connection with reality.
> >
> > That is simply because you ignore everything Dawkins, Lorenz, Heackel,
> > Cosmides, Tooby, Dennet and Rushton etc. have to say about choices and
> > emotions and such.
>
> To my best knowledge, none of them have said anything about choices
> and/or emotions that would be somehow objectionable or impossible to
> accommodate with Christian beliefs. Dawkins is a vocal atheist, but
> that doesn't detract from the quality of his scientific works.
>
> > And that is good advice to ignore everything Darwinists have to say
> > about those things.
>
> Why, if I may ask?
>
> -- Wakboth
*
Wak: Hi! You know you're trying to carry on a conversation with a
ROM. (That's 'read-only' memory.)
Nando's brain can only put out what is stored there. He cannot take
in any information.
Hard to argue with a ROM. To him, if you buy into the theory of
evolution, you are either a Nazi, a racist, or an atheist.
Weird dude, this guy. He uses words like 'decision' and 'choice' in
some strange way -- certainly not the way I would consider normal.
Perhaps English is not his first language.
earle
*
As the poet said:
Tell me why the stars to shine,
Tell me why the ivy twine,
Tell me why the sky is blue,
I'll tell you why I love you.
To which the scientist replied:
Nuclear fission makes the stars to shine,
Tropism makes the ivy twine,
Rayleigh scattering makes the sky so blue,
Testicular hormones are why I love you.
Gary Bohn
news:1149458605.3...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Neuroscience is pseudoscience?
How does the understanding of indeterminacy support your separation of
mind (soul) and material body?
Earle Jones
"bullpup" <bul...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1149430527.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> > You are just mistaken, every creationist believes along these lines of
> > creator, the act of creation, and the created object.
> >
> > That many creationists do not know the exact location of a choice on a
> > quantum-mechanical level, does not mean that they think choices are not
> > real, or that choices are irrellevant in creation science.
>
> By not quoting who wyou are responding to, you look like a babbling idiot.
> But then again, even if you did quote who you are responding to, you'd still
> look like a babbling idiot.
>
> Boikat
*
I say if it walks like a babbling idiot and talks like a babbling
idiot, well then....you know.
earle
*
Gary Bohn
news:zvIgg.47806$qd2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
In that case I shall be more careful in the future to hide my idiocy. ;>
Marc
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> This is what I posted over at evcforum some days ago, but to no
> response.
..... (small snip)....
I like that bit where you have Michealangelo [sic] as the
creator (although you perhaps meant Michelangelo).
He may have been a great artist, but just how did he create the
world and life as well?
Perhaps if you could get the creation thing right, then the rest
of your "theory" would be improved. (But it still wouldn't be valid.)
(signed) marc
.
Peter Barber
> Ah that is just a matter of context.
>
> The folks consider the creationist talk about the heart and soul the
> truth.
Surely what your relations (with all due respect to them) consider to
be the truth is irrelevant.
SRNissen
Figures of speech do not a philosophy make. Everybody, including
atheists, refer to random events as "acts of God" because that's how the
English language works.
You want to replace "Event X happened due to reason Y, which we can
study" with "Even X happened due to reason God, and we have no idea why
he did it so we cannot predict what will happen in the future."
That's far less useful and, more importantly, you cannot prove that it
is true.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> In that case, perhaps Roger Penrose is correct that the 'mind' is a
> result of quantum superposition of neuron/synaptic connections in the
> brain. This still doesn't give your separation of mind from brain any
> support.
I did not seperate mind from brain, I haven't discussed mind at all,
you are just singing your own song. As you know superpositions don't
just occur within brains. So if one equates superpositions to mind...
Of course what Penrose says isn't even a hypothesis for failure to
describe how to go from superposition to actual position. One can't
avoid the concept of decison, and the only good reason to avoid the
concept of decison is because one isn't man enough to have to face the
ethical discipline of respecting spiritual ownership to choices. People
do not actually allow their choices to be investigated without an art
of respect to them as the owners to their choices. That is the real
world where values have to be acknowledged.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
SRNissen
> Everything exists of quanta sonny. You can't posit quantum
> indeterminacy and then suppose that this indeterminacy doesn't affect
> the world because quanta are small. There is no logical progression in
> your argument.
Of course I can. Allow me to represent an analogy for you. If I am told
to roll a die and call my number, I will get somewhere between 1 and 6.
If I am to roll two dice and call the highest number, I will also get
somewhere between 1 and 6, but the odds are no longer equivalent. There
is a 1/36 chance that I get a 1, and a 11/36 chance that I get a 6. The
more dice I roll, the less chance that I get a 1, and the higher the
chance that I get a 6. Likewise, while a single electron may be wildly
unpredictable, on average, they pretty much do as we expect. If I put an
electric potential over a piece of copper wire, electrons will run
through the wire. Sure, some of them may decide to do some funny quantum
movement and take a trip to Mars, but on average, I'll have power
running through the wire. Statistics covers this very nicely.
- SRNissen
FABRICATE DIEM, PVNC
>
nando_r...@yahoo.com
application will follow from science that finds the location of
decisions at a quantum mechanical level.
Also lots of beautiful art of judgement will follow from creationist
acknowledgement of identity-issues as the owners to decisions as
subjective.
In the Blind Watchmaker Dawkins tried to compete in beauty to art of
judgement of the eye to Paley in his Natural Theology. But he merely
ended up as like a salesman of stereo-equipment hyping the eye.
Certainly novel, and exciting, but also narrow and highly forceful.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Everything exists of quanta sonny. You can't posit quantum
> > indeterminacy and then suppose that this indeterminacy doesn't affect
> > the world because quanta are small. There is no logical progression in
> > your argument.
>
> Of course I can. Allow me to represent an analogy for you. If I am told
> to roll a die and call my number, I will get somewhere between 1 and 6.
> If I am to roll two dice and call the highest number, I will also get
> somewhere between 1 and 6, but the odds are no longer equivalent. There
> is a 1/36 chance that I get a 1, and a 11/36 chance that I get a 6. The
> more dice I roll, the less chance that I get a 1, and the higher the
> chance that I get a 6. Likewise, while a single electron may be wildly
> unpredictable, on average, they pretty much do as we expect. If I put an
> electric potential over a piece of copper wire, electrons will run
> through the wire. Sure, some of them may decide to do some funny quantum
> movement and take a trip to Mars, but on average, I'll have power
> running through the wire. Statistics covers this very nicely.
Yes statistics predicts normal variaton in emergent properties based on
quantum indeterminacy.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
bullpup
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149467177.2...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Again I'm fairly confident that *lots* of useful technological
> application will follow from science that finds the location of
> decisions at a quantum mechanical level.
What "decisions"?
>
> Also lots of beautiful art of judgement will follow from creationist
> acknowledgement of identity-issues as the owners to decisions as
> subjective.
>
What? Are you saying creationists don't know art when they see it or are you
saying creationists suffer from sort of identity issues? In a way, you seem
t0 also be implying that creationists have problems in their decision
making. So, it seems like you're saying creationists are "mental". I'll
agree to that, in a certain context of the word "mental" (as in "mental
case").
> In the Blind Watchmaker Dawkins tried to compete in beauty to art of
> judgement of the eye to Paley in his Natural Theology. But he merely
> ended up as like a salesman of stereo-equipment hyping the eye.
> Certainly novel, and exciting, but also narrow and highly forceful.
Forceful to get a point across, no doubt.
Boikat
--
<42><
SRNissen
Man, if that's all you're talking about, all you're referring to, why do
you keep saying that evolution denies this? Evolution _depends_ on
quantum effects - it's the only thing that keeps our bodies together,
and you can't have mutation without quantum. The ToE doesn't reject QM
at all.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
identity-issues?
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
bullpup
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149468659.9...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Well uh boikat / bullpup, who you say is suffering from
> identity-issues?
I don't see a problem with that, do you, nando rondeltap/ Mohammad Nur
Syamsu.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Boikat
--
<42><
Desertphile
> Ah so basically what you are saying is that you can't describe rocks
> rolling down alternative possible ways.
>
> Right.
>
> Creationists can.
Alice could believe six impossible things before breakfast.
Desertphile
> Ah so basically what you are saying is that you can't describe rocks
> rolling down alternative possible ways.
>
> Right.
>
> Creationists can.
That is something to be ashamed of, not somethingto be proud of.
bullpup
"Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149478039.8...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If you really want to see a funny Nando post, find the one where he seems to
be claiming I have an "identity issue" because my new e-mail addy is
"bullpup", yet I still sig as "Boikat" Then look at his e-mail addy and how
he sig's *his* posts.
Nando logic. No wonder the poor sap's brain is AFU.
Boikat
>
Josh Miles
> This is what I posted over at evcforum some days ago, but to no
> response.
Maybe they weren't in the mood for a word salad.
> --
> Creationism is really just quite straighforward valid science, it is
> also common knowledge which we use every day, and really can't do
> without. Far from being unscientific, creationism covers a huge, and
> rich class of knowledge, which knowledge is oppressed by mainstream
> science because mainstream science can't deal with things turning out
> one way or another, indeterminacy.
As always, thanks for the laugh.
Rolf
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149428158.0...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> However much you disparrage creationist conception of choice, we all
> know that Darwinist conception of choice is generally along the lines
> of Konrad Lorenz, Ernst Heackel, Cosmides, Tooby, Dawkins, Dennet,
> Rushton etc. conception of it.
>
> That is to say the Darwinist conception of choices revolve around
> nazism, racism and atheism.
>
"We all know" is just untrue, I, for one, do not know. Please explain, what
research supports your statement?
How does nazism, racism and atheism enter into the theory of evolution? In
case you have overlooked it, the ToE is based on observations and facts,
have you studied any of those? Besides, the ToE is older than Darwin - and
Darwin is definitely older that nazism, albeit not older that
fundamentalistic religious fanaticism. As for the latter, it seems to be at
least as ugly as the other.
What actually do you mean by 'conception of choice', where does that concept
apply, please expand.
To me, your reasoning seems so disconnected from reality that it makes no
sense at all. Why not try to be coherent and create meaningful sentences,
like I do?
Rolf
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1149428158.0...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > However much you disparrage creationist conception of choice, we all
> > know that Darwinist conception of choice is generally along the lines
> > of Konrad Lorenz, Ernst Heackel, Cosmides, Tooby, Dawkins, Dennet,
> > Rushton etc. conception of it.
> >
> > That is to say the Darwinist conception of choices revolve around
> > nazism, racism and atheism.
> >
>
> "We all know" is just untrue, I, for one, do not know. Please explain, what
> research supports your statement?
For instance a *friend* of Dawkins said that Dawkins theory logically
seemed to lead to racism. Dawkins then argued against that, but that
even those sympathetic to Dawkins would see the link to racism proves
that everybody knows that Darwinist conceptions revolve around it, if
not giving absolute validity to the belief.
> How does nazism, racism and atheism enter into the theory of evolution? In
> case you have overlooked it, the ToE is based on observations and facts,
The theory of evolution is based on denying creation, it is based on
denying free behaviour, it is based on reconstructing emotions and
choices as not free but mechanical. Choices that arise from the blood,
choices with the goal of preserving the race in the struggle for
existence, choices solely with a material owner in the blood or
environment, and no spiritual owner in the heart and soul.
> have you studied any of those? Besides, the ToE is older than Darwin - and
> Darwin is definitely older that nazism, albeit not older that
> fundamentalistic religious fanaticism.
ok so we have in sequence in time:
religious fanaticism-evolution-darwin-nazism
Now we have the sequence, but we do not have any logic.
> As for the latter, it seems to be at
> least as ugly as the other.
ok so then nazism is at least as ugly as fundamentalistic religious
fanaticism.
Does what you say actually have any point?
> What actually do you mean by 'conception of choice', where does that concept
> apply, please expand.
Ah I suggest you read my postings then.
> To me, your reasoning seems so disconnected from reality that it makes no
> sense at all. Why not try to be coherent and create meaningful sentences,
> like I do?
But you don't actualy create coherent and meaningful sentences.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Desertphile
> > nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
I saw those messages: if I did not know Creationists brainwashing
removes their innate sense of humor I would have thought he was trying
to be funny. As it is he just appears to be.... well, "nuts" is not a
technical term but it will suffice.
> Boikat
André G. Isaak
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> However much you disparrage creationist conception of choice, we all
> know that Darwinist conception of choice is generally along the lines
> of Konrad Lorenz, Ernst Heackel, Cosmides, Tooby, Dawkins, Dennet,
> Rushton etc. conception of it.
>
> That is to say the Darwinist conception of choices revolve around
> nazism, racism and atheism.
Racism has been around since as long as there were people, and has no
basis in science. Naziism didn't emerge until nearly three quarters of a
century after Darwin published OoS, so to claim his ideas revolved
around Naziism would be an anachronism.
André
--
n.b. there are no monotremes in my email address.
André G. Isaak
"bullpup" <bul...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> "Jon Fleming" <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:u2j6825vnjimh62vi...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 13:24:10 -0500, "bullpup" <bul...@bellsouth.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Ray" <r...@addr.invalid> wrote in message
> > >news:cq568292ilq437q55...@4ax.com...
> > >> On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 07:28:51 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> > >> <c17...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> ><nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> This is what I posted over at evcforum some days ago, but to no
> > >> >> response.
> > >> >
> > >> >Maybe they can't stand this much craziness so early in the morning,
> > >either.
> > >>
> > >> Well it always easier to call something nonsense than to admit that it
> > >> may just be beyond your comprehension...
> > >
> > >Please translate Nando's inane prattle into something more easily
> > >understood, then.
> >
> > "I don' like evolution but can't find any problems with it. So I'm
> > going to babble about irrelevant and undefined stuff and hope
> > somebody's fooled. It makes me feel so scientific all over!"
> >
> > HTH. HAND.
>
> That's pretty much what I figured, but waas hoping that Ray had a more
> up-to-date Nando to English translation.
Perhaps this discussion belongs in the "What's the weirdest human
language?" thread.
André G. Isaak
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Consider for instance Michaelangelo choosing what to do in painting the
> picture. Now if we consider Michaelangelo merely as a material object,
> we might suppose that the painting just flows directly from some
> genius-genes mediated by the environment unto the canvas. But the
> problem with such a theory is that it negates the possibility of an
> alternative result. So in this materialist scenario there is no actual
> choosing, because any alternative result is impossible.
>
> So it is demonstrated, merely by definition, that it is impossible that
> we would find a material thing at the location of a decision, because
> of the impossiblity of material leading to an alternative.
> The evidence is, that there is indeed nothing at the point of decision.
> Some credible scientists told me that the origin of randomness in a
> zener-diode was at the socalled "quantum mechanical zeropoint". From
> this point random noise is generated, meaning more or less, one can't
> deduce the pattern of electrons coming out of the diode, from the
> pattern of electrons coming into the diode. So it means the "pattern"
> of electrons is decided at the precise location of the qmz-point.
>
> Some scientists consider the qmz point real, and that nothing exists
> there, others consider the qmz-point not real, since there is nothing
> there.
I'm still at quite a loss to get my head around this peculiar claim that
there is 'nothing' at the 'point of a decision'. You claim that there
must be 'nothing' because decisions are 'spiritual' and therefore not
material. Does this mean that non-material things must push away
material things to make room for themselves? Wouldn't that sort of
suggest that they are material after all?
> Remembering that creationism gives insight into decisions and chances,
> and how one decision relates to another, decisionspeed etc., the sort
> of technological application we might expect creationism to lead to are
> things like:
>
> - artificial consciousness in computers
>
> - artifical beings of massive potential for emotions
>
> - pseudo-superconductivity by centralizing many points of decision to
> one point and so the electron will pass through a collective of atoms
> per instance, rather then pass through many individual atoms per
> instance.
>
> - increased efficiency of jetengines by the atoms being blown out of
> the engine being rapidly precisely stacked for optimal push ie. one
> relates the points of decison one to another, giving a structure.
>
> - teleporting of objects through the quantumtunnels that appear at
> concentrated qmz-points, related to a concentration of qmz points
> elsewhere
I suggest that you go and design some of these things then. If you can
actually show us some of these astounding applications at work, we might
begin to take you seriously. Promisory notes of astounding, not to
mention hypothetical, future accomplishments, don't carry much weight,
however.
Dana Tweedy
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149514379.9...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
snipping
>> "We all know" is just untrue, I, for one, do not know. Please explain,
>> what
>> research supports your statement?
>
> For instance a *friend* of Dawkins said that Dawkins theory logically
> seemed to lead to racism. Dawkins then argued against that, but that
> even those sympathetic to Dawkins would see the link to racism proves
> that everybody knows that Darwinist conceptions revolve around it, if
> not giving absolute validity to the belief.
That is a rather strained bit of "evidence" for your claim. One person
making a claim does not mean 'everyone knows' about a link, that's tenuious
at best. The supposed "fact" that someone that Dawkins knows once
supposedly made a statement does not "prove" what you claim, or even lend it
much support.
>
>> How does nazism, racism and atheism enter into the theory of evolution?
>> In
>> case you have overlooked it, the ToE is based on observations and facts,
>
> The theory of evolution is based on denying creation,
No, the theory of evolution is based on explaining the physical evidence of
evolution.
> it is based on
> denying free behaviour,
The theory of evolution does not "deny" free behavior, and is certianly not
based on such a belief.
> it is based on reconstructing emotions and
> choices as not free but mechanical.
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with "choices" or emotions.
> Choices that arise from the blood,
"Choices" don't arise from the blood. Blood is a fluid that carries oxygen
and nutition to the cells.
> choices with the goal of preserving the race in the struggle for
> existence,
There is no "goal" of preserving the "race" in evolution. The struggle for
existance is about perserving the individual in order to pass on his or her
genes. The concept of "race" has nothing to do with this.
> choices solely with a material owner in the blood or
> environment, and no spiritual owner in the heart and soul.
Science doesn't recognize "spiritual owership" of anything, as there is no
evidence of such. "Choices" is a concept that evolution does not deal with
at all.
>
>> have you studied any of those? Besides, the ToE is older than Darwin -
>> and
>> Darwin is definitely older that nazism, albeit not older that
>> fundamentalistic religious fanaticism.
>
> ok so we have in sequence in time:
>
> religious fanaticism-evolution-darwin-nazism
Remember that prior occurance does not mean cause.
>
> Now we have the sequence, but we do not have any logic.
Well, you don't at least. Religious fantatics have been along much longer
than evolutionary theory. the concept of evolution has been around longer
than Darwin, who proposed a workable theory by which evolution is explained.
Nazism came along much later, and was not based on evolution, but earlier
ideas of racism and tribalism.
>
>> As for the latter, it seems to be at
>> least as ugly as the other.
>
> ok so then nazism is at least as ugly as fundamentalistic religious
> fanaticism.
>
> Does what you say actually have any point?
>
>> What actually do you mean by 'conception of choice', where does that
>> concept
>> apply, please expand.
>
> Ah I suggest you read my postings then.
I've read your postings. They dosn't provide any better explanation of
what you mean by "choice". You seem to have some kind of idea that
physical laws and properties are due to some being choosing between
eventualities. You haven't explained how that woluld work, or why we
should accept your claims.
>
>> To me, your reasoning seems so disconnected from reality that it makes no
>> sense at all. Why not try to be coherent and create meaningful sentences,
>> like I do?
>
> But you don't actualy create coherent and meaningful sentences.
Ultimate pot/kettle inversion moment.
DJT
nando_r...@yahoo.com
merely wishful thinking that it doesn't exist. Now scientific racism is
gaining in strength again especially in China, but also in the West
racist theory is gaining favour. It's also an established fact of
history that scientific racism increased much in magnitude after
publication of the Origin of Species. The reasons for that can be found
in the theory of natural selection, especially as the theory is applied
to mankind, since the theory applied to mankind is much
indistinghuishable from racism.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
André G. Isaak
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Steven J. wrote:
> > Individual organisms don't evolve; populations do. An individual
> > organism doesn't get a choice of what genes it has, and very little
> > choice as to how they interact with the environment.
>
> Spoken with a tone of authority, but.. you don't know the first thing
> about choices. Steven has no clue at all what he is talking about
> folks.
>
> > You have never heard of quantum mechanics? There have been Nobel
> > prizes given out for scientific works that deal with indeterminacy.
>
> Ah the reason Steven refers to some unnamed works that supposedly deal
> with indeterminacy, is because he can't handle indeterminacy.
>
> I refer you to Bohr's interpretation of quantum-mechanics, and
> Schroedinger's cat counter example to Bohr. That example fairly
> indicates how far scientists can actually handle indeterminacy. It is a
> big joke of cat's being alive and dead at the same time, that is how
> much scientists can handle indeterminacy.
>
> It is just a charade being played here people. When it comes down to it
> Darwinists such as Stew Dean and Andre Isaak which I have just debated,
> and countless other Darwinists I have debated before them, they *all*
> without *any* exception, don't affirm indeterminacy as a scientific
> fact.
Metaphysical claims do not constitute facts. Neither do their denials,
which is why I have always remained non-committal on this issue.
> It is solely creationists who affirm indeterminacy as a
> scientific fact, and that is because creationists accept the concept of
> choice, and the concept of a spiritual owner to choices.
Fate and predestination play a role in many religious belief systems,
including ones which assume divine creation, so it clearly is not the
case that *all* creationists affirm the existence of indeterminacy; nor
is it the case that science denies this which is precisely why Steven
raised the QM example. Some interpretations of QM do try avoid
indeterminacy, but certainly not all. The Copenhagen interpretation,
which is, I believe, the most standard one, does not deny indeterminacy.
Robert Weldon
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149514379.9...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
But you just responded, and in a matter indicating that you understood his
post. Thus disproving your statement that he doesn't create coherent and
meaningful sentences.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> I'm still at quite a loss to get my head around this peculiar claim that
> there is 'nothing' at the 'point of a decision'. You claim that there
> must be 'nothing' because decisions are 'spiritual' and therefore not
> material.
No that is not what I claimed. I suggest you read again what I wrote.
> Does this mean that non-material things must push away
> material things to make room for themselves? Wouldn't that sort of
> suggest that they are material after all?
Why don't you just look up some stuff about the qmz point?
> I suggest that you go and design some of these things then. If you can
> actually show us some of these astounding applications at work, we might
> begin to take you seriously. Promisory notes of astounding, not to
> mention hypothetical, future accomplishments, don't carry much weight,
> however.
I disagree, it is reasonable to assume that fundamental knowledge about
the way things are would result in much technological application.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
André G. Isaak
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Big feedback loop, means big gaping hole of ignorance about choices.
> One can well see that you have reduced choice to calculation and....
> there aren't actually possible alternatives in a calculation as you
> describe it sonny. In your conception of it the same parameters would
> *always* give the same result. Doesn't sound like possible alternatives
> to me, so it doesn't sound like choice to me.
So what actual evidence do you have that this is not, in fact, the way
things work? How can we determine whether alternatives results could, in
fact, occur?
CreateThis
> ... It is solely creationists who affirm indeterminacy as a
> scientific fact
And we all know that science isn't science unless creationists say so.
LOL.
CT