Creation Vs. Evolution = Free will Vs. determinism

Who is obsessed here? In your quest for trying to find all explaining theories about everything, you ignore the wellfounded basis for determinacy and indeterminacy in the reasonable, limited and practical application in science, common knowledge and religion. Of course this becomes most desperate when confronted with science of history about human tragedy that compels indeterminacy as true to fact.And it's a nonsense that this issue would resolve anywhere near the fundamental nature of the universe. If you get anywhere near the fundamental truth you better start singing your heart out. Cold extremist philosophical meandering would not suffice to describe.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

So you are saying there wasn't any choice in the holocaust, because we are not allowed to assume choice. It's madness, typical mad scientist madness.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

But your confidence is unbalanced. You now have every confidence in cause and effect being true to fact, and no confidence in chance and outcome being true to fact. Surely you're not confident of chance and outcome in the context of extremist philosphical absolutism, but are confident of it being true to fact in every day life, aren't you?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Discuss it with Mammuthus. He referenced the author, I merely provided a quote to show what sort of thing this author is saying.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well I did read over your reference to mechanistic approach being useful also not warranting belief that it really is mechanical.So now you limit confidence in determinacy as well as indeterminacy. I think this is the wrong approach. Such an attitude will just lead to lack of confidence in indeterminacy, and not much lack of confidence in determinacy through a little bit of laziness. If you just mean to say that what we regard as fact now, may not be regarded as fact when we know more, or when we know everything, then I think it's improper that you posit this truism about the issue of determinacy vs indeterminacy.I'm not inclined to take out discussion about the holocaust, because I'm not at all sure that people here would actually recognize choice as a fact in regards to the holocaust.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Unequivocal certainty seems to be unattainable when it is argued on the basis of knowing everything. It is just a philosophical mindgame, which may be resolved when science comes to an end, when we know everything. In the mean time we just assume determinacy and indeterminacy as facts, or else there are no facts in science whatsoever.As before determination is synonym for decision. It is clear by the language that in times previous it was well understood that decision and creation go together, because the beginning of the universe was said to be a determination (decision) and from this determination the universe was created. We have come to be more ignorant of creation since then, so that the connection between decision and creation is much lost.It's the other way around of course. Klaus Fischer's book is science, what we pragmatically should accept as true, and the philosphical meandering about the fundamental nature of the universe to the point of determinacy and indeterminacy is peripheral, and has no compelling observation to support it any which way for lack of observing everything.Well I think everybody here realises the importance of recognizing choice as true to fact, and the limits of philosophical meandering to undermine the confidence in recognizing choice and creation as true to fact. I think I have made a convincing case, that evolutionists do in fact suppress scientific, common and religious knowledge about creation, and that this surpression facillitates their promotion of atheist / materialist / social darwinist doctrine.It's only because of such things like dishonesty about the links of Darwinism to Social Darwinism like Jar and Mammuthus engaged in, in this thread, that the truth is obfuscated. Or for instance your baseless insistence that indeterminacy is not a fact in evidence.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

As before, you can't use a method which requires to assert the existence of inherent uncertainty, on the part of the observer at least, to deny uncertainty altogether. The whole notion that we could just take out the principle of things going one way or another out of knowledge is complete nonsense. It just results in our knowledge becoming gibberish.I don't know what you're talking about. There's already enough evidence to safely conclude dishonesty on the part of Jar and Mammuthus in this thread. The evolutionist tells some lies about the relationship between darwinism and social darwinism, and then the evolutionist argues that social darwnism doesn't affect the scientific validity of evolution theory, as if that answers the question of the influence of darwinism on intellectual climate of opinion. That's how these arguments always go.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu