Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation Vs. Evolution = Free will Vs. determinism
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 151 of 164 (135898)
08-21-2004 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Syamsu
08-21-2004 5:09 AM


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.
Quite how you got that from my post is beyond me. Perhaps the voices in your head once again helped you 'interpret' what I said.
TTFN,
WK
P.S. Your holocaust tripe is still off topic, please take it somewhere else!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Syamsu, posted 08-21-2004 5:09 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Syamsu, posted 08-21-2004 7:02 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 152 of 164 (135902)
08-21-2004 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Wounded King
08-21-2004 6:07 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Wounded King, posted 08-21-2004 6:07 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Wounded King, posted 08-21-2004 3:59 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 153 of 164 (135961)
08-21-2004 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Syamsu
08-21-2004 7:02 AM


It is only an innappropriate truism if you belive that we now claim to know for a fact that the universe is either deterministic or indeterministic. Since neither of these positions is unequivocally regarded as fact now, except perhaps by you, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying may well be equally a truism but it is an appropriate one as, for all you pay lip sevice to it, it is one you continually fly in the face of.
What I am saying is that the issue is unresolved, and while it remains unresolved it ill behoves you to blithely assume that it has been resolved as your whim dictates, in the favour of indeterminism, and subsequently draw possibly erroneous conclusions from that assumption.
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.
I'm sure everyone here except you would recognise the peripheral nature of a discussion of any particular historical event to the topic of the fundamental distinction between determinism and indeterminism. You might as well blame indeterminism for allowing the nazis to choose their particular course of action.
Once again you seem to think that criticising the choices or beliefs of people you identify as ascribing to a specific scientific theory has any relevance to the scientific merit of that theory. As you have been told on numerous previous occasions, it does not.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Syamsu, posted 08-21-2004 7:02 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Syamsu, posted 08-22-2004 5:07 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 154 of 164 (136042)
08-22-2004 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Syamsu
08-21-2004 5:14 AM


Re: The duality of reality
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?
I said, I'm confident I DON'T KNOW... IOW I'm not confident in anything except my own ignorance. I THINK randomness and determinism probably exist at once.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Syamsu, posted 08-21-2004 5:14 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 155 of 164 (136066)
08-22-2004 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Wounded King
08-21-2004 3:59 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Wounded King, posted 08-21-2004 3:59 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Wounded King, posted 08-22-2004 5:16 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 156 of 164 (136067)
08-22-2004 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Syamsu
08-22-2004 5:07 AM


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.
The problem with your argument is that will they are taken as operational facts for science, things that must be assumed to allow us to use science effectively, they are not required as fundamental facts. Once again you ignore the fact that indeterminism in science, with the possible exception of QM, is used to allow for the fact that there are limits to what we can effectively know about the systems we study.
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.
These three paragraphs are yet another barely coherent restating of your initial contention.
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.
You haven't shown them to be dishonest, and I would encourage you to start a new thread if you wish to try. You have yet to show any evidence whatsoever that a premise of fundamental indeterminacy, which is required for your argument to be true, is in any way better supported scientifically than a deterministic view.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Syamsu, posted 08-22-2004 5:07 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Syamsu, posted 08-22-2004 9:56 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 157 of 164 (136075)
08-22-2004 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Wounded King
08-22-2004 5:16 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Wounded King, posted 08-22-2004 5:16 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by jar, posted 08-22-2004 2:40 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 159 by AdminNosy, posted 08-22-2004 2:48 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 158 of 164 (136126)
08-22-2004 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Syamsu
08-22-2004 9:56 AM


There's already enough evidence to safely conclude dishonesty on the part of Jar and Mammuthus in this thread.
Why is it that Creationists, when faced with evidence that refutes their position, always seem to fall back on attacking the poster?
Is that proof that in Creationism there is no free-will, are they simply determined to attack anyone that cannot blindly accept their unfounded assertions?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Syamsu, posted 08-22-2004 9:56 AM Syamsu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Mammuthus, posted 08-23-2004 5:27 AM jar has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 159 of 164 (136127)
08-22-2004 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Syamsu
08-22-2004 9:56 AM


Enough: time for a break
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.
When you have your priviledges restored you can back up your claims of lies, suppy more than assertions for you position and play nice.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 08-22-2004 01:51 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Syamsu, posted 08-22-2004 9:56 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 160 of 164 (136148)
08-22-2004 6:12 PM


cant we all just get along.
And Wounded King thought this was a little harmless, innocuous topic LOL!!

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Wounded King, posted 08-23-2004 11:31 AM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 161 of 164 (136233)
08-23-2004 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by jar
08-22-2004 2:40 PM


The pity in all this is that Kevles book (and the hundreds of references contained within) paints a very ugly picture of how a political agenda using pseudoscience was able to make such headway particularly among populist politicians (not unlike the creationist movement). Galton and other famous scientists do not emerge unscathed. The pity is that Syamsu is completely ignorant of the facts but has a strange obsessive desire to paint all scientists as holocaust perpetrators (which presumable makes him somehow feel better about himself). He ignores both the ACTUAL history of eugenics and its ACTUAL consequences. This is both stupid and dangerous because without a critical evaluation of the origin of such movements, the danger is that they will be repeated. This could have been an interesting thread in principle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by jar, posted 08-22-2004 2:40 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Wounded King, posted 08-23-2004 5:50 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 162 of 164 (136236)
08-23-2004 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Mammuthus
08-23-2004 5:27 AM


This could have been an interesting thread in principle.
Do you mean this thread or Syamsu's atempted derailment topic hypothetical thread?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Mammuthus, posted 08-23-2004 5:27 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Mammuthus, posted 08-23-2004 6:02 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 163 of 164 (136238)
08-23-2004 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Wounded King
08-23-2004 5:50 AM


More the derailment topic. When this thread was on topic, I found Sy's posts too strange and stream of consciousness to be of much value. But since EVERY thread he participates in eventually ends up in a discussion of the holocaust, I include this thread as having been potentially interesting but ultimately unsatisfying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Wounded King, posted 08-23-2004 5:50 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 164 of 164 (136310)
08-23-2004 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by 1.61803
08-22-2004 6:12 PM


Re: cant we all just get along.
I know by now that no topic is Syamsu proof, especially when so many of my topics are direct responses to some of Syamsu's more interesting/preposterous claims and therefore clear invitations for him to infiltrate his agenda.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by 1.61803, posted 08-22-2004 6:12 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024