Creationist theory

I'm not asking for the choice makers name, weight, or eye colour. I am just asking for you to explain the nature of your proposed entity. If this is science, there should be a description of what they do and how they do it. Your citing Kant seems to confirm this is philosophy and not science.So far we have choice makers in a spirit realm that make deterministic choices which are not deterministic really because they are absolute free agents (Kant).And you want to convince us that this is valid science? I suspect that there isn't any more to your concept which is why you are being reluctant to go into any details. Without the details I really have nothing constructive to talk about with you.

What a load of rubbish again... I already explained all this in post 1, and posts after, I suggest you actually read it.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

I suggest you make your next post your last post in this thread, since obviously this is going nowhere at all.Modulous:
"I'm not asking for the choice makers name, weight, or eye colour. I am just asking for you to explain the nature of your proposed entity. If this is science, there should be a description of what they do and how they do it. Your citing Kant seems to confirm this is philosophy and not science."So you misrepresent my position in that:- the creator supposedly might have weight, or eye colour etc. material attributes; while I several times explained that the creator does not essentially have material attributes but spiritual attributes, such as being loving for instance, etc.- that creationism supposes issues identity-issues to be science, while I have numerous times stated that these issues are explicitly left outside of science- you pretend there is no scientific part to creationism, and that it is not specific, yet you *REFUSE* many times to argue the quite specific examples I gave of creationist science. You absolutely refuse to address how to describe electrons going from one location around the atom, to another location.Quotes of where I explained before that creationism opposes identity-issues to be regarded as a matter of science:
----------------
So in this sense of identity-issues creationism is not objective, and generally opposes objectivity.
---
As explained before, it is wrong to ask objective evidence for identity-issues. So I deny that you have objective evidence about who Michaelangelo is as the creator of the painting.
---
As before, the subjective view of Michealangelo is most important when we consider him as a creator, not the objective. So you are skewing this the wrong way when you say you have objective evidence of Michaelangelo as a creator. The only objective evidence of creation really is when you find the locations of the decisions.
---
Again, you are skewing this the wrong way. When a fat man makes a choice, the choice isn't neccessarily either fat or male. So your observation of a fat man painting a picture is basically meaningless.
---
I specially exluded ojbective evidence for the spiritual, and IMO such acknowledgement of a border beyond which science can't go, is still a part of science, as should be learned in a basic science class.
---
You are seemingly trying to make some objective appraisal of the spiritual realm, which I already explained why this is wrong.
---
It's not the point here to discuss identity-issues, because I already explained how those issues are outside of science in post 1. Because one can only relate to the owner of a choice by your own choice, it is therefore neccessarily a subjective issue.
------------------
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

I keep explaining that I don't care if the choice maker has these properties, nor if the creator does. I agree that it is not relevant, which is why I stressed that I am not asking for these details (if they should happen to exist). That is why I said If this is science, there should be a description of what they do and how they do it and why I have not said If this is science we should know this entity's bodyweight and hair colour.Your choice making entity has to have properties that are relevant to decisions. I am merely asking you to explain those properties. Either that, or you have proposed an intangible untestable entity to explain something in a purely hypothetical and unfalsifiable manner.ergo, you are not proposing a scientific concept, but a philosophical one - referencing Kant seems to cement that impression. I haven't refused and I am not discussing all of creationist science with you, but your hypothesis. I haven't refused to discuss electrons, I simply haven't. The reason being that it is a large investment of time, and won't demonstrate anything either way. Even if it were impossible for me to explain things to you, it does not render your idea scientific.So we need to establish if your idea is science or if it is philosophy. If you hadn't guessed yet, that has been the focus of our discussions so far. You have continued arguing philosophically, and avoided things such as falsifications and tests etc for your spirit realm and your choice maker/creator. If you do not understand how certain properties of a proposed entity are important when trying to claim this is science, then we can end it here at your leisure. I understand that identity issues are not at issue here - and have said so since my first post here. I don't care about the identity of the creator, its name, its weight or its eye color. Nor do I care if it has these properties. They are entirely irrelevant. However, if you say that a choice maker does x, we need to know how you propose this happens, how it is implemented and what kind of evidence is there that this happens in this manner. We'd also need some kind of test that would differentiate your concept from another and we'd need some ways your idea might be falsified.Otherwise it isn't science. Once again, that doesn't mean it is less valid or less right. Philosophy is fine - but science has pretty specific and strict rules.So if you cannot understand how what I am asking for is important to the science side of the discussion, then we might as well just leave it here. I wish you better luck with finding a debate partner in the future.

Science rests on being objective, as per methodological naturalism.You state that creationism is a valid science.You state it rests on three things: the creator, the act of creation, and the created.Now then, each of these must be treated in an objective manner in order to even begin being treated as science. And unfortunatlely, you state: Which means that creationism is subjective. Which means creationism can never be science. Oh well.On a side note, do you consider the creator to be "supernatural", a category to which God belongs?

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

One can well see how the mindless stupidity of science-fans to assert objectivity everywhere, leads to assert scientific certitude in appraising some groups of people as loving and other groups as hateful.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

what?I don't think objectivity is everywhere. It's just one of the most important parts of science. When did I make a comment about how loving or hating people were?This isn't even relevant. You've done nothing but make an assertion, and haven' even addressed what I brought up. Try doing that first.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

I will explain how you can criticize creationist theory:- well I can describe the location of an electron around an atom in another and better way then changing per decision namely as follows;- I can show the incoherency, or uselessness of creationist theory about the location of the electron changing per decision, namely;
- I can show how 2 creation scientists who have the same information would come to a different conclusion about the location of a decision because;- I can show how we can make objective statements about the owners to decisions, namely as follows;- the theory about creations as informational entities is obviously not worked out, and is inconsistent with current theory about information in the following way;- one doesn't have to have an ethical appreciation for people as the spiritual owners to their choices, in researching people's choices, one may omit this ethical appreciation altoghether because;regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

From a further reading of your OP, it seems to be heavily based on quantam mechanics/physics, an area I'm not too familiar with. Give me a couple of days so that I can fully understand what you are saying and how it relates to creationism. And from a quick breifing of your list of how to criticize creationism, I'm not sure how any of that is falsifiable. Again, give me just a little bit to try to understand better.Please note, I'm not about to give up.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

okay, I'm going to see if I understand your post first, and then get to the criticisms you listed in one of the last posts. I just want to make sure I've got your concept right.Keep in mind, I'm paraphrasing what you wright, not making criticisms yet.First, creationism is a theory that depends on the creator, the act of creation, and the created.The point you get across with the creator section:
Knowing physical characteristics of the "creator" are not important. What is important is that we determine who the "creator" is as owner of his choices. However, in order to determine who the "creator" is as owner of his choices, we must use subjective methods. This is not science, but an act of judgement.In the act of creation segment, your point is:
Creation is a choice. We can find and locate the definite location of this choice. There is nothing material at this location, because matter can only exist after choice. This is based off of cause-effect relationships, and it makes sense because material never decides, but predetermines.I'm not sure what you mean by evidence supporting the creationism view of quantum mechanics. If the wiki link was supposed to help, it didn't. Anywho, you make the point that there is a probability of a chance (event?) being decided. I don't really get that. Main point--decisions affect location, which is determined by chance, and chance inhabits the future. So far it looks like basic quantam mechanics to me.So far I don't see how this ties into creationism.Now for your "created" section:The created is an informational entity, because of how decisions relate to one another (I think this has something to do with the "cascade" effect you outlined at the end of the "act of" segment). The prinicipal of creation is derived from the principle of choosing. And the simplest representation of these choices, or decisions, is the binary sytem of 1 and 0. Therefore, the informational entities are constructed in binary. To me, it sounds like you are saying that everything in existence is nothing more than computer code, and not in an analog (which, as I understand, is how the natural world is represented). The created is also the medium for the "creator" to link two decisions.Now then, for the "more things to consider" section:the point at which chance changes, or in other words, becomes realized, is called the decision. Therefore, creation science is concerned with backtracking decisions to the original chance. Decisions relate future chances to the present. Effects relate past causes to present. Creationism is free will.No objective evidence can be asked for, in terms of the "creator". In other words, we cannot objectively know what the "creator" loves, hates, etc.And science cannot test on humans, because it must take into consideration that decisions can have emotions manifest in them, such as pain.This creationism science can be used to make a whole slew of technical advances.Okay, I'm not going to do any major criticisms here, because I want to make sure I got the jist of what you're saying first, but it looks like you want to hold creation science to a different set of rules than normal science (such as when you make comments that you cannot criticize it like normal science) (such as the oft repeated lack of objectivity concerning the creator, which you refuse to discuss, and as it's been brought up too many times, I will avoid it), and you make a whole slew of assertions, which at some points seem to contradict one another. But first, please tell me whether or not I got the jist of your argument. If I didn't in some places, please, futher explain. After that, I will gladly debate with you.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

I do not refuse to discuss the lack of objectivity about noting the creator. I discuss at length why this issue must be approached subjectively, and how scientists who insist on having objective evidence for the nature of any creator, such as social-darwinists and you also apparently, engage in pseudoscience.So then when I explain how the spiritual realm must be approached subjectively, naturally Modulous insists on having falsifications and tests for the spiritual realm, and asks for evidenced properties of the choice-maker. Otherwise without these things it all just isn't science, but then this part was never intended to be scientific, it was explicitly intended to be subjective.The scientists who insist on objective evidence this way, are the same scientists who scientifically determined that Jews are a hateful group of people, and Aryans are a loving group of people. They make assertions about the owners to choices as if that is objective science.In any case you are banned from the thread, and let's get real, the reason you don't produce an actual argument now, that you merely try to get the gist of my argument, means you will never produce an actual argument. You will also insist on having objective evidence for the one who makes the choice, endlessly.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

I object to that assertion. That's a statement about individuals, including Modulous, kuresu, and me. I have never made such a determination against the Jews. I doubt that Modulous or kuresu have either.You might not have intended it as a charge about individuals. But that's the way it is written. I am asking you to withdraw that false accusation.

Huh no, the charge is part of argument from post 1 already. You don't support for scientists to acknowledge the spiritual identity of people as the owners to their choices, the propietors of their heart, the guardians of their soul. This is sufficient ground in the context of the history of scientific racism, and the present threat of scientific racism, to charge you as belonging to the group of pseudoscientists who will not acknowledge a limit to objectivity.And any response has to engage my argument.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

The discussion in this thread has demonstrated that you have no argument.I don't expect to be posting more in this thread. I only reentered the thread at Message 57 to call you on your false accusations.

Atheists and their philosophy say there is no evidence of a Creator. It is apparent that you think atheistic assumptions are objective truth. Since you are an atheist this is expected. Science assumes the existence of a Creator/Designer based on the undisputed appearance of design and organized complexity that we see in biological reality.My point is that your starting assumption places everyone who acknowledges reality the way it is on the defensive. The same assumption cannot be overcome by any evidence and predetermines all of your interpretations and conclusions. Very predictable and ordinary atheist philosophy.Ray Romans 1:25

​

Who changed the truth of God into A LIE, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. All Darwinists are the liars for special pleading the appearance of design (what more can God do ?) to not correspond with Designer but a blind and mindless process of their own imagination and need. Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.