Creationist theory

I did not say the spiritual realm was indeterminate, I only said the spirit owns the choice. You are seemingly trying to make some objective appraisal of the spiritual realm, which I already explained why this is wrong.I just meant mainstream science can't handle indeterminacy, for failure to use the concept of decision correctly, creationist science can.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

I think you are just tremendously confused about the subject of indeterminacy in general in the first place, not creationism in particular. This explains why you don't give an alternative model of indeterminacy to the creationist model, and why you flip-flop on acknowledging indeterminacy.The spirit makes the choice yes, I suggest you refer to the general religious and Hollywood talk about the heart and soul, spirit etc. for context.IMO we can locate decisions precisely, as I've shown, so creation science is just another science discpline.As many times before, ask specific questions about what you don't understand, about the specific examples I gave of how creationism works.There's no use for me to just go talking about "my" theory when actually you ignore that quite lenghty posting at the beginning where I do talk about it.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

As you can read in post 1, you can locate a decision by;
- looking for the center of a probability distribution- looking for a change in pattern-looking for a qmz point-looking for a change in probability.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

The decision would be at the center of the probability distribution, at the qmz-point, it would be at the point where the pattern changed.For instance randomness is a subject of interest for encryption, and various other computerfunctions. In discussing this one would obviously like to know where the number originates. It would not be good to have the number coming from a pre-existing pattern of numbers, because somebody might get their hands on the pre-existing pattern of numbers and consequently crack the encryption code more easily. So one would obviously want the number to be chosen there and then, so one wouldn't have to worry about safeguarding some pre-existing pattern.And so they researched it, and found that the noise coming from a zener-diode originates at the qmz-point. They calculated that it is impossible to predict the noise coming out of it, from the "input" of the zener-diode.So what this story says is that;- basically the science for finding decisions already exists- it is useful to talk in terms of decisions this way, it could hardly be avoided to tell this story informatively without referring to the location where the number is decidedregards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

As far as I know choice makers are neither determinate or indeterminate but absolutes, following from Kant. 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.For practical purposes one might say for instance that the zener-diode makes the decision, but that would only mean that the decision is located in the zener-diode. And since at the precise location of the decision is nothing, it would be false to insist that decisions are materially owned.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

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

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

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

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

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

Look, you can see you are just bringing up the same argument over and over and over again. There is just no point in it is there, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.Oh yeah, you're banned obviously. It's improper you post here.regards,
Mohammad Nur SyamsuEdited by Syamsu, : No reason given.

I was looking into the double-slit experiment the other day, and ventured to describe it in terms of points of decision. By some first efforts this seems quite workable, is there any other creationist who has already explained this in terms of points of decision?Several sites I've been to already are forced by the evidence to suggest that the object is conscious of where it is going, and as consciousness is manifest at a point of decision, the creationist explanation seems quite credible to begin with. So much so that I suppose someone must have tried it already.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

So to be on topic, what does the book of Urantia have to say about choices? How are decisions generally described in the book?regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

So far..the location of the decision where the photon ends up would have to be made at the point of origin, where the photon is shot. Otherwise, if the location where the photon ends up would be decided enroute, it would not be possible to explain the interference pattern. That is to say, the interference pattern can only be explained in terms of an entangled future. If the photon were to decide enroute the future would not be entangled, or the future would become disentangled per decision, and no interference pattern could be explained.Well so far my effort at it; next to explain the observation, when the photon is detected or observed.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu