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
™ Version 4.2
