Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: diegopig@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 16 Mar 2006 11:48:59 -0800
nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx ha scritto:
It has always been basic common understanding to me that decisions fall
in the universe, much apart from choices being a focus point of
religion. Within reason I can find out the locations of decisions which
made things turn out the way they do, and such knowledge is of basic
practical importance in my day to day life.
This knowledge was further reinforced by my early acquaintaince with
computeprogramming. The only way to let the computer choose something,
is to use the random function. So in programming I naturally thought
of choosing in terms of randomness. This randomness does not appear to
be purposeless to me. Why if my computer chose 0 in stead of 1, would
it be purposeless? There is simply no way that artificial intelligence
/ artificial consciousness is ever going to work, without a creationist
understanding in terms of choices.
There is really no good reason at all why mainstream scientists oppose
this important knowledge. But oppose it they do, with much intellectual
violence, and bizarre theories all having the effect of destroying
knowledge in terms of decisions.
Then they use their pseudoscience to make new religions. For instance
Konrad Lorenz, he's one of the big names in Darwinist science. He made
a theory about instincts that explains them by anology of cans slowly
filling up with gas, and then getting released under pressure. This
conceptual tool, was his main fame within science, although actually he
took that concept from somebody else. Instincts to me is a low level
exercise of free will, instincts are a way of choosing. But in Lorenz's
conception, instincts are mechanical.
You will always see this pattern, Darwinists replacing knowledge that
is in terms of choices, with knowledge in terms of mechanism.
Konrad Lorenz was a Nazi, he believed that instincts were becoming
degraded because civilization countered the working of natural
selection. Aside from popularizing Nazism, he helped the Nazi's to draw
up criteria to distinguish Poles from Germans, and then he participated
in screening a population of mixed Germans and Poles, tearing up
families, helping send some to concentrationcamps. Konrad Lorenz's
ideology came from his Darwinist theory. And Lorenz is not just some
isolated case, there are many more such cases, Lorenz is just one of
the bigger names.
So the pattern is the following;
Darwinists oppose and destroy knowledge about choice, then they replace
that true knowledge of choice, with some fake mechanical choice (like
the will to survive as some kind of mechanism) and then they use this
fake mechanical choice to build an ideology around, such as nazism, or
communism to replace religion.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Hi again, Mohammad.
Welcome back.
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean, on some
points.
You say: "So in programming I naturally thought of choosing in terms
of randomness. This randomness does not appear to be purposeless to
me".
What do you mean with this? Do you mean that:
a) There IS NO true randomness in the universe. We think there is, but
in reality there are only God's decisions, billions of them, and we
can't understand them so we see them as randomness;
b) There IS true randomness in the universe, but it's been put in the
universe for a reason and it's actively used by God for a reason (in
the same way you use the random function).
c) Something completly different I didn't get.
From what you write in the very beginning:It has always been basic common understanding to me that decisions fall
in the universe, much apart from choices being a focus point of
religion. Within reason I can find out the locations of decisions which
made things turn out the way they do, and such knowledge is of basic
practical importance in my day to day life.
and from what you write after, I understand that the real problem with
ToE (in this case), in your opinion, is't not the "ape-to-man"
argument, but the fact that scientist say that the modifications that
changed an ape into a man were unguided, random and not-choosed.
Again, when you write:
"Instincts to me is a low level exercise of free will, instincts are a
way of choosing."
you are talking again of decisions.
So what I understand, the problem you speak of is a random vs decision
problem.
If that's so, I'd like to ask you why you choose creationism instead
of, say, theistic evolution?
In theistic evolution people say that evolution is real and it happens
exactly how scientist say it happens, but there is no true randomness
in the mutation of the DNA. These mutation are guided by God.
This give people the usefulness of ToE and the "guided by God"
interpretation.
(I hope i haven't disinterpreted theistic evolution, here)
Did I get you right? I misunderstood you? Please, let me know.
thank you, Diego
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: Dan Luke
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- References:
- I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: diegopig
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: diegopig
- Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- From: nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx
- I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- Prev by Date: Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- Next by Date: Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- Previous by thread: Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- Next by thread: Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
