Shane,

I didn't go asking their advice, it was just a discussionpiece. The
posts have to be approved before they are released for open discussion
is the way it works at evcforum.

Is below how it goes in your life?

Shane's friend: "I decided I take a holiday in Aruba this winter"

Shane: "You decided? what you mean by that, what's that thing decision,
I don't know what you're talking about, gee you might as well be
talking about grocklets, you should first explain you know before you
go using words like that, you expect people to understand you without
explaining, you're weird man, weird, that's your thing decision, and
you go run with it, go to Aruba whatever, but don't expect me to help
you with deeeeciiiiisioooooon, cause I don't know the first thing about
it."

I guess not, that's only how it goes in your intellectual life. I'm
complaining that evolutionists are generally enormously ignorant about
decisions, not that they not help me with developing artificial
intelligence or something.

I am complaining about Darwin writing that the extinction of savage
races and gorilla's is an almost certainty,

Aboriginals is an inevitability if they have the slightest
disadvantage in competition. Such things are factually incorrect,

because they don't sufficiently take into account the possibility that
things may turn out one way or another as a matter of decisions in the
minds of people in this case, and a matter of decisions falling in the
environment, like the weather, in other cases.

Why don't you make a decision on it, why don't you decide that the
evolutionist side is crap for not recognizing any single decision, and
for their general attitude about the subject. Come join the creationist
side.

On our side we have William jennings Bryan, who forewarned about how
Darwinism played in Germany, when he was attacking a shameful
eugenicist textbook, which the evolutionist science establishment
supported. But beaten by the hatemongers, which are all to readily
apparent on this newsgroup also, he died a day or two after a spineless
lawyer tricked him out of a defense of his position, by throwing the
trial. Hatemongering and lawyertricks, that is the general mode of
conduct of the evolutionist side, when push comes to shove.

Today, the only substantial people's opposition to Chinese eugenics, is
the Christian fundamentalist movement in America.

community plays the multicultural understanding game, a mild criticism,
but more insistence to the West that we should "understand" the Chinese
rather then insistence that Chinese stop forced sterilization, abortion
etc. And after they played that game, they go collaborating with them
on science-conferences as if the holocaust never happened.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

No supporter of evolution would, to the best of my knowledge, ever
assume the ignorance level of a creationist is anywhere near as small as
that of a supporter of evolution, let alone anywhere near equal.
Supporters of evolution know there is much that they remain in ignorance
of, but Creationist ignorance is so great that they don't even know that
they don't know. So no danger of any the type of pretence you mention
above happening here.

shane wrote:

Well you don't give a damn about your complete and utter ignorance
about decisions/turningpoints in the universe and life, that's pretty
clear.

Well we might, if you gave as the merest hint as to why you consider
them so important, and even one example of what you consider them to be.
For at the moment, what you are writing about makes as much sense as me
saying that you obviously "don't give a damn about your complete and
utter ignorance" of grocklets.

Well that's just the thing, there's not even common agreement about it
in science about what to call it, so it can't ever be developed. Gould
used the word turningpoint. I prefer the word decision, because that is
most clearly saying it might not have happened but it did. With
mechanisms things happen of neccesity of what went before, with
decisions it could turn out differently.

For those who like to know, the trick is to trace back the likelyhood
of the appearance of a thing, to the decisions where the likelyhood was
set. So essentially you don't ask when was the first plant? To discover
the origin of plants, in stead you ask "how did the probability of
plants coming to be develop?.

That is a very interesting, but not very enlightening, HOW. It is all
rather meaningless in the absence of WHY? Why would/should we know this
trick?

Because then we will find the decisions by which the thing was created,
or as the event may be, destroyed. A few years ago some historian
traced back the exact time more or less, at which Hitler gave the order
to start with the extermination of the Jews. That's what history is all
about, you have an event, the holocaust, and then you are trying to
trace back to the decisions which made the event come to be. Such
decisions may be of people, but there are lots of decisions falling in
nature as well, like in the weather.

It's no coincedence that the other evolutionist offered a monocausal
explanation with 1000 years of predetermination "culminating" in the
holocaust, because such highly predeterminate explanations are common
currency in standard science, where decisions are usually ignored.

We all do that already in our everyday life, tracing back probabilities
this way to decisions where they were set, it's a basic part of common
knowledge. However it needs to be pointed out that this is also handy
in intellectual life and science, because of the authoritarian willful
ignorance of people such as mightymartia polluting the intellectual
climate of opinion on the subject.

So basic a part apparently that I, for one, have not the slightenst
awareness of ever doing this, let alone any inkling of why i would even
want to. What benefit does it give me to think like this. A concrete
example would be nice. Why not pursue for my/our benefit the example you
give above with the plant business?

Basically some statistics. But prior to statistics people also used to
have a sense of when something is likely to happen, when something
might happen, and an eye to pinpoint the precise moment in which it is
decided. It's common human experience. Perhaps sports is a clear
example of it, of people thinking like that all the time. Or movies,
the tension grows, some big decision might fall, etc. You can tell when
the decision falls, coz that's when the dramatic music starts playing.
In real life it's a little harder to pinpoint the decision, without the
benefit of an orchestra to cue.

I don't care to search right now for the origin of plants. The basic
principle of it should be clear enough, and you should really question
yourself how it comes to be that you don't know any. And the answer
must be anti-creationism, and the weakness of science to deal with
decisions, that confines you so much to not even be aware of the basic
things of a fundamental principle of the way things work.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu