Anyone interested in taking on Syamsu in a "Great Debate"?

Trepidation is advised. I don't see that on this issue there are any convenient notable authors to reference to counter my argument. The sort of thing as the evolutionist faq is all what is there.My argument has many constituent parts, but most of it boils down to the idea that science as it is, is prejudiced towards describing in terms of cause and effect, in stead of decision.I suggest we debate creationists vs evolutionists. I will not argue that descent with modification is contrary to fact, but I will argue that evolutionists in general have distorted the view on creation as a matter of decision, and that they lack knowledge of creation by decision. I will argue that in the past (or present in China) this has lead to an explosion of racism / eugencisim in society, where on account of science things such as honesty, beauty, superiority are considered to be inherent traits in people, in stead of matters of decision. People are born honest, born beautiful, born superior etc. asserted as a matter of fact. This idea giving people a confused fatalistic attitude where their predetermined character, throws them into a natural selection struggle between variants.So for instance in debate I might ask you to produce a single science paper where the origin of anything is described in terms of decision, and failing to produce that would give credibility to the idea that science ignores and denies creation as a matter of decision.I will argue that there wouldn't be a creation vs evolution debate, if scientists and evolutionists in particular would recognize creation as a matter of decision as a more true way of looking at origins then a "cause and effect" descent with modifcation view.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

There is no shifting of goalposts. I prefer to argue creation vs evolution broadly, in terms of what's it really all about, because I think that is the most meaningful way of debate. Is it about bigoted religionists irrationally fighting mere factual science, or is it a protective effort of valuable heritage against a prejudiced science establishment infected with ideology? That is the sort of debate I prefer.A very specific point would be that natural selection is formulated as comparitive on reproductive rates between variants, but should, according to me, be formulated individually, describing reproduction or no reproduction of the indvidual in relation to the environment.An individual organism get's selected regardless of whether or not there are any other organisms present to compare it to. Sounds very simple, and very true, doesn't it?Well it would be some considerable achievement if I would win a debate on this specific point saying that natural selection has since it's conception been formulated in a fundamentally wrong way, but it wouldn't be very clear why Darwnists have used a wrong formulation. The reason being the ideology and prejudices prevalent in Darwinism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I see such an odd mixture of fear and confidence of evolutionists in this thread. People don't want to debate, yet you are all so sure I am wrong.Could it be that scientists and evolutionists in particular are so phenomenally ignorant to ignore such a basic thing as decision? Let's consider some quotes:Dawkins in the Blindwatchmaker: "chance is the enemy of science"Haeckel paraphrased from some leaflet: "when I think of the monist belief that all things are of one, I get the same sort of satisfaction as when I found a cause and effect relationship in science."Darwin paraphrased from Descent of Man: "the gorilla's will almost certainly become extinct"These quotes are all of one sort, they all tend to ignore that things can turn out one way or another, decision. It's hard to believe that anyone would be so phenomenally ignorant to ignore decision, but odd statements of evolutionsts like above indicates that the unbelievable is reasonably true.I think all of us can get great intellectual mileage out of this knowledge that science is prejudiced towards describing in terms of "cause and effect" and not decision. You shouldn't be so confident that this idea is wrong.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

My assertion is that science is prejudiced towards describing in terms of cause and effect in stead of decision.My evidence for this assertion is mainly that there isn't a name in common use for the point where the likelyhood of the appearance of a thing changes. You can't begin to start having any knowledge about it without naming things.There also aren't any science papers to my knowledge which describe origins of anything in terms of decisions.Then I have some a-sorti evidence of quotes of scientists, tending to valididate that they are "against" decision as a true to fact description of what's happening.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Does this mean that you consider decision to be outside of science?It belongs to history of science.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Why don't you all just admit I'm right, and be done with it that way. Who'se really going to argue against the idea that science as it is, is prejudiced towards describing in terms of cause and effect? That is so evident all round. Take a look at your own mind and see if or not your mind locks up to think in terms of cause and effect when thinking of science. You all know it's true already I think.The next steps are a bit more difficult.The step of this prejudice towards something like nazism for instance may seem a far reach. But I can safely shelter behind an authority who backs me up on this. Historian Klaus Fischer singles out the issue of prejudice towards predetermination over decision, as the most important issue in understanding the history of the holocaust. He singles it out, not mentioned in passing but singled out as most important.Or the step towards why natural selection is wrong. There I have the authority of Ariew and Mathen. They argue that NS is wrong because it excludes from it's operation those events which run counter to optimal fitness. For instance a well-sighted organism get's hit by lightning and doesn't reproduce, while a bad sighted organism reproduces, is excluded from NS. So what is excluded from NS is chance, decision, and that is where NS is wrong. Obviously a case of prejudice towards cause and effect over decision.And so on. Who can hope to argue the other side of this and win? There is no authority of knowledgable people on the other side of this argument. You have the authority of that evolutionist "faq" I referenced to back you up. A text which gives good reason to despair and throw in the towel for the evolutionist side.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I have no idea which terms you want defined. The main term in focus seems to be decision, and I defined that term already as the change in the chance of something appearing, in reply to your post to make a concise argument with evidence.Of course if you would try to debate against that definition, that could very easily lead to my assertion of ignorance about decision being validated, because it could show you to be ignorant of decision. You can go and try and find a more appropiate "scientific" definition of decision but you may not find anything at all, no matter how hard you look, showing that decision or like is ignored in science... What a precarious situation!This debate would obviously not be an easy win for you, and I think that is a more reasonable explanation why you disengage.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

oh so decisions are like alien invaders, they don't exist.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I will to think that you have no formal name for the point where the chance of the appearance of something changes. That seems the most likely explanation for you not giving any. You see I already told you what I meant with decision beforehand, so there is no sly unclarity which you speak of.The dictionary definitions say nothing much, they are like decision = judgement = determination, they just give much synonymous words without telling you very precisely what a decision is.What do you call the point where the chance of you debating me changed? Your decision right? You use the word in the same way as I set out, but you are not even aware of it.If I would be a cheat, you could surely show that in debate, and in the context of this evolutionist crowd who would love to make me out as a cheat, you would surely win. It would make it so much easier for you to win, if I were a cheat, so it makes no sense. It still seems to me the more likely explanation is you don't want to enter a debate you're not sure of winning.But never mind now, I don't want to enter into a great debate with you either anymore.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Oh after Dawkins has propounded that NS is "the antithesis of chance" "the opposite of chance" etc. , he would surely not have any problem acknowledging that NS is stochastic?I think you are confusing people. You are saying the same thing I am, about the paper of Ariew and Mathen. The fault is that it is stochastic rather then deterministic. They don't much go into why Darwinists made that mistake, and IMO it is prejudice towards cause and effect.I see that now you contrast stochastic with deterministic, where I think before you said stochastic could still be deterministic. That stochastic was only a way to handle large datasets, but could still be deterministic. I guess this contrasting just shows that the way stochastic could be deterministic is a philosophcal point, and not a practical point, much.But a stochastic element in NS is not shown. It's not neccesarily the case that the outcome in NS may be different for same startingpoints. It is just that NS also applies when the environment is stochastic, and when it is deterministic.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I believe your explanation of natural selection is inconsistent with the new formulation of natural selection proposed. You seem to be excluding "noise" as an operational factor within natural selection. So you say that when the noise increases the power of natural selection decreases. But when a lightningstrike kills a goodeyed organism, and the badeyed organisms lives on to reproduce, it is no more or less powerful natural selection, then when the goodeyed organism reproduced, and the badeyed organism didn't reproduce.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

So what's the appropiate technical term for a change in the chance of the appearance of something?Event? chance? point zero? Outcome? Outcome realisation? determination? chance-determiniation? cause? origin?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You can measure the noise, but the operation of it should be included in natural selection, according to the new definition proposed.It's predictable that an organism having an advantage will likely not reproduce, when all organisms in the population are unlikely to reproduce. And since the advantaged typically starts out in small numbers, we should predict that a large share of advantageous mutations gets lost. Many of the more complex traits irretrievably lost, because the complex mutations are unlikely to reoccur.So it being predictable in many cases that the fittest don't survive, survival of the fittest is false. So I don't agree with putting up optimal fitness as the expected result of selection.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

So what is the technical definition for a change in probability?There is some point where something can turn out one way or another, at a later point this is no longer true. In between is the " ".You better come up with a name unless people will think that for this whole area of reality, science has no clue.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu