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

Yay! That's the plan! Oh, it's like Christmas came early this year!

I assume that since this will be a more formal setting, a very specific point will be picked and debated, with no extraneous side issues. I will also insist that Symansu make a clear, concise opening post that details his position and defines any unusual terms. He (or she, I don't know that facts in this case) must also be willing to provide and agree on a definition of terms upon request.Reading the post in question, I am not certain if Symansu means to assert that Hitler was believed in evolution, or that his opinions changed at some point, or if the simple factthat the science of evolution has had negative effects by promoting eugenics and so forth. That opening post is one that I would not accept as an opening post to a formal debate.

Oh, dear.You might just wanna use the gun now.

Dan, Indeed, "subject wander" was a favourite defensive tactic of his.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Wander?It was more like "scatter" or "broadcast".

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

Notice that in Syamsu's response to you the goalposts, nay, even the game, has been changed. Think hard before attempting the impossible.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

The trepidation is not due to my worrys about the strength of your positon or your ability to defend it. It is due, frankly and with all due respect, to my doubts as to your ability or inclination to engage in a focused debate.Provide a clear, concise starting point and a defense of that assertion and we can proceed. I will not participate in an aimless mess.

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

Pardon my ignorance, but everything you described in your post belongs to philosophy, not science.

Well, I see Syamsu is already off to a great start....let's see, any minute now a reference to Konrad Lorenz or differences in reproduction with no selection will come up..oh yeah, and that everyone is a nazi.

Considering your apparent dislike of wandering topics, is it really in your interest to actively bring back some of the worst offenders? I guess salty will be getting an invite to Great Debate SLPx the topic being "I hate you more than you hate me"?

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