Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Elitism and Nazism
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 77 of 125 (54966)
09-11-2003 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Percy
09-11-2003 3:15 PM


Re: Christian involvement in the Holocaust?
Again my point is similar to that which has already been said by many mainstream evolutionists about "survival of the fittest" and Haeckel's biogenetic law. They are flawed and by their flaw they are conducive to social Darwinism.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 09-11-2003 3:15 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Percy, posted 09-11-2003 3:55 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 78 of 125 (54969)
09-11-2003 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Syamsu
09-11-2003 3:39 PM


Re: Christian involvement in the Holocaust?
Syamsu writes:
They are flawed and by their flaw they are conducive to social Darwinism.
Even if we postulate for the sake of discussion that "survival of the fittest" and Haeckel's biogenetic law are scientifically flawed, being "conducive to social Darwinism" is not a scientific flaw, and so isn't relevant to making the case that they're scientifically flawed.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Syamsu, posted 09-11-2003 3:39 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 79 of 125 (55073)
09-12-2003 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Syamsu
09-11-2003 12:38 PM


Re: Christian involvement in the Holocaust?
quote:
Darwin even wrote on such esoteric questions as to what the highest state of morality is for a person, as well as giving eugenic marriage advice.
Could you provide a cite for the last part of the sentence? I would point out though that natural selection to which you mostly seem to object, was dealt with more comprehensively in the Origin of Species.
quote:
If I remember correctly the main reason that the Nazi's didn't develop nuclear weapons is because a scientist gave a contaminated sample of some substance. Would the scientist be innocent if he had just done his job and given a proper sample? Is the knowledge how to make a nuclear bomb really separate from the device itself?
Here you are conflating two very different concepts. A scientist giving weaapons grade material to the nazi's is not science. Just like the chemical companies that ship me reagents are not doing science. This is a transfer of goods and in this case the scientist would be ethically responsible for what happened with the sample downstream i.e. weapon of mass destruction made or used. However, if a scientist characterizes the properties of plutonium or uranium (or develope methods for characterizing basic elements) are they then responsible if today somebody uses a nuclear weapon? Are the 19th century chemists and their discoveries of the properties of compounds responsible for the screw up with thalidomide development that lead to so many malformed children? Is the fact that DNA is a double helix as determined by Watson and Crick and others responisble in and of itself for biological weapons developed based on principles of recombinant DNA? The discovery or the science can be neutral while the uses to which it is put are not necessarily. You are not making a distinction between the two.
quote:
The case with Darwinism is different then with making nuclear bombs, because Darwinism influenced ideology. The science that went into the nuclear bomb didn't influence ideology.
I would disagree. The development of nuclear weapons so completely changed politics and re-enforced the polarization of the world during the cold war I think it had a profound impact on ideology...the continual reiterated notion that your enemies were ready, willing and able to obliterate you and the rest of the world had everyone living in fear for decades...not that it is over yet.
quote:
As far as I know Galton is one of the main founders of the statistical method. He was not some lay person who was out of his depth with Natural Selection. I don't know what version of selection he used, but there are many versions of selection even now.
Galton was also famous for beginning the field of fingerprinting in forensics. In any case, his understanding of fitness was completely wrong and he ignored Darwin when Darwin pointed it out. It was not a correct definition of fitness (i.e. social class determining fitness) in Darwin's time, and it is not a defintion that is used by evolutionary biologists today.
quote:
I don't agree with the General, since there is copious amount of evidence of anti-semitical teaching by Christian priests, and collaboration by Christian churches to eugenic programs. But Nazism especially in the higher ranks was still anti-christian IMO.
I then apologize to you for lumping you in with him on this particular issue. I was under the impression from a few of your posts that you agreed that christians (and particularly the Catholic church) could ba absolved from any responsibility during the 3rd Reich. I see your main issue is that you want an admission that eugenics also influenced the nazi's and nobody is denying that this is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Syamsu, posted 09-11-2003 12:38 PM Syamsu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by The General, posted 09-16-2003 1:31 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 80 of 125 (55089)
09-12-2003 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by The General
09-03-2003 1:49 AM


Hi, General!
After discovering that you were not the author of many of the words in your opening message in the Chemical Evolution thread, I decided to take a more careful look at this thread. Though I could not find on the Internet the original author of the opening post of this thread, after reviewing your other messages I am now convinced that they were not written by the same person, and that you did not write the opening message.
The Forum Guidelines state:
  1. Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.
Persistent violations of the Forum Guidelines can result in a suspension of posting privileges.
------------------
--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by The General, posted 09-03-2003 1:49 AM The General has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by The General, posted 09-16-2003 1:27 AM Admin has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 81 of 125 (55486)
09-15-2003 4:31 AM


("Descent of Man", C. Darwin, from Chapter XXI - General Summary and Conclusion)
"Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his
horses, cattle, and dogs before he matches them; but when he comes
to his own marriage he rarely, or never, takes any such care. He is
impelled by nearly the same motives as the lower animals, when they
are left to their own free choice, though he is in so far superior
to them that he highly values mental charms and virtues. On the
other hand he is strongly attracted by mere wealth or rank. Yet he
might by selection do something not only for the bodily constitution
and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral
qualities. Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in
any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realised until the laws of
inheritance are thoroughly known. Everyone does good service, who aids towards this end."
==========
I'm sure I have been clear enough about what my argument is already, enlessly repeating it would weaken my argument.
The creation vs evolution controversy is essentially political IMO, I count myself as a creationist. For as far as the science of it goes, I'm sure that creation is true as a principle to get something from zero, on the other hand evolution seems still very questionable to me.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 09-15-2003 10:28 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 83 of 125 (55508)
09-15-2003 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Syamsu
09-15-2003 4:31 AM


I'm sure I have been clear enough about what my argument is already, enlessly repeating it would weaken my argument.
Your reluctance to repeat an argument you've been unable to support is understandable. Your argument is that evolution is flawed because it's been used by the eugenics movement, social Darwinism and the Nazis, but you've been unable to demonstrate how this is in any way related to the scientific validity of evolution.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Syamsu, posted 09-15-2003 4:31 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Syamsu, posted 09-16-2003 12:45 PM Percy has replied

  
The General
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 125 (55675)
09-16-2003 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Admin
09-12-2003 8:58 AM


Countering A Display of Buffoonery
Your Quote Percy
"After discovering that you were not the author of many of the words in your opening message in the Chemical Evolution thread, I decided to take a more careful look at this thread. Though I could not find on the Internet the original author of the opening post of this thread, after reviewing your other messages I am now convinced that they were not written by the same person, and that you did not write the opening message."
First, this should not be under "Elitism and Nazism." If you have a problem with its content it should be brought to my attention under 'Chemical Evolution.'
Second, who are you to say what I have written and what I have not written. This is my piece, and while it does bear some terminology similarities to 'A Case for Faith' certainly it does not plagarize as you first suggested. Last time I checked the theory was the same regardless of the source.
The reason you cannot find the original author on the Internet is because I have not put it on the Internet. However last year I did send out a nine part series to about fifty readers. Part I was titled "Different Theories on Man's Origins." Chemical Evolution was an excert from it. I could post the article on here, or I could email it to you. Or I could do neither. The choice is yours. Until then please keep your suspicions to yourself.
General

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Admin, posted 09-12-2003 8:58 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Admin, posted 09-16-2003 11:32 AM The General has not replied

  
The General
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 125 (55677)
09-16-2003 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Mammuthus
09-12-2003 3:49 AM


Re: Christian involvement in the Holocaust?
Somehow this needs to be clarified.
I do not feel that the Christians and Catholics who participated in the Nazi atrocities should be absolved for their crimes. Perhaps I was difficult to understand earlier. No doubt there were many professing to be Christian who did commit crimes against the Jews. These should be punished and not excused. What I must have said in the wrong words is that in no way do they get they code of conduct from the teachings of Jesus, upon which Christians should reply. That is why I stated that these people were not real Christians. Becuase they were not Christ-like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Mammuthus, posted 09-12-2003 3:49 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Mammuthus, posted 09-16-2003 3:56 AM The General has not replied
 Message 88 by Peter, posted 09-16-2003 4:21 AM The General has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 86 of 125 (55690)
09-16-2003 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by The General
09-16-2003 1:31 AM


Re: Christian involvement in the Holocaust?
Thanks for the clarification of your position. However, you seem then to miss the fact that it completely disables your arguments against Darwinism. The eugenics movement was not based on the theory of evolution. It was based on a misrepresentation of natural selection and specifically the concept of fitness which instead of being correctly defined as reproductive advantage of specific variants in a given environment, it was equated with class and wealth (in part psuedo Lamarkian). Thus, if you claim that christianity is absolved because the christians involved were not christ like and not following the teaching of jesus, evolution is absolved because the eugencists were not being scientific and were redefining scientific terms to fit their political agenda (i.e. not following what Darwin wrote about evolution.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by The General, posted 09-16-2003 1:31 AM The General has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 87 of 125 (55696)
09-16-2003 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by The General
09-11-2003 2:05 AM


Re: Christian involvement in the Holocaust?
Don't your examples lead to the unpleasant inference that
christians did, indeed, aid the holocaust?
If the good christian folk of Denmark and Bulgaria prevented
victimisation of the Jews, then that must mean that the
christians elsewhere in Europe did not -- otherwise the
holocaust would not have happened (or to a lesser degree).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by The General, posted 09-11-2003 2:05 AM The General has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 88 of 125 (55697)
09-16-2003 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by The General
09-16-2003 1:31 AM


Re: Christian involvement in the Holocaust?
Do you know any christians who follow the exact teachings
of Jesus?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by The General, posted 09-16-2003 1:31 AM The General has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 89 of 125 (55752)
09-16-2003 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by The General
09-16-2003 1:27 AM


Re: Countering A Display of Buffoonery
The General writes:
If you have a problem with its content it should be brought to my attention under 'Chemical Evolution.'
I did. See Message 4 of the Chemical Evolution thread.
Second, who are you to say what I have written and what I have not written.
I am merely someone who has done the following:
  1. Compared your words in the opening post of the Chemical Evolution thread with the words of Lee Stobel in his book The Case For Faith as quoted at http://student.fortlewis.edu/~ramosher/strobel.htm.
  2. Compared the style and vocabulary of the words in your replies to the words in your essays.
These comparisons tell me you are a plagiarist, which isn't permitted here as it is a violation of the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.
The General writes:
This is my piece (Chemical Evolution), and while it does bear some terminology similarities to 'A Case for Faith' certainly it does not plagarize as you first suggested.
Your plagiarism of the Lee Stobel material is quite blatant and obvious:
  • Stobel (quoting Walter L. Bradley): "Russian biochemist Alexander Oparin proposed in 1924 that complex molecular arrangements and the functions of living matter evolved from simpler molecules that preexisted on the early earth," he said.
  • The General: It was Alexander Oparin who, in 1924, proposed that complex molecular arrangements and the functions of living matter evolved from simple molecules that pre-existed on the early earth.
  • Stobel: "Then in 1928, British biologist J.B.S. Haldane theorized that ultraviolet light acting on the earth's primitive atmosphere caused sugars and amino acids to concentrate in the oceans, and then life eventually emerged from this primordial broth."
  • The General: Then in 1928, J.B.S Haldane theorized that ultra-violet light acting in the earth's primitive atmosphere caused sugar and amino acids to concentrate in the oceans, and from there a primordial broth was eventually formed.
  • Stobel: Later Nobel Prize winner Horold Urey suggested that earth's primitive atmosphere would have made it favorable for organic compounds to have emerged.
  • The General: Nobel winner Harold Urey suggested that the earth's primitive atmosphere made it favorable for organic compounds to have emerged.
  • Stobel: I remember being taught in school about his landmark experiment in which he recreated the atmosphere of the primitive earth in a laboratory and shot electricity through it to simulate the effects of lightning.
  • The General: Miller recreated the atmosphere of the primitive earth in a laboratory and shot electricity through it to stimulate the effects of lightning.
  • Stobel: Before long, he found that amino acids--the building blocks of life--had been created.
  • The General: Very soon, he found that amino acids (the building blocks of life) had been created.
  • Stobel: I can remember my biology teacher recounting the experiment with an infectious enthusiasm, suggesting it proved conclusively that life could have emerged from nonliving chemicals.
  • The General: To many these proved that life could have emerged from non-living chemicals.
  • Stobel: "For a while, evolutionists were euphoric. But there was a major problem with the experiment that has invalidated its results." (Bradley speaking)
  • The General: Unfortunately for Miller, his results have since been invalidated due to one huge problem.
  • Stobel: "Miller and Oparin didn't have any real proof that the earth's early atmosphere was composed of ammonia, methane, and hydrogen, which Miller used in his experiment."
  • The General: The problem is Miller or Oparin had no proof that the earth's early atmosphere was composed of ammonia, methane, and hydrogen, yet this is what Miller used in his experiment.
  • Stobel: "They based their theory on physical chemistry."
  • The General: This experiment was based on physical chemistry.
  • Stobel: "They wanted to get a chemical reaction that would be favorable, and so they proposed that the atmosphere was rich in those gases."
  • The General: Miller and Oparin wanted to get a chemical reaction that would be favorable so they proposed that the atmosphere be rich in these gases.
  • Stobel: "Oparin was smart enough to know that if you start with inert gases like nitrogen and carbon dioxide, they won't react."
  • The General: Oparin knew that if you started with gases like nitrogen and carbon dioxide, the chemicals would not react.
  • Stobel: "What was the real environment of the early earth like?" I asked.
  • The General: So what was the real atmosphere like?
  • Stobel: "From 1980 on, NASA scientists have shown that the primitive earth never had any methane, ammonia, or hydrogen to amount to anything," he said.
  • The General: From 1980 on, which was well after the Miller experiment, NASA has shown that the primitive earth has NEVER had any methane, hydrogen, or ammonia that would amount to anything.
  • Stobel: "Instead, it was composed of water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen--and you absolutely cannot get the same experimental results with that mixture."
  • The General: Instead, NASA has consistently shown that the primitive earth was composed of water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen.
So, what do you think, General? Is Lee Stobel so simpatico with you that he can write your words in a book before you've even thought of them yourself? Or did you plagiarize Lee Stobel's words, either from his book or, more likely, from one of the many websites already using Stobel's material?
The General writes:
The reason you cannot find the original author on the Internet is because I have not put it on the Internet. However last year I did send out a nine part series to about fifty readers. Part I was titled "Different Theories on Man's Origins." Chemical Evolution was an excert from it. I could post the article on here, or I could email it to you. Or I could do neither. The choice is yours. Until then please keep your suspicions to yourself.
They're not suspicions. I've conclusively proved you are a plagiarist. Because of this, I think it would be a good idea for you to email any future essays to Admin and get my okay before opening any more new threads. There will be no penalties at this time, and you retain full privileges at EvC Forum.
------------------
--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by The General, posted 09-16-2003 1:27 AM The General has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 90 of 125 (55767)
09-16-2003 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Percy
09-15-2003 10:28 AM


The relationship between Darwinism and Social Darwinism is related to the usage of judgemental words in Darwinism, which usage is based on the flaw of having a comparitive theory over an individual one, and this flaw relates to the scientific validity of the theory.
Besides, when a theory employs words such as god, or soul for physical properties then you can reject the theory just for that, regardless of content. The usage of selfish and goodness etc. by Darwinists, is questionable in the same way. Wordusage is also a criteria for the scientific validity of a theory.
(edited to add: below is a translation of natural selection to star theory. All those words I've seen used in "scientific" Darwinist books)
---
Why stars exist.
On the origin of variety of stars, by means of Natural Selection
(the mechanism of differential lightintensity success of stars)
The origin of the enormous variety in stars, and their extraordinary suitability to emit light into the environment has often been a subject of great scientific interest. Finally Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Darwin shed his own comparitive dimly light on the subject, one of the few great glimmerings in human understanding.
First we take two variations of stars and measure their lightintensity. The difference would be for instance 5 units of lightintensity against 3 units.
Second, there is no second, this is it, this explains the origin of variety of stars.
The difference in goodness of stars in their perfection to emit light succesfully, is what lead to the great variety in stars we see in the sky. The superior stars which are the best, shine more light then the inferior ones. The purpose of a star is to emit light, that is why the star exists. It's every star's sole reason for being. In the ruthless struggle to emit light, stars don't help other, they are selfish. I do not advocate selfishness, it's just a factual observation that Nature made stars selfish.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 09-16-2003]
[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 09-16-2003]
[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 09-17-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 09-15-2003 10:28 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Percy, posted 09-16-2003 1:58 PM Syamsu has replied
 Message 92 by NosyNed, posted 09-16-2003 2:06 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 91 of 125 (55778)
09-16-2003 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Syamsu
09-16-2003 12:45 PM


Syamsu writes:
The relationship between Darwinism and Social Darwinism is related to the usage of judgemental words in Darwinism, which usage is based on the flaw of having a comparitive theory over an individual one, and this flaw relates to the scientific validity of the theory.
Darwin chose to describe his theory in the popular vernacular of the time, and your perception is that the style and words of the presentation of the theory somehow relate to its scientific merits. You have failed to present any reason or rationale why this should be so.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Syamsu, posted 09-16-2003 12:45 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Syamsu, posted 09-16-2003 2:07 PM Percy has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 92 of 125 (55782)
09-16-2003 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Syamsu
09-16-2003 12:45 PM


Stars!! ????
Where did this come from? How confused can you be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Syamsu, posted 09-16-2003 12:45 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Syamsu, posted 09-16-2003 2:10 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024