Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Forum: Darwnist Ideology
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 31 of 265 (85721)
02-12-2004 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by berberry
02-12-2004 12:05 AM


Because social-darwinism is the reason you are here discussing creation vs evolution. Without it the controversy wouldn't have the societal significance it does, and in all probability you wouldn't be here discussing creation vs evolution.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by berberry, posted 02-12-2004 12:05 AM berberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Mammuthus, posted 02-12-2004 9:49 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 46 by Brad McFall, posted 02-12-2004 2:52 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 265 (85722)
02-12-2004 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Syamsu
02-11-2004 11:36 PM


quote:
Which provides for better theory?
Whichever is better supported by the available evidence, of course.
quote:
It is not as clear as math, or gravity theory.
Don't be so hasty there. Every time you add 2 + 2, the prejudicial language of mathematical ideology prevents you from getting 5.
My goodness, what a morally bankrupt field of study. I don't care if it does equal 4, I want it to be 5. As long as it equals 4, the prejudicial nature of mathematical ideology should be obvious.
I want a whole forum devoted to claiming that 2 + 2 = 5.

"It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity."
-Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Syamsu, posted 02-11-2004 11:36 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Syamsu, posted 02-13-2004 5:29 AM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 33 of 265 (85728)
02-12-2004 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Syamsu
02-12-2004 9:30 AM


The creation versus evolution debate pre-dates eugenics..but in any case, this stupid thread is not getting us any closer to a forum discussing the much more relevant unrevealed breast of Janet Jackson. Why are you avoiding this topic? Could it be the judgemental terms such as right breast and left breast? It leads to such anti-social behavior as Mr. Hambre claiming Kid Rock can sing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Syamsu, posted 02-12-2004 9:30 AM Syamsu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-12-2004 9:54 AM Mammuthus has not replied
 Message 38 by MrHambre, posted 02-12-2004 10:10 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 265 (85730)
02-12-2004 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Mammuthus
02-12-2004 9:49 AM


Why would you want to discuss Janet Jackson's breasts when Eliza Dushku's magnificent, perfect breasts are right there?
Wait, wait, that's reproductive competition... OH CRAP, I'M GETTING PREJUDICIAL! SOMEBODY HELP ME!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Mammuthus, posted 02-12-2004 9:49 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Dr Jack, posted 02-12-2004 9:55 AM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 35 of 265 (85731)
02-12-2004 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dan Carroll
02-12-2004 9:54 AM


Why would you want to discuss Janet Jackson's breasts when Eliza Dushku's magnificent, perfect breasts are right there?
Surely the 'right here' in that sentence should have been a link?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-12-2004 9:54 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-12-2004 10:06 AM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 37 by Mammuthus, posted 02-12-2004 10:09 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 265 (85733)
02-12-2004 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Jack
02-12-2004 9:55 AM


Hey... this is still a family thread, mister.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Jack, posted 02-12-2004 9:55 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 37 of 265 (85734)
02-12-2004 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Jack
02-12-2004 9:55 AM


Now you have gone and done it. You had to introduce judgmental and prejudicial language like "right here" as opposed to "over there". Rather than competitive breasts, links should have been provided for both...You see brother Syamsu..I have learned, I have learned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Jack, posted 02-12-2004 9:55 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 38 of 265 (85736)
02-12-2004 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Mammuthus
02-12-2004 9:49 AM


Antisocial Darwinist
It may interest you clowns to know I used to share a zipcode with Eliza "Tru Cancellation" Dushku. Namely the borough of Watertown, MA, where her mom still lives on Garfield Street. I can give directions to potential stalkers. You could smell the seething sex all the way down Mount Auburn, etc. etc.
When I said that Kid Rock is a 'lower organism,' I didn't think I was going to take such a ration of shit from you biologists. I'm not impressed with the DNA profile showing that he does seem to have the normal human amount of chromosomes. He is inferior, and I have videotape to prove it. I stand by my claim, and Conrad Nagel was a Nazi.
regards,
Esteban "Nipple Clamp" Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Mammuthus, posted 02-12-2004 9:49 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 39 of 265 (85742)
02-12-2004 10:28 AM


Time to get back on topic
Let Syamsu expound on his viewpoint, even if you don't agree.
If you don't feel it worth responding to, don't respond to it.
Adminnemooseus

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 40 of 265 (85745)
02-12-2004 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Syamsu
02-12-2004 12:01 AM


No creationist agrees with Bryant?
Who said that? Not me.
The creation vs evolution controversy is carried on wide public support, it's not just Christian fundamentalists. In general public opinion the concern about the immorality associated with evolution theory is also widely held.
This is so patently untrue that I can't believe you would even suggest it. Generally, the public outside of Christian fundamentalists are concerned about the immorality associated with evolution theory? Surely, this was meant as a joke to elicit a laugh.
Fundy's are concerned about their literal Bible, and Americans in general have a morality different from fundy's (and different from me, as I'm not very happy with America's morals, either), but don't blame evolution for that. The Romans managed to hold some pretty objectionable (to me) morals just fine without it.
I think this wider concern is what creationists are mainly supported by
Okay, creationists are concerned about morals, and they insist that evolution is responsible for general American morals, which they (and I) object to. I'll buy that, but I doubt that's news to anyone. However, you are saying that it is morality that fuels the creation evolution debate. No one agrees with you, including me, and you've provided nothing to support your position except that some guy about 80 years ago agreed with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Syamsu, posted 02-12-2004 12:01 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by MrHambre, posted 02-12-2004 11:15 AM truthlover has not replied
 Message 42 by Mammuthus, posted 02-12-2004 11:29 AM truthlover has not replied
 Message 43 by Silent H, posted 02-12-2004 12:37 PM truthlover has not replied
 Message 47 by Syamsu, posted 02-13-2004 5:16 AM truthlover has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 41 of 265 (85756)
02-12-2004 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by truthlover
02-12-2004 10:40 AM


Antisocial Darwinist, Part II
I hope it's obvious that no one else has any interest in engaging you-know-who in another protracted and futile tournament of Because-I-Said-So. He believes we are all basically Holocaust deniers and that Darwinism is indistinguishable from Nazism. No amount of dialogue has been able to persuade him that he's even the least bit mistaken in these delusions.
If he wants to continue believing the rubbish he spouts, and ignoring every rational argument to the contrary, then let him. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by responding to his repetitive ravings, and there is no evidence that he can contribute constructively to any discussion of science, politics, or history.

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by truthlover, posted 02-12-2004 10:40 AM truthlover has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 42 of 265 (85765)
02-12-2004 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by truthlover
02-12-2004 10:40 AM


I would further add to Mr. Hambre's warning that Syamsu, by his own inadvertent admission, has not actually read much of the literature which he criticizes (The Selfish Gene comes to mind). He has also been directed by me several times to Daniel Kevles book "in the name of eugenics" which goes far more in depth (than a few pathetic websites) regarding the origins of eugenics concepts and far into the 20th century where some governments, notably the U.S. and Sweden were still practicing eugenics as part of government programs. While your desire to debate is commendable, you will be stuck as Mr. Hambre warns in a "you are wrong because I said so" pissing match with a complete ignoramus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by truthlover, posted 02-12-2004 10:40 AM truthlover has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 43 of 265 (85778)
02-12-2004 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by truthlover
02-12-2004 10:40 AM


Shortly after I first came to EvC I ended up getting into a debate with Syamsu. I was politely warned not to bother as it would end up going nowhere.
I went round and round for some amount of time (I should note it was not on this topic). Eventually I learned my lesson... the advice had been wellfounded.
Syamsu every once in a while has some credible commentary, but there are a few subjects that he holds so dear to his heart there simply is no communication. Social-Darwinism happens to be one of these subjects.
You can always try and tear down his wall, but don't knock yourself out trying to do so.
Thus I third MrH's recommendation.
[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-12-2004]

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by truthlover, posted 02-12-2004 10:40 AM truthlover has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by mark24, posted 02-12-2004 1:36 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 50 by Syamsu, posted 02-13-2004 6:18 AM Silent H has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 44 of 265 (85804)
02-12-2004 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Silent H
02-12-2004 12:37 PM


I managed to get you-know-who to agree to a statement regarding differential reproductive success, he then proceeded to continue to rubbish drs whilst still agreeing with the original statement !?. So I fourth MrH's recommendation.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Silent H, posted 02-12-2004 12:37 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by truthlover, posted 02-12-2004 1:44 PM mark24 has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 45 of 265 (85808)
02-12-2004 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by mark24
02-12-2004 1:36 PM


To all of you:
Thanks. Sheesh, I of course realized it already. Is there some sort of pill one can take that helps one restrain from answering posts that are clearly not worth answering? Whoever came up with it would be rich, because looking around these boards I see I am not the only one who has this terrible problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by mark24, posted 02-12-2004 1:36 PM mark24 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