Forum: Darwnist Ideology

I make an argument saying that when any of you are at a low moral ebb, then you might likely come to think like "I am born selfish", "my purpose is to reproduce", that you will make Dawkins genetheory observations the basis of your beliefsystem. You then counter saying I don't understand Dawkins because Dawkins says people are born altruist. This is then shown to be false, since Dawkins says people are basicly born selfish, and the altruism is a limited exception. Besides that Quetzal was also wrong about what Raup said about the study of extinction, where I was right. He also doubtfully referenced a book saying the study of biodiversity was developed much over the last 15 years, to support that the study of ecosystems is welldeveloped.You all produce no argument, you pontificate your authority, and conversely discredit my authority, while you are actually wrong on facts at issue and I'm right. You all produce lots and lots of vitriol, talking about my ass all the time, that's all you do.- Make an argument as to how Dawkins would influence people's beliefs according to you.- Reference me someone saying that the study of ecosystems / extinction is welldeveloped, and or that Darwinism provides an important view of these systems which are mostly in stasis.Those things would be of value in this debate, you produce nothing of value.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

People are perfectly free to use Dawkins observations as fundamental to their beliefsystem (at least in the West they are by law..), logical imperative has nothing to do with it. It is tempting to do so, and Dawkins entices the temptation by noting it as "the truth" (in denial of religious truth), and by saying you can get a handle on your loving, hating, greed and giving by understanding it (which is much of what beliefsystems are supposed to do), and evolutionary psychology entices even more to believe like that.So if you cut through all the noise in the creation vs evolution debate, you can just see that creationists are legitimately defending their religion from ideological attack. And as this example shows, and history shows, it is mainstream, very influential evolution scientists who are the main cause of it in their main works, not some secondary, or tertiary or lunatic fringe class of intellectuals reinterpreting the works of evolutionists. Established religion has to deal with the ideological attack, and if that means stonewalling evolution theory altogether, then so be it, it's all warranted.You're wrong about Dawkins once again, how absurd. You forgot again that Dawkins adds in the next part of the sentence, we should teach altruism. There is no corollary altruism in "we are born selfish", Dawkins is already talking about the individual level, not about genelevel selfishness.I haven't won anything, since we basicly haven't even started debating yet.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It is just groupdynamics, I have no doubt that you would acknowledge the existence of Darwinist ideology in another setting, like in history class.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You falsely stated that Raup says the study of extinction is only underdeveloped in relation to evolution. I mean you referenced a book, and a link to it, which on the first bloody page says that the study of extinction in general is at a reconnaissance level, and that in particular it's development in relation to evolution theory is weak. Then you keep on insisting I haven't read Raup well, while clearly you were yourself mistaken about Raup, reading only the top half of the page you referenced I'm sure. How dumb is that?You have to reference appraisals of the field, like you did with Raup, but then appraisals which actually support your position. Look, if Raup said, the field of extinction is an accomplished discipline, now let's develop the science further into some detail, then that would have supported your position.I understand Natural Selection better then most evolutionists here I'm sure. Percy said that Natural Selection describes comparisons being made in nature in context of competition, what's your opinion on that, do comparisons occur in nature?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It just says that our ethics should be informed by facts, and that selfish gene theory is the most important fact that our ethics should be informed by.Notice also that the superimportance of genetheory is not only derived from it supposedly explaining our loving and hating (which is basicly most all that beliefsystems do), but the importance is emphasized again in Dawkins superior people from outer space lunacy.What is more important a fact to inform our ethics by, that people are much the same, or that people have slight heritable differences? Darwinist ideologists have tended to say the last, resulting in undermining their views of equality, that's the way it works.Ah you're still wrong as ever. Since he's talking about teaching altruism in the next part of the sentence, it can't be that he's talking about genetic altruism in saying we are born selfish. Also the context of where he says it, shows that he is talking about the individual level. not the gene level.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

There is no end to the amount of fun you could make from Darwinist ideologists writings like Dawkins, Galton, Haeckel, Darwin in Descent of Man etc. As a selfstyled humorist, you obviously chose the wrong side.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

What no appraisal but your own? Sorry, I require something a little more independent then that.And I don't just base it on reading Raup's appraisal, I have seen several more appraisals saying that the study of ecology is underdeveloped. Unfortunately I lost the references for them, and it's difficult to find an appraisal on google. And of course, it makes sense that it is underdeveloped since it largely falls outside the Darwinist / evolutionist perspective.On some other forum somebody told me that only a few years ago Gould began to talk about species selection, in a noncomparitive way. The issue was that this shouldn't be called selection but sampling. Seeing that Gould began to talk about it only a few years ago, it clearly indicates underdevelopment caused by Darwinist theoretical problems.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You didn't give any references to appraisals that support your position, don't deceive please. I said the references will turn up, and they are turning up, Raup is one, Wilson saying the study of bidoiversity is developed much in the last 15 years another, I just thought it would be more easier to find them.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You didn't give any references to appraisals that support your position, don't deceive please. I said the references will turn up, and they are turning up, Raup is one, Wilson saying the study of bidoiversity is developed much in the last 15 years another, I just thought it would be more easy to find them.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I don't think that's workable, just keep an eye open for an appraisal if you happen to come across it, and I will also keep looking. But actually I done my duty already by referencing Raup, or you done my duty for me.I guess I will reference Loennig's essay on why Mendel was ignored again:http://www.weloennig.de/mendel05.htm
R. E. D. Clark (1967, p.122): "The immediate effect of Darwinism was to stimulate biological research. Yet this stimulation, for which evolution has received so much credit, was by no means always of a healthy character. On the whole, naturalists were driven into laboratories2 instead of into the fields. They spent their time constructing "family trees", instead of discovering how animals lived. Organisms came to be thought of as isolated units divorced from their surroundings and the study of ecology, the study of the organism in relation to its surroundings, which had formed a large part of the older natural history, was now sadly neglected."
-------And since all the huffing and puffing on authority, and all the vitriol might have clouded my original assessment I will post that again as well.This is my assesment of the creation vs evolution debate.Evolutionists, specifically Darwinists, have produced very little knowledge in 150 years. The knowledge they have produced is shoddy and highly intermixed with ideology. The ideology was instrumental in attrocities, most notably the holocaust. Also, nothing has fundamentally changed, Darwinists are still producing little and shoddy knowledge with a high ideological content, and we can reasonably expect the ideology to be instrumental in attrocities once again.On the other hand creationists have been mainly been the defenders of common values, such as equality, the wonder of creativity, freedom of choice, that they have provided and continue to provide an extremely valuable service to more advanced science in providing an independent framework of thought, which is routinely used by scientists as an important referencepoint to explore the more fundamental aspects of their theories.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The post you are replying to contained a reference that backs up my assessment. Of course, the main reference is that Natural Selection should be individual in stead of comparitive, the sum of environmental factors that enhance or limit reproduction.Where are the independent appraissals of ecology, and extinction saying that they are well developed disciplines?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Obviously the link and quote go to argue that the study of ecology is underdeveloped because of Darwinism, like I say it is. The quote says ecology was neglected by Darwinists.You and Dan have produced nothing worthwile at all in this thread, and now you are pedanticly insulted cause I don't answer your lurid vitriol or halfbaked satire.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 03-03-2004]

Where's the reference to an appraissal saying the study of how organism relate to another in biosystems, or the study of extinction, is well developed?I see that when you lose an argument you simply ignore it and move on to the next point. All this fuss before about how well developed the study of ecology was, but now I give some references to appraissals saying the opposite, and not a peep about it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Mammuthus:
"You have been given dozens of references that contradict what you have said."You have randomly referenced about a dozen science papers, obviously this falls well short of an appraissal, and doesn't meaningfully contradict what I said.The sickening talk about rectum, ass etc. has to stop, you are going way overboard with your foul mouth.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

If somebody had argued the same kind of thing about gravity theory as I have about Darwinism, I would have a good laugh about it, and then dismissed it outright.That you resort to tricks like piling paperwork on me (a common trick of lawyers), and that you resort to insult, is a sign that unlike with gravity theory, a credible case can be made about the demerits of Darwinism. Obviously if you found some appraissals of ecology or extinction that support your position you would have posted it, but you can't find them........Again your vitriol has to stop it's gone far enough already. This might have been different if I hadn't provided references for the demerits of Darwinism, but I have, so it's completely unwarranted.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu