Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Forum: Darwnist Ideology
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 209 of 265 (90259)
03-04-2004 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by MrHambre
03-04-2004 9:53 AM


Re: The Numbers So Far
Yeah past 200 already, so the thread will be closed soon. This could have developed into a thread talking about Darwinist ideology in books and movies, the relationship of the theory to Darwinist ideologies, and ideological prejudices in the theory. Interesting subjects IMO, which aren't discussed elsewhere on the forum. The reason you all keep on posting your meaningless posts is to surpress this discussion, because we all know that a discussion like that would reflect very badly on Darwinism indeed.
It is entirely credible that many people will use Dawkins observations in the Selfish Gene as the basis for their belief system, and because it's so credible you have to mess up the discussion in stead of just being able to dismiss it as the ranting of a loon.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by MrHambre, posted 03-04-2004 9:53 AM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Mammuthus, posted 03-04-2004 11:44 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 212 of 265 (90274)
03-04-2004 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Mammuthus
03-04-2004 11:44 AM


Re: The Numbers So Far
Oh so then you could reference me a thread on this forum where these interesting subjects are meaningfully debated? No? Where's the appraissal saying that the study of ecology is welldeveloped? Don't have it? You see the vulnerability of Darwinism in regards to this issue?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Mammuthus, posted 03-04-2004 11:44 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by mark24, posted 03-04-2004 12:25 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 214 by Mammuthus, posted 03-04-2004 12:25 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 217 of 265 (90790)
03-06-2004 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Mammuthus
03-04-2004 12:25 PM


Re: The Numbers So Far
To make references like that without saying how the references support your opinion that the science of ecology / extinction is well developed is against forum rules. To address your opponent talking about ass all the time is against forum rules.
Note that in one of the books cited, Quetzal wrongly stated that Raup says the study of extinction is well developed, and that the study is only underdeveloped in relation to evolution. So you reference some books none of which support your position that the science is well developed, but Quetzal manages to wrongly interpret one book saying the study of extinction is well developed.
You have nothing Mammuthus, is it really so hard to find an appraissal of ecology, or the field of extinction, or are you simply holding back appraissals which don't support you?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Mammuthus, posted 03-04-2004 12:25 PM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-07-2004 4:58 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 219 by Mammuthus, posted 03-08-2004 3:20 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 226 by Quetzal, posted 03-08-2004 12:28 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 220 of 265 (91125)
03-08-2004 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Mammuthus
03-08-2004 3:20 AM


Re: The Numbers So Far
That's just very insulting and not a very worthwhile contribution at all. You're really incredibly dumb to publicly waste away your credibility and authority on an internetforum like you do.
In reading about evo-devo on the web, I just found out you also misrepresented the evo devo issue somewhere early in this thread. You are the classic example of a scientist who simply assumes everything out of his learned mouth is neutral, but unfortunately your writings are loaded with prejudiced selfserving lies. Pathetic, there's no excuse for it.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Mammuthus, posted 03-08-2004 3:20 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Mammuthus, posted 03-08-2004 11:09 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 229 of 265 (91331)
03-09-2004 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Quetzal
03-08-2004 12:28 PM


Re: The Numbers So Far
I really don't care to discuss extinction obviously, I care to talk about Darwinist ideology, which is the subject of this thread.
Sorry but you again misrepresent Raup's appraisal, for about the 3rd time now. He says that the study of extinction in general is at a reconaissance level, read the reference you provided yourself. Reconnaissance level means it's underdeveloped.
Then I also referred to Clarke talking about how Darwinism led biologists into the lab, rather then out into the field, saying that the study of ecology became sadly neglected.
You referenced a book of Wilson about the new discipline of biodiversity which talked about strong progress being made in the last 15 years in the field of biodiversity. That also indicates to me that it is underdeveloped, a new study progressing fast does not sound welldeveloped to me.
Every appraissal so far indicates that the study is underdeveloped. The reason that's it underdeveloped as I have argued, and as Raup and Clarke also indicate, is because of Darwinism.
Apart from Quetzal and Mammuthus, who here actually believes that the studies of ecology and extinction are well developed? Who here believes Quetzal and Mammuthus on their word, without them referencing *any* appraisal what-so-ever that supports their postion? Or who here has read all the papers and books referenced by Quetzal and Mammuthus and came to any conclusion based on those references?
This issue has some societal significance, because of the current mass extinction, so I guess it would not be good to just leave it unclear what the majority opinion is among biologists about the level of development of the studies of extinction and ecology.
edited to add: we had the recent surprise discoveries of the oceanic pump which is failing, and the ozone shield which is also failing. Should we fear that there might be a dozen more nasty surprises in a field that is badly underdeveloped or is the ecosystem reasonable covered in broad scopes about now.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 03-09-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Quetzal, posted 03-08-2004 12:28 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Mammuthus, posted 03-09-2004 9:03 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 234 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-09-2004 9:13 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 238 by Quetzal, posted 03-09-2004 10:11 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 230 of 265 (91336)
03-09-2004 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by MrHambre
03-08-2004 11:56 AM


Re: Show us the Love
If I were still a Christian then you would probably begin sulking about turning the other cheek. I'm very glad that the prozetelyzers of scientism haven't got a stranglehold on Islam yet like they do on Christianity.
The hatefilled rancour is all on evolutionist side, I'm only trying to dismiss people from the thread who provide no meaningful argument, as the admin tried to do at the start of the thread.
There was some meaningful argument in this thread. For instance talking with Loudmouth about my observation that about 100 percent (rounded of to the nearest whole number) of organisms that ever lived are not in any way ancestors to any new specie, even assuming evolution theory is true. But that discussion never developed into anything.
Also Truthlover very selfconfidently asserted that the general public doesn't think that there is a link between evolutionary theory and immorality, that this is only an issue within creationist circles. This opinion of Truthlover was then shown to be very questionable by all the references to immorality linked to Darwinism in many popular books and movies. This lead to the interesting supposition that this popular conception of immorality linked to evolutionary theory is what makes the creation vs evolution debate popular. But this wasn't explored further because Truthlover just up and left.
So you see there was interesting disussion in this thread, which was laid to waste by some people needing to huff and puff about all the things they've read a lot.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by MrHambre, posted 03-08-2004 11:56 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 235 of 265 (91348)
03-09-2004 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Dan Carroll
03-09-2004 9:13 AM


Re: The Numbers So Far
I brought up extinction only in relation to Darwinist ideology obviously. The study is underdeveloped and this is because of Darwinist ideology, as I argue.
The thread title should have been a fair indicator to that, also my posts before that relate Darwinism to the underdevelopment of ecology. How could you have missed that?
I'm beginning to notice that you only write incredibly stupid replies when things you don't like to hear about are at issue.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-09-2004 9:13 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-09-2004 9:29 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 239 of 265 (91363)
03-09-2004 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Quetzal
03-09-2004 10:11 AM


Re: The Numbers So Far
I just put that about someone reading the references you provided in as a joke. No one here is ever going to read the references you and Mammuthus provided of course, firstly because it's too much work, and secondly because it can't reasonably be expected that it contains enough information to come to a meaningful appraissal.
Nando is my birthname, I prefer to use my muslimname now in public. I made this clear way back when I first posted on evcforum.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Quetzal, posted 03-09-2004 10:11 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Mammuthus, posted 03-09-2004 10:38 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 241 by Quetzal, posted 03-09-2004 10:42 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 242 of 265 (91506)
03-10-2004 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Quetzal
03-09-2004 10:42 AM


Re: The Numbers So Far
I asked you for an appraisal of the field of ecology, I didn't ask you for references to studybooks and what not. As before, what you do is just a lawyertrick, piling paperwork on your opponent, it doesn't clarify the issue at all. Nobody has read any of your references, and if they did they wouldn't be any closer to an appraisal of the discipline.
Biologists under the spell of Darwinism neglected the study of how organisms relate to each other and the environment in general, because it simply falls outside the Darwinist framework, up until awareness of the massextinction and environmental problems grew so large to force biologists to investigate.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Quetzal, posted 03-09-2004 10:42 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Mammuthus, posted 03-10-2004 3:54 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 245 of 265 (91684)
03-10-2004 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Mr. Bound
03-10-2004 3:34 PM


As before, you have a crazy attitude towards the science of history. I think a crazy attitude like that must have something to do with accepting materialism / methodological naturalism, but I can't say what exactly.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Mr. Bound, posted 03-10-2004 3:34 PM Mr. Bound has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 246 of 265 (91690)
03-11-2004 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Adminnemooseus
03-08-2004 11:17 AM


It seems the moderators are chickening out of moderating credentialled scientists. I say we need historians, sociologists and the like on this forum, and possibly some evolutionary biologists who are highly trained in the history of evolutionary theory. I don't believe the credentialled scientists we have on this forum contribute anything significant.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-08-2004 11:17 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Mammuthus, posted 03-11-2004 3:00 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 261 of 265 (99594)
04-13-2004 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by SweeneyTodd
04-08-2004 4:57 AM


Re: Creationists goodguys, Evolutionists badguys
Clearly your idea about how to do the science of history leaves something to be desired. To say that people misunderstood and misused the theory is false, when many of the most influential scientists in the field stimulated ideological application, and mixed ideology into the theory in their most influential works. You paint a picture of an innocent science, done by innocent scientists who have nothing much but intellectual curiosity in mind, a fairytale. At the end you make some vague reference to Nazi's being influenced by the occult. Obviously your attitude towards science of history is a pick and choose kind of affair, you pick and choose whichever facts happens to defend your postition.
Darwinist is a common nomer, and once people were proud to be identified as such, and I guess some still are.
It's interesting that you talk about pine trees in similar area's, and not the same area. Could there also be natural selection happening now between us and similar people on a similar planet in another galaxy? Your scenario suggests that this is a proper application of natural selection. To avoid this bizarre application, you would really have to do away with the comparitive element in natural selection. So I would say that each pine has their reproductive rate in it's selective regime, individual, in stead of saying this pine has a reproductive rate that is higher then one in another galaxy..... The comparitive element in natural selection is essentially ideological, it doesn't belong there.
You just blandly assume that evolution theory is wholy without ideology, without doing any investigation whatsoever, a piece of rhetoric. Not doing any real investigation into things that might discredit their theory, is standard practice for most all Darwinists in my experience.
edited to add: and since you're an environmental scientist, can you give an estemation at the state of development of environmental science, as previously discussed in this thread? Is it badly underdeveloped like I say it is, or is it already well developed in your opinion?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 04-14-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by SweeneyTodd, posted 04-08-2004 4:57 AM SweeneyTodd 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