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.
A joke? Why the hell did you ask for references, and then refuse to read them? If you think that reading is too much work, then why ask for them in the first place? As far as "not containing enough information...", this is your evaluation based on, ummm, not actually reading them? Do you have clairvoyant powers or something that allows you to absorb the contents of a book without reading it? Impressive.
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.
Ahh. Thanks for the explanation. I was unaware of the equivalency Nando = Syamasu. I actually thought that it WAS two different people when I stumbled across the reviews (linked by Nganjuk, not reviewer name). I was wondering if you guys got together and argued about Dawkins and Darwin over coffee. I guess, in a way, you do.
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.
quote:I didn't ask you for references to studybooks and what not
Not true, you asked for us to support our claim that what you say is false. You claim it is a "lawyer trick" to make you actually read the references yet you do not take anyones word here for what is contained within those references. So you refuse to read anything anyone posts yet maintain that those references (that you have not read) do not contain the information we claim....Ignorance is bliss man...you must be in a real state of bliss.
As Creationists refuse to even acknowledge evolution occurs, I fail to see how this 'Darwinist Ideology' and Evolution are responsible for eugenics. I think it should therefore be called VariationWithinAKind ideology. As most Creationists will tell you, VariationWithinAKind Ideology, 'micro-evolution' and breeding have been around for a long time, far before Darwin showed up. Damn those Social-Breeders and their disgusting VariationWithinAKind Ideology!! They're to blame for the rise of racism!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
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.
It seems the moderators are chickening out on this thread. Here is a dimwit who is questioning the credentials of everyone else on the forum yet self admittedly has never read anything beyond a review at Amazon of lay literature and is also self admittedly too lazy to research the background of his assertions...not only does he not contribute anything signficant (unless you consider this flame war significant) he is himself insignificant.
regards Mam "read more than the Amazon reviews" nor muthus
Whoa there boy bound! I'm going to tell you a secret and and you can choose to keep it to yourself of sell it to the Russians. I think that I really do understand why Einstein switched between looking for parallelizations in 5-D space & asymmetrical tensor relations over time ~1910-1950 BECAUSE I SIMPLY read the NEED for such with a baramin LOGIC or variationwith a kindID....as you were about to leap captial T with.
No there is not a sociological give and take that can switch "blame" like this just because the edge is beyond the reality of the man in the street Eugenics in the US where sterlizations programs were disseminated and offices almost set up in NYSTATE was due to darwinISM if not IDEOLOGY. The reasoning however was like, well if I add acid to my pool it will turn the test kit blue therefore people in jail should be sterelized. My grandfather who retained doucements on eugenics in the US partly becuase I guess there was an "expert" who did some historical research on Californina and Virgina at SUNY FREDONIA was also writing papers about sex education in elementary school himself. I can see in papers circa 1925 how both he and the other biologists were reasoning as I tried to leave a sample for you but my Grandfather was dealing with a personal crisis while you NOW want whatever THAT was to be transferable to a third party, neither my Grandfather, the acutal eugencists of the time, or any biological reasoning, namely creationists. NO to that I call for a moreATORiUm.
Do you have "ears" for the difference of "mathmatical" evolution AND "physical" evolution or would this perhaps merely be an OLD difference of physiological and transmission genetics for you?? The results comes to bear on if the "distances" in a common trajectory of life is or is not representable by a framework or not(Euclidean etc). It may be that in the end we can only deal with the NAMES man gave to the animals and our parents-us but I am not quite that pesimistic.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-23-2004]
I really want to pursue this, but my time for posting here is getting tighter and tighter, and will end for a season soon. It's been fun, though, thinking of how I would proceed, in preparing to start such a thread. Thanks for the question.
I leave you with this note: the widespread, commonplace diving ducks are all middle-sized, with canvasbacks and ruddies found only where species diversity is high. But, the widespread dabbling ducks are all small (teal) or large (mallard, pintail), where the middle sized dabblers mainly occur in regions with lots of species.
Man, do you even make sense to yourself? I get the feeling that you're being as cryptic as possible in order to insult my intelligence later in the thread. Clever you. Try and be a bot more concise, or I'll stop bothering to reply, if you care.
Mr. B, the best guess is that Brad can't do anything different. Some take to just ignoring his posts others actually manage to ferret some scraps of comprehensibility out of them. There is no good getting annoyed at him. He probably isn't trying to do something to annoy you.