Creation Vs. Evolution = Free will Vs. determinism

quote:

---

You take the philosphical debates about everything being predetermined as real science, I take the daily practice of science as the real science. The grounding of my argument in science is adequate enough, while your argument carries no significant authority from science.

---

You have no concept of the daily practice of science as you have never bothered to inform yourself but rather repeat ad nauseum that you opinion is fact. Wounded King on the other hand, is a practicing scientist, interacts with other scientists, has an education in the principles of science, reads scientific publications...so if anyone carries no significant authority from science it is you...ignorance is not a path to wisdom.

quote:

---

but there is no study in biology to trace the likelyhoods of the main kinds back to their origin.

---

This is patently false...there are thousands or researchers in multiple disciplines dealing with the origin of species and a smaller though not insignificant number of researchers with different scientific backgrounds engaged in the research of the origin of life.Again, you declare victory when you have failed and claim knowledge on subjects in which you constantly demonstrate ignorance.I declare victory for Wounded King not least because you are to intellectually dishonest to actually learn about the subjects that you debate.regards
Mam"ignorance is not bliss"muthus

quote:

---

Obviously magical events where in it's effects, humans are created whole in an instant, eventhough they appear a billion years later, are not good for the materialist, atheist prejudice.

---

The observable Fact of reproduction by pairing of a male and female followed approximately 9 months later by the appearance of an offspring/multiple offspring via the birth canal is not good for hypotheses invoking magic or creation ex nihilo.

quote:

---

Research in the USA shows that atheists are overrepresented in the discipline of biology by more then 10 percent or something, compared to other disciplines.

---

As usual, Syamsu is wrong (note it pays to read and actually find out once in a while there sy).Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real moneyAccording to this repeat of a 1914 survey done in 1998, it is not "biology" which has a larger number of atheists and agnostics but scientists in general. A recent gallup poll also correlates agnosticism with higher education and fundamentalism with little education and lower socio economic conditions.
http://library.thinkquest.org/29178/gallup.htm?tqskip1=1So Syamsu can scream about Nazism and entrenched bias but it is clear that all Syamsu wants to advocate is his perceived benefits of lack of education or any grasp of the basic concepts of science...and he is a shining example.

congratulation jar, I think you set a new EvC record in turning Syamsu into a puddle of babbling rage by calling on him to back up his assertions. If you read any thread where this subject has been discussed you will find that as in this thread, he has never even once provided the slightest bit of evidence for his assertions...you would think after the years he has been here ranting that if said evidence existed, he would have provided it...or those of us who have actually read about the subject of eugenics (such as a really good book by Daniel Kevles: In the name of eugenics.) would have found the linkage independently...Syamsu finds it more satisfying to repeat his assertions than to actually do any research on the subject and educate himself....

and what is this supposed to show (other than that you never read any of Kevles books)?
I see you skipped the part about how Galton and Darwin disagreed on Galton's misuse of the definition of fitness. But then, you would know this if you ever read anything...or how about what the original function of Cold Spring Harbor was? doesnt ring a bell? Or how about what the early eugenicists actually proposed? How about the Jewish eugnicists?...you did not miss those references did you? I mean after all, in your mind linking to a paragraph is as good as reading an entire 400 page book Oh yeah, and since you called upon jar to not be a biased and partisan..maybe you can support the "other side" i.e. that religion and specifically christianity was responsible for the holocaust. You will be as unsuccessful in that endeavor as in any other you have undertaken.

quote:

---

Who is obsessed here?

---

You..and irrational to boot. Not that it has inspired you to learn though.

quote:

---

wellfounded basis

---

..so well founded that you have not been able to find a single supporting reference...

quote:

---

when confronted with science of history about human tragedy

---

which you self-admittedly have never studied and have never read up on....

quote:

---

you better start singing your heart out...

---

I have it on good authority that Wounded King will sing "Rhinestone Cowboy" in Gaelic if you get him drunk....actually I don't have it on good authority but it is ok since it is up to the standard of authority that you provide in your posts.

quote:

---

Cold extremist philosophical meandering would not suffice to describe

---

Well, you have certainly shown how effective emotional, illogical, ignorant rantings are in describing natural phenomenon

The pity in all this is that Kevles book (and the hundreds of references contained within) paints a very ugly picture of how a political agenda using pseudoscience was able to make such headway particularly among populist politicians (not unlike the creationist movement). Galton and other famous scientists do not emerge unscathed. The pity is that Syamsu is completely ignorant of the facts but has a strange obsessive desire to paint all scientists as holocaust perpetrators (which presumable makes him somehow feel better about himself). He ignores both the ACTUAL history of eugenics and its ACTUAL consequences. This is both stupid and dangerous because without a critical evaluation of the origin of such movements, the danger is that they will be repeated. This could have been an interesting thread in principle.

More the derailment topic. When this thread was on topic, I found Sy's posts too strange and stream of consciousness to be of much value. But since EVERY thread he participates in eventually ends up in a discussion of the holocaust, I include this thread as having been potentially interesting but ultimately unsatisfying.