Creation Vs. Evolution = Free will Vs. determinism

It's not offtopic. You are trying to pretend that the question of determinacy vs indeterminacy is only, or mostly rightly addressed in the context of extremist philosophical absolutism. The wider context of practical science, common knowledge, and religion about the subject you seek to ignore.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

But of course what it really comes down to is if the holocaust was predetermined, or if there were choices in it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

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....

Well you didn't support my argument, you were arguing towards even more extreme conceptions about uncertainty then Wounded King brought up, where I'm trying to bring the argument to the more regular, practical conceptions of uncertainty.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

(Essay, in the name of Darwin, D. Kevles)"The specter of eugenics hovers over virtually all contemporary developments in human genetics. Eugenics was rooted in the social Darwinism of the late 19th century, a period in which notions of fitness, competition, and biological rationalizations of inequality were popular. At the time, a growing number of theorists introduced Darwinian analogies of "survival of the fittest" into social argument. Many social Darwinists insisted that biology was destiny, at least for the unfit, and that a broad spectrum of socially deleterious traits, ranging from "pauperism" to mental illness, resulted from heredity.
The word "eugenics" was coined in 1883 by the English scientist Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, to promote the ideal of perfecting the human race by, as he put it, getting rid of its "undesirables" while multiplying its "desirables" -- that is, by encouraging the procreation of the social Darwinian fit and discouraging that of the unfit. In Galton's day, the science of genetics was not yet understood. Nevertheless, Darwin's theory of evolution taught that species did change as a result of natural selection, and it was well known that by artificial selection a farmer could obtain permanent breeds of plants and animals strong in particular characteristics. Galton wondered, "Could not the race of men be similarly improved?"Evolution: Darwin: In the Name of Darwinregards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

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.

Thats right Syamsu, the fundamental nature of the universe comes down to the holocaust. Have you ever thought that you might be slightly obsessed Syamsu?TTFN,WK

Who is obsessed here? In your quest for trying to find all explaining theories about everything, you ignore the wellfounded basis for determinacy and indeterminacy in the reasonable, limited and practical application in science, common knowledge and religion. Of course this becomes most desperate when confronted with science of history about human tragedy that compels indeterminacy as true to fact.And it's a nonsense that this issue would resolve anywhere near the fundamental nature of the universe. If you get anywhere near the fundamental truth you better start singing your heart out. Cold extremist philosophical meandering would not suffice to describe.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Not at all, I am totally in favour of both statistical and mechanistic approaches in 'reasonable, limited and practical applications', what I am against is assuming that the fact we find statistical or mechanistic approaches useful somehow means that they fundamentally represent what is actually happening.TTFN,WK

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

Come on Syamsu. How silly can you get?We are in the early 21st century. The late 19th century held many silly ideas. But beliefs as well as living things evolve.Do you have a point somewhere?To say "The specter of eugenics hovers over virtually all contemporary developments in human genetics." is to make a totally unsupported assertion, particularly when the next statement uses as its basis, a reference to an allegation, also unsupported, that such ides were rooted in ideas from the 1800s.Please provide support that "Eugenics was rooted in the social Darwinism of the late 19th century" or withdraw your assertion.This time I will hold you to showing some evidence.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Good points... All I can say is that I am confident I don't know...

So you are saying there wasn't any choice in the holocaust, because we are not allowed to assume choice. It's madness, typical mad scientist madness.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

But your confidence is unbalanced. You now have every confidence in cause and effect being true to fact, and no confidence in chance and outcome being true to fact. Surely you're not confident of chance and outcome in the context of extremist philosphical absolutism, but are confident of it being true to fact in every day life, aren't you?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Discuss it with Mammuthus. He referenced the author, I merely provided a quote to show what sort of thing this author is saying.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu