| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
25 Mar 2005 09:19:13 PM |
| Object: |
Facts vs. media fictions about Terri's actual condition |
The affidavit extracts below demonstrate the falsity of the old media's
erroneous allegation that 'no one is home' in Terri Schindler Schiavo.
Also, Terri can anticipate and feel pain.
A U.S. judiciary run amok and a shameless American Criminal Liberties
Union are intent on murdering via starvation an innocent/ guiltless and
defenseless woman.
Decency demands that this unjustified, court-imposed death sentence on
Terri Schindler Schiavo be stopped.
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
From
http://www.hospicepatients.org/terri-schindler-schiavo-docs-links-page.html
from the PDF "Affidavit of William Cheshire, Jr., MD 03-23-05":
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DUVALL
Before me this day personally appeared William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.,
who, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I, William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., have personal knowledge of the
facts stated in this declaration and, if called as a witness, I could
and would testify competently thereto under oath. I declare as follows:
I am a neurologist practicing in the State of Florida and am certified
by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. In regard to my
educational background, I received an A.B. in biochemical sciences from
Princeton University, an M.A. in bioethics from Trinity International
University, and an M.D. from West Virginia University. I completed an
internship in internal medicine at West Virginia University, a residency
in neurology and a pain fellowship at the University of North Carolina.
I am also an appointed volunteer with the Florida Statewide Adult
Protective Services team, in which capacity I was called on March 1,
2005, to provide an independent and objective medical review of
allegations of possible abuse, neglect, or exploitation of Ms. Theresa
Marie Schiavo.
Although no one from the Department of Children and Families has
inquired about my personal views about treatment decisions in cases of
persistent vegetative state (PVS), I would like to disclose that I came
into this case with the belief that it can be ethically permissible to
discontinue artificially provided nutrition and hydration for patients
in a persistent vegetative state. Having now reviewed the relevant
facts, having met and observed Ms. Schiavo in person, and having
reflected deeply on the moral and ethical issues, I would like to
explain why I change my mind in regard to this particular case.
.....
Based on my review of extensive medical records documenting Terri's care
over the years, on my personal observation of Terri, and on my
observations of Terri's responses in the many hours of videotapes taken
in 2002, she demonstrates a number of behaviors I believe cast a
reasonable doubt on the prior diagnosis of PVS. These include:
1. Her behavior is frequently context-specific. For example, her
facial expression brightens and she smiles in response to the voice of
familiar persons such as her parents or her nurse. Her agitation
subsides and her facial demeanor softens when quiet music is played.
When jubilant piano music is played, her face brightens, she lifts her
eyebrows, smiles, and even laughs. Her lateral gaze toward the tape
player is sustained for many minutes. Several times I witnessed Terri
briefly, albeit inconsistently, laugh in response to a humorous comment
someone in the room had made. I did not see her laugh in the absence of
someone else's laughter.
2. Although she does not seem to track or follow visual objects
consistently or for long periods of time, she does fixate her gaze on
colorful objects or human faces for some 15 seconds at a time and
occasionally follows with her eyes at least briefly as these objects
move from side to side. When I first walked into her room, she
immediately turned her head toward me and looked directly at my face.
There was a lot of curiosity or expectation in her expression, and she
maintained eye contact for about half a minute. Later, when she again
looked at me, she brought her lips together as if to pronounce the
letter "O," and although for a moment it appeared that she might be
making an intentional effort to speak, her face then fell blank, and no
words came out.
3. Although I did not hear Terri utter distinct words, she demonstrates
emotional expressivity by her use of a single syllable of vocalizations
such as "ah," making cooing sounds, or by expressing guttural sounds of
annoyance or moaning appropriate to the context of the situation. The
context-specific range and the variability of her vocalizations suggests
at least a reasonable probability of the processing of emotional thought
within her brain. There have been reports of Terri rarely using actual
words specific to her situational context. The July 25, 2003 affidavit
of the speech pathologist Sarah Green Mole, MS, on page 6, reads, "The
records of Mediplex reflect the fact that she has said 'stop' in
apparent response to a medical procedure being done to her." The Adult
Protective Services team has been unable to retrieve those original
medical records in this instance.
4. Although Terri has not consistently followed commands, there
appeared to be some notable exceptions. In the taped examination by Dr.
Hammesfahr from 2002, when asked to close her eyes she began to blink
repeatedly. Although it was unclear whether she squeezed her grip when
asked, she did appear to raise her right leg four times in succession
each time she was asked to do so. Rehabilitation notes from 1991
indicated that she tracked inconsistently, and although she did not
develop a yes/no communication system, did follow some commands
inconsistently and demonstrated good eye contact to family members.
5. There is a remarkable moment in the videotape of the September 3,
2002 examination by Dr. Hammesfahr that seemed to go unnoticed at the
time. At 2:44 p.m., Dr. Hammesfahr had just turned Terri onto her right
side to examine her back with a painful sharp stimulus (a sharp piece of
wood), to which Terri had responded with signs of discomfort. Well
after he ceased applying the stimulus and had returned Terri to a
comfortable position, he says to her parents, "So, we're going to have
to roll her over...." Immediately Terri cries. She vocalizes a crying
sound, "Ugh, ha, ha, ha," presses her eyebrows together, and sadly
grimaces. It is important to note that, at that moment, no one is
touching Terri or causing actual pain. Rather, she appears to
comprehend the meaning of Dr. Hammesfahr's comment and she signals her
_anticipation_ of pain. This response suggests some degree of language
processing and interpretation at the level of the cerebral cortex. It
also suggests that she may be aware of pain beyond what could be
explained by simple reflex withdrawal.
6. According to the definition of PVS published by the American Academy
of Neurology, "persistent vegetative state patients do not have the
capacity to experience pain or suffering. Pain and suffering are
attributes of consciousness requiring cerebral cortical functioning, and
patients who are permanently and completely unconscious cannot
experience these symptoms."^6 And yet, in my review of Terri's medical
records, pain issues keep surfacing. The nurses at Woodside Hospice
told us that she often has pain with menstrual cramps. Menstrual flow
is associated with agitation, repeated or sustained moaning, facial
grimacing, limb posturing, and facial flushing, all of which subside
once she is given ibuprofen. Some of the records document moaning,
crying, and other painful behavior in the setting of urinary tract
infections.
.....
7. To enter the room of Terri Schiavo is nothing like entering the room
of a patient who is comatose or brain-dead or in some neurological sense
no longer there. Although Terri did not demonstrate during our 90
minute visit compelling evidence of verbalization, conscious awareness,
or volitional behavior, yet the visitor has the distinct sense of the
presence of a living human being who seems at some level to be aware of
some things around her.
As I looked at Terri, and she gazed directly back at me, I asked myself
whether, if I were her attending physician, I could in good conscience
withdraw nutrition and hydration. No, I could not. I could not
withdraw life support if I were asked. I could not withhold
life-sustaining nutrition and hydration from this beautiful lady whose
face brightens in the presence of others.
The neurologic signs are in many ways ambiguous. There is no guarantee
that more sophisticated testing would definitively resolve that
ambiguity to everyone's satisfaction. There would be value, I think, in
obtaining a functional MRI scan if that is possible.
This situation differs fundamentally from end-of-life scenarios where it
is appropriate to withdraw life-sustaining medical interventions that no
longer benefit or are burdensome to patients in the terminal stages of
illness. Terri's feeding tube is not a burden to her. It is not
painful, is not infected, is not eroding her stomach lining or causing
any medical complications. But for the decision to withdraw her feeding
tube, Terri cannot be considered medically terminal. But for the
withdrawal of food and water, she would not die [well, she would not die
now-- everybody dies eventually, sometimes sooner rather than later. We
never know when we will go to meet our Maker. -df].
In summary, Terri [Schindler] Schiavo demonstrates behaviors in a
variety of cognitive domains that call into question the previous
neurologic diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Specifically, she
has demonstrated behaviors that are context-specific, sustained, and
indicative of a cerebral cortical processing that, upon careful
neurologic consideration, would not be expected in a persistent
vegetative state.
Based on this evidence, I believe that, within a reasonable degree of
medical certainty, there is a greater likelihood that Terri is in a
minimally conscious state than a persistent vegetative state. This
distinction makes an enormous difference in making ethical decisions on
Terri's behalf. If Terri is sufficiently aware of her surroundings that
she can feel pleasure and suffer, if she is capable of understanding to
some degree how she is being treated, then in my judgment it would be
wrong to bring about her death by withdrawing food and water.
At the time of this writing, Terri Schiavo, as the result of the
decisions based on what I have argued to be a faulty diagnosis of
persistent vegetative state, has been without food or water for 5 days.
She is thus at risk of death or serious injury unless the provision of
food and water can be restored. Terri Schiavo lacks the capacity to
consent to emergency protective services and must trust others to act on
her behalf. If she were to be transferred to another facility, it would
be medically necessary first to initiate hydration and ensure that her
serum electrolytes are within normal values.
How medicine and society choose to think about Terri [Schindler] Schiavo
will influence what kind of people we will be as we evaluate and respond
to the needs of the most vulnerable people among us. When serious
doubts exist as to whether a cognitively impaired person is or is not
consciously aware, even if these doubts cannot be conclusively resolved,
it is better to err on the side of protecting vulnerable life.
Respectfully submitted,
William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., M.A., F.A.A.N.
[signature]
Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this 23[rd] day of
March, 2005, by William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.
[notary stamp and signature]
======================================================================
articles: livelier ones are by Thomas Sowell and William Kristol. Eric
Cohen's is very thoughtful.
http://www.townhall.com
Cal Thomas: Schiavo case matters in symbol and substance
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adfseF68nkocU1%40individual.net
Justifications for taking of human life?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3aj33dF67kgcuU2%40individual.net
any atheists against Terri Schindler Schiavo's being starved to death?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adrlvF69l60hU1%40individual.net
1997 Wesley Smith on Germany's slippery slope slide from devaluing some
human life to a little euthanasia/ killing to mass killings
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
ACLU: Legal Terrorists
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/27/195402.shtml
Terri Schindler Schiavo Case
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/16/223430.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43463
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
.
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
31 Jul 2005 06:19:07 AM |
|
|
On 30 Jul 2005 21:20:38 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nature may have no values, but what made nature may have values. I
think it is rightly proven that your atheism concerning nature is
because of Darwinism.
meaningless assertion. if nature has no values, then nature has no
values and trying to impose values on nature is a hopeless exercise.
as to 'what made nature MAY have values', that is, at best,
metaphysical speculation and can have no place in science. you've
admitted as much.
my atheism, in spite of your desperate hysteria to the contrary, is
because of creationism, not evolution. as you have admitted, since
nature has NO values, people like you who try to force science into
placing values where there are none are trying to square the circle.
Only Bob has values, with which he can value. If it wasn't for Bob then
the whole universe would not be valued by anyone, it would be
worthless. Bog is like god you see.
and nando, arrogant theological vandal that he is, admits he wants to
force his values into areas where there are none to be had.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
31 Jul 2005 08:51:24 AM |
|
|
I admit it is metaphysical explanation yes, who gives a damn about
science anyway.You said your metaphysics is not influenced by science,
so show it isn't.
I said what made nature the way it is has values, seen from the points
at which it was uncertain that nature would turn out the way it did. So
what do you think about all that "randomness" that made nature turn out
the way it did, and not other. What qualities you find in that
randomness?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
31 Jul 2005 08:54:28 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I admit it is metaphysical explanation yes, who gives a damn about
science anyway.
I do.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
01 Aug 2005 09:51:44 AM |
|
|
On 31 Jul 2005 06:51:24 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
I admit it is metaphysical explanation yes, who gives a damn about
science anyway.You said your metaphysics is not influenced by science,
so show it isn't.
i don't have to show it isn't. you have to show it is. since the time
of aristotle, that's the way logic has worked.
oh. i see your problem....
I said what made nature the way it is has values
and you know that how?
, seen from the points
at which it was uncertain that nature would turn out the way it did. So
what do you think about all that "randomness" that made nature turn out
the way it did, and not other. What qualities you find in that
randomness?
who said nature was random?
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "josephus" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
10 Jul 2005 07:01:59 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The intimidation is that anyone who tries to talk sensibly and informed
about the relationship between science, specifically darwinism, and
Nazism, get's accused of all sorts of things regardless. A shameful
idiocy on the subject on the part of evolutionists is the result, as
well evidenced by the talk.origins faq on the subject. Note that most
all historians recognize there is a relationship between the Darwinist
revolution and Nazism, and that it's significant, they just disagree
how it went exactly. "Evolutionism" exploiting Darwinist material, or
Darwinism spurring on evolutionism by progressivist tendencies within
Darwinism. The last is how it went IMO, as supported by evidence of the
theory of natural selection being valueladen. And the progressivist
tendencies in natural selection is only part of the story. Next the
subject of science influencing people to think of society in terms of
inevitable forces, such as Klaus Fischer touched upon on his book about
Nazism, spurring on theories about blood or environment mediated
through the brain determining individuals, society, and societal
relations, in obvious disregard of people's ability to choose.
The same people that glorify the scientific method, are the people that
can't even begin to do an honest investigation about the relationship
between darwinism and nazism. They seem to have lost the simplicity of
common human reasonability, and sense of judgement and gathering of
evidence, by glorifying such common human practicises of evidence
gathering into a method. Also the method results in zero decisionpoints
being recognized so far in 15 billion years of history. A good history
of the holocaust is impossible without a good sense of decisions, the
points where things turned. It's not to be expected that any glorifier
of the scientific method will do well on it, because the scientifc
method is absolutely weak to find any decisionpoints whatsoever.
Why don't you just shut up with your insulting ignorant rubbish, that
is only meant to sabotage intelligent discussion about an important
historical event.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
You spout lots of gibberish with expression like evolutionist, what ever
that is, and the "Evolutionist" exploiting Darwinist material, or
Darwinism spurring on evolutionist by progressivism tendencies within
Darwinism." There is a hysterical whine and "your insulting ignorant
rubbish" I see the pot calling the kettle black.
Blaming Darwin for Nazism or other atrocities is wrong for ethical
reasons. Science of any kind can be misused. It does not mean the
science is wrong.
josephus
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
10 Jul 2005 07:38:35 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:01:59 GMT, josephus <dogbird@earthlink.net>
wrote:
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com wrote:
The intimidation is that anyone who tries to talk sensibly and informed
about the relationship between science, specifically darwinism, and
Nazism, get's accused of all sorts of things regardless. A shameful
idiocy on the subject on the part of evolutionists is the result, as
well evidenced by the talk.origins faq on the subject. Note that most
all historians recognize there is a relationship between the Darwinist
revolution and Nazism, and that it's significant, they just disagree
how it went exactly. "Evolutionism" exploiting Darwinist material, or
Darwinism spurring on evolutionism by progressivist tendencies within
Darwinism. The last is how it went IMO, as supported by evidence of the
theory of natural selection being valueladen. And the progressivist
tendencies in natural selection is only part of the story. Next the
subject of science influencing people to think of society in terms of
inevitable forces, such as Klaus Fischer touched upon on his book about
Nazism, spurring on theories about blood or environment mediated
through the brain determining individuals, society, and societal
relations, in obvious disregard of people's ability to choose.
The same people that glorify the scientific method, are the people that
can't even begin to do an honest investigation about the relationship
between darwinism and nazism. They seem to have lost the simplicity of
common human reasonability, and sense of judgement and gathering of
evidence, by glorifying such common human practicises of evidence
gathering into a method. Also the method results in zero decisionpoints
being recognized so far in 15 billion years of history. A good history
of the holocaust is impossible without a good sense of decisions, the
points where things turned. It's not to be expected that any glorifier
of the scientific method will do well on it, because the scientifc
method is absolutely weak to find any decisionpoints whatsoever.
Why don't you just shut up with your insulting ignorant rubbish, that
is only meant to sabotage intelligent discussion about an important
historical event.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
You spout lots of gibberish with expression like evolutionist, what ever
that is, and the "Evolutionist" exploiting Darwinist material, or
Darwinism spurring on evolutionist by progressivism tendencies within
Darwinism." There is a hysterical whine and "your insulting ignorant
rubbish" I see the pot calling the kettle black.
Blaming Darwin for Nazism or other atrocities is wrong for ethical
reasons. Science of any kind can be misused. It does not mean the
science is wrong.
josephus
They don't know what science is and imagine it is some kind of
baseless revelation by a trusted authority. A projection that reveals
more about themselves than they realise.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
09 Jul 2005 09:50:43 PM |
|
|
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120962873.730301.105360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The response of science after the holocaust was to largely abandon and
surpress sociobiology. Only fairly recently sociobiology got out from
under it, by changing it's name to evolutionary psychology.
All right then, chuckles: why don't you give us all a big fucking laugh by
telling us just how soon 'after the holocaust' you think it was that
'science largely abandoned and surpressed [sic] sociobiology', and just when
you think it was that 'sociobiology changed its name'...?
Come on: we're waiting...!
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
10 Jul 2005 10:50:53 PM |
|
|
Katt wrote:
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120962873.730301.105360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The response of science after the holocaust was to largely abandon and
surpress sociobiology. Only fairly recently sociobiology got out from
under it, by changing it's name to evolutionary psychology.
All right then, chuckles: why don't you give us all a big fucking laugh by
telling us just how soon 'after the holocaust' you think it was that
'science largely abandoned and surpressed [sic] sociobiology', and just when
you think it was that 'sociobiology changed its name'...?
Come on: we're waiting...!
For what it's worth, in the years following the Nazi killing spree,
Julian Huxley called for semi-voluntary sterilizations of certain
people.
About the descent into that killing spree:
1997 Wesley Smith
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
11 Jul 2005 04:18:17 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Katt wrote:
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120962873.730301.105360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The response of science after the holocaust was to largely abandon and
surpress sociobiology. Only fairly recently sociobiology got out from
under it, by changing it's name to evolutionary psychology.
All right then, chuckles: why don't you give us all a big fucking laugh
by telling us just how soon 'after the holocaust' you think it was that
'science largely abandoned and surpressed [sic] sociobiology', and just
when you think it was that 'sociobiology changed its name'...?
Come on: we're waiting...!
Still waiting...
For what it's worth, in the years following the Nazi killing spree,
Julian Huxley called for semi-voluntary sterilizations of certain
people.
Did he really? "In the years following the Nazi killing spree", eh? It's
as relevant as his brother Aldous' implacable opposition to eugenics, but
perhaps you could coem up with a reference to Huxley's words to support
that claim?
<snippage of irrelevancies>
--
Robin Levett
rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
09 Jul 2005 11:02:04 PM |
|
|
Well if you would promise to apologize, I will try and find the article
in the evolutionary psychology journal which talks about the namechange
and talks about the surpression, and try to find some references about
the field falling into disrepute after the holocaust.
But experience tells me, only a load of abuse and lawyerism will be the
response to facts that obviously hateful anti-religious zealots like
you don't like to hear about.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
10 Jul 2005 10:54:13 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Well if you would promise to apologize, I will try and find the article
in the evolutionary psychology journal which talks about the namechange
and talks about the surpression, and try to find some references about
the field falling into disrepute after the holocaust.
But experience tells me, only a load of abuse and lawyerism will be the
response to facts that obviously hateful anti-religious zealots like
you don't like to hear about.
This beautifully illustrates sociobiology:
excerpts from a 1942 Nazi biology textbook for the middle school
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/textbk01.htm
"anti-religious zealots"
Goebbels & Hitler agree on "the insanity of the Christian doctrine of
redemption"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/02471e07781c7e66?
Hitler's secular religion
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3ad5873afc8b3c80?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
10 Jul 2005 02:49:57 AM |
|
|
On 9 Jul 2005 21:02:04 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well if you would promise to apologize, I will try and find the article
in the evolutionary psychology journal which talks about the namechange
and talks about the surpression, and try to find some references about
the field falling into disrepute after the holocaust.
But experience tells me, only a load of abuse and lawyerism will be the
response to facts that obviously hateful anti-religious zealots like
you don't like to hear about.
In other words, you're going to run away from your claim. You're nothing
but a historical revisionist. Shame on you.
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
10 Jul 2005 10:58:33 PM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On 9 Jul 2005 21:02:04 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well if you would promise to apologize, I will try and find the article
in the evolutionary psychology journal which talks about the namechange
and talks about the surpression, and try to find some references about
the field falling into disrepute after the holocaust.
But experience tells me, only a load of abuse and lawyerism will be the
response to facts that obviously hateful anti-religious zealots like
you don't like to hear about.
In other words, you're going to run away from your claim. You're nothing
but a historical revisionist. Shame on you.
Aaron, do you think the Nazis applied Darwinian thought to human
actions and human society?
excerpts from a 1942 Nazi biology textbook for the middle school
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/textbk01.htm
Hitler: law of selection justifies incessant struggle/ war
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/6ab79a88a19145a0?
1940 Nazi film "All Life is Struggle" embraced Darwinian natural
selection
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407042043.1c2ccf1f%40posting.google.com
1942 Heydrich: "The Jews... no doubt a large part of them will be
eliminated by natural diminution. The survivors, the hardiest among
them, must be given an appropriate treatment, because they represent a
natural selection...."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407032023.243f5883%40posting.google.com
1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the
weak"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b74948086f4a6984?
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
11 Jul 2005 12:23:35 AM |
|
|
On 10 Jul 2005 20:58:33 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
On 9 Jul 2005 21:02:04 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well if you would promise to apologize, I will try and find the article
in the evolutionary psychology journal which talks about the namechange
and talks about the surpression, and try to find some references about
the field falling into disrepute after the holocaust.
But experience tells me, only a load of abuse and lawyerism will be the
response to facts that obviously hateful anti-religious zealots like
you don't like to hear about.
In other words, you're going to run away from your claim. You're nothing
but a historical revisionist. Shame on you.
Aaron, do you think the Nazis applied Darwinian thought to human
actions and human society?
excerpts from a 1942 Nazi biology textbook for the middle school
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/textbk01.htm
Hitler: law of selection justifies incessant struggle/ war
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/6ab79a88a19145a0?
1940 Nazi film "All Life is Struggle" embraced Darwinian natural
selection
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407042043.1c2ccf1f%40posting.google.com
1942 Heydrich: "The Jews... no doubt a large part of them will be
eliminated by natural diminution. The survivors, the hardiest among
them, must be given an appropriate treatment, because they represent a
natural selection...."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407032023.243f5883%40posting.google.com
1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the
weak"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b74948086f4a6984?
Not going down that road. I don't play your's or Nando's contemptible
revisionist games.
I'm asking you whether the people that ran the trains that took Jews to
their death, the people that sorted the belongings of doomed and dead Jews,
those who ran the concentration camps and those that guarded them, those
that ran the bureaucracy of the Holocaust were Christians.
You seem to keep turning back to your self-referential articles, and I don't
give a ***** about those, because I've got you by the balls, Ford.
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
10 Jul 2005 11:36:28 AM |
|
|
Gee, I don't like you, I'm not going to give you the benefit of my
knowledge without you acting like a decent person.
I know what evolutionary psychologists wrote on the namechange, you
don't. Ignorant you are, and ignorant you deserve to be.
What's with no evolutionists not knowing any single decision whatsoever
in 15 billions years of history of the universe and life anyway? Not a
sinlge one. 15.000.000.000 years, and then zero, nada, nil. A perfectly
blank sheet for a creationist to write upon.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
10 Jul 2005 12:21:02 PM |
|
|
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121013388.953656.224900@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Gee, I don't like you, I'm not going to give you the benefit of my
knowledge without you acting like a decent person.
Does that mean you're going to take your ball and go home, he
asked hopefully
I know what evolutionary psychologists wrote on the namechange, you
don't. Ignorant you are, and ignorant you deserve to be.
Oh, please. Don't tell us.
What's with no evolutionists not knowing any single decision whatsoever
in 15 billions years of history of the universe and life anyway? Not a
sinlge one. 15.000.000.000 years, and then zero, nada, nil. A perfectly
blank sheet for a creationist to write upon.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
10 Jul 2005 01:23:03 PM |
|
|
On 10 Jul 2005 09:36:28 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Gee, I don't like you, I'm not going to give you the benefit of my
knowledge without you acting like a decent person.
In other words you're just going to mouth off, but when push comes to shove,
you know you don't have a damn thing.
I know what evolutionary psychologists wrote on the namechange, you
don't. Ignorant you are, and ignorant you deserve to be.
Nice attempt at deflection. You make a claim, the onus is on you. The fact
that you won't indicates that, in fact, you can't.
What's with no evolutionists not knowing any single decision whatsoever
in 15 billions years of history of the universe and life anyway? Not a
sinlge one. 15.000.000.000 years, and then zero, nada, nil. A perfectly
blank sheet for a creationist to write upon.
Who gives a damn. It's clear you've got nothing but empty rhetoric. You're
just a liar.
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
10 Jul 2005 09:26:46 PM |
|
|
Well you don't give a damn about your complete and utter ignorance
about decisions/turningpoints in the universe and life, that's pretty
clear.
For those who like to know, the trick is to trace back the likelyhood
of the appearance of a thing, to the decisions where the likelyhood was
set. So essentially you don't ask when was the first plant? To discover
the origin of plants, in stead you ask "how did the probability of
plants coming to be develop?.
We all do that already in our everyday life, tracing back probabilities
this way to decisions where they were set, it's a basic part of common
knowledge. However it needs to be pointed out that this is also handy
in intellectual life and science, because of the authoritarian willful
ignorance of people such as mightymartia polluting the intellectual
climate of opinion on the subject.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
10 Jul 2005 09:40:03 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Well you don't give a damn about your complete and utter ignorance
about decisions/turningpoints in the universe and life, that's pretty
clear.
Well we might, if you gave as the merest hint as to why you consider
them so important, and even one example of what you consider them to be.
For at the moment, what you are writing about makes as much sense as me
saying that you obviously "don't give a damn about your complete and
utter ignorance" of grocklets.
For those who like to know, the trick is to trace back the likelyhood
of the appearance of a thing, to the decisions where the likelyhood was
set. So essentially you don't ask when was the first plant? To discover
the origin of plants, in stead you ask "how did the probability of
plants coming to be develop?.
That is a very interesting, but not very enlightening, HOW. It is all
rather meaningless in the absence of WHY? Why would/should we know this
trick?
We all do that already in our everyday life, tracing back probabilities
this way to decisions where they were set, it's a basic part of common
knowledge. However it needs to be pointed out that this is also handy
in intellectual life and science, because of the authoritarian willful
ignorance of people such as mightymartia polluting the intellectual
climate of opinion on the subject.
So basic a part apparently that I, for one, have not the slightenst
awareness of ever doing this, let alone any inkling of why i would even
want to. What benefit does it give me to think like this. A concrete
example would be nice. Why not pursue for my/our benefit the example you
give above with the plant business?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
11 Jul 2005 04:09:25 AM |
|
|
shane wrote:
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com wrote:
Well you don't give a damn about your complete and utter ignorance
about decisions/turningpoints in the universe and life, that's pretty
clear.
Well we might, if you gave as the merest hint as to why you consider
them so important, and even one example of what you consider them to be.
For at the moment, what you are writing about makes as much sense as me
saying that you obviously "don't give a damn about your complete and
utter ignorance" of grocklets.
Well that's just the thing, there's not even common agreement about it
in science about what to call it, so it can't ever be developed. Gould
used the word turningpoint. I prefer the word decision, because that is
most clearly saying it might not have happened but it did. With
mechanisms things happen of neccesity of what went before, with
decisions it could turn out differently.
For those who like to know, the trick is to trace back the likelyhood
of the appearance of a thing, to the decisions where the likelyhood was
set. So essentially you don't ask when was the first plant? To discover
the origin of plants, in stead you ask "how did the probability of
plants coming to be develop?.
That is a very interesting, but not very enlightening, HOW. It is all
rather meaningless in the absence of WHY? Why would/should we know this
trick?
Because then we will find the decisions by which the thing was created,
or as the event may be, destroyed. A few years ago some historian
traced back the exact time more or less, at which Hitler gave the order
to start with the extermination of the Jews. That's what history is all
about, you have an event, the holocaust, and then you are trying to
trace back to the decisions which made the event come to be. Such
decisions may be of people, but there are lots of decisions falling in
nature as well, like in the weather.
It's no coincedence that the other evolutionist offered a monocausal
explanation with 1000 years of predetermination "culminating" in the
holocaust, because such highly predeterminate explanations are common
currency in standard science, where decisions are usually ignored.
We all do that already in our everyday life, tracing back probabilities
this way to decisions where they were set, it's a basic part of common
knowledge. However it needs to be pointed out that this is also handy
in intellectual life and science, because of the authoritarian willful
ignorance of people such as mightymartia polluting the intellectual
climate of opinion on the subject.
So basic a part apparently that I, for one, have not the slightenst
awareness of ever doing this, let alone any inkling of why i would even
want to. What benefit does it give me to think like this. A concrete
example would be nice. Why not pursue for my/our benefit the example you
give above with the plant business?
Basically some statistics. But prior to statistics people also used to
have a sense of when something is likely to happen, when something
might happen, and an eye to pinpoint the precise moment in which it is
decided. It's common human experience. Perhaps sports is a clear
example of it, of people thinking like that all the time. Or movies,
the tension grows, some big decision might fall, etc. You can tell when
the decision falls, coz that's when the dramatic music starts playing.
In real life it's a little harder to pinpoint the decision, without the
benefit of an orchestra to cue.
I don't care to search right now for the origin of plants. The basic
principle of it should be clear enough, and you should really question
yourself how it comes to be that you don't know any. And the answer
must be anti-creationism, and the weakness of science to deal with
decisions, that confines you so much to not even be aware of the basic
things of a fundamental principle of the way things work.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
11 Jul 2005 11:29:34 AM |
|
|
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121072964.986291.119600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
shane wrote:
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
It's no coincedence that the other evolutionist offered a monocausal
explanation with 1000 years of predetermination "culminating" in the
holocaust, because such highly predeterminate explanations are common
currency in standard science, where decisions are usually ignored.
Isn't lying against your creed? No "evolutionist" gave a "moncausal"
explanation of the Holocaust, certainly nothing to do with predetermination.
1000 years of antisemitism is cited as a significant contribution. Or do
you disagree? If you do, fine, but quit lying about the assertion.
We all do that already in our everyday life, tracing back
probabilities
this way to decisions where they were set, it's a basic part of common
knowledge.
Common knowledge is commonly wrong. Please provide some evidence
that things that happen had to happen. Read some about quantum mechanics,
chaos theory, and probability first.
<snip>
Basically some statistics. But prior to statistics people also used to
have a sense of when something is likely to happen, when something
might happen, and an eye to pinpoint the precise moment in which it is
decided. It's common human experience. Perhaps sports is a clear
example of it, of people thinking like that all the time. Or movies,
the tension grows, some big decision might fall, etc. You can tell when
the decision falls, coz that's when the dramatic music starts playing.
In real life it's a little harder to pinpoint the decision, without the
benefit of an orchestra to cue.
That's it? It's like the movies? Too bad we don't have celestial
orchestral cues? Are you kidding me?
I don't care to search right now for the origin of plants.
God forbid you do a little actual research.
<snip>
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Deadrat
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
11 Jul 2005 11:51:40 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:29:34 GMT,
Deadrat <none@none.non> wrote:
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121072964.986291.119600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I don't care to search right now for the origin of plants.
God forbid you do a little actual research.
Well, you can't keep your preconceived notions intact by actually studying a
topic. Much better to come onto talk.origins and spout off at great length,
demonstrating your ignorance for all to see.
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
12 Jul 2005 01:03:19 AM |
|
|
-you don't know of any decision in 15.000.000.000 years of history and
don't give a damn to find any
-you don't know the basic principles in talking about decision
-you gave a monocausal highly predeterminative explanation of the
holocaust, in blatant denial of other factors, and you intimidate
anyone who doesn't agree with your ignorance on the matter
-you haven't the faintest clue, or interest in the fundamentals of
natural selection theory, which is basically what you are here for
supporting
You are an ignorant hatemonger. Why don't you think about it 10 times
over where your ignorance about decisions will lead you.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
12 Jul 2005 11:48:12 AM |
|
|
Hard really to know to whom or what you're replying
since, as usual, you don't have the common courtesy to
quote.
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121148199.350769.122880@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
-you don't know of any decision in 15.000.000.000 years of history and
don't give a damn to find any
As far as I can tell (which isn't very far, since you won't give a
definition), a decision is an event in spacetime, i.e., something
that happened when something else didn't. You seem to think
(again, as far as I can tell) that there is something significant and
understandable about the things that happen as opposed to the
things that don't. Am I close?
-you don't know the basic principles in talking about decision
Well, we won't know until you tell us. What are the mathematical
laws of decisions?
-you gave a monocausal highly predeterminative explanation of the
holocaust, in blatant denial of other factors, and you intimidate
anyone who doesn't agree with your ignorance on the matter
I again request that you stop lying about the people who disagree
with you. No one but you has mentioned a "monocausal" or
"predeterminative" explanation of the Holocaust; no one denied
"other factors," and no one has posted anything that can be
considered intimidating
-you haven't the faintest clue, or interest in the fundamentals of
natural selection theory, which is basically what you are here for
supporting
In chorus now: "Before you accuse me, better take a look at yourself."
You are an ignorant hatemonger. Why don't you think about it 10 times
over where your ignorance about decisions will lead you.
When you post your laws of decisions, then we can think about it.
But until then, you could just tell us where our ignorance will lead.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Deadrat
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "josephus" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
11 Jul 2005 04:45:35 AM |
|
|
wrote:
shane wrote:
wrote:
Well you don't give a damn about your complete and utter ignorance
about decisions/turningpoints in the universe and life, that's pretty
clear.
Well we might, if you gave as the merest hint as to why you consider
them so important, and even one example of what you consider them to be.
For at the moment, what you are writing about makes as much sense as me
saying that you obviously "don't give a damn about your complete and
utter ignorance" of grocklets.
Well that's just the thing, there's not even common agreement about it
in science about what to call it, so it can't ever be developed. Gould
used the word turningpoint. I prefer the word decision, because that is
most clearly saying it might not have happened but it did. With
mechanisms things happen of neccesity of what went before, with
decisions it could turn out differently.
For those who like to know, the trick is to trace back the likelyhood
of the appearance of a thing, to the decisions where the likelyhood was
set. So essentially you don't ask when was the first plant? To discover
the origin of plants, in stead you ask "how did the probability of
plants coming to be develop?.
That is a very interesting, but not very enlightening, HOW. It is all
rather meaningless in the absence of WHY? Why would/should we know this
trick?
Because then we will find the decisions by which the thing was created,
or as the event may be, destroyed. A few years ago some historian
traced back the exact time more or less, at which Hitler gave the order
to start with the extermination of the Jews. That's what history is all
about, you have an event, the holocaust, and then you are trying to
trace back to the decisions which made the event come to be. Such
decisions may be of people, but there are lots of decisions falling in
nature as well, like in the weather.
There is this thing creationists have with decisions. They try assert
them in nature, in history, in society. It really is not possible to
identify a decision the way they are proposing. A historian will define
a decision in several ways. The outcome of some conflict, the result
of some event and some personal action. but in human terms the most we
can say is this person did between these dates. and unless we can find
a record that is as close as we can get. even so, decisions are fuzzy
objects that do not have sharp boundaries.
On the other hand, nature does not have human defined decisions. I know
creatures make decisions but we do not have access to those mental
states. for all intents and purposes, there are no demonstrable
decisions in nature. It requires a human and there are no humans in nature.
It's no coincedence that the other evolutionist offered a monocausal
explanation with 1000 years of predetermination "culminating" in the
holocaust, because such highly predeterminate explanations are common
currency in standard science, where decisions are usually ignored.
for 1800 years, this has been happening. It follows the growth of
the catholic church. a 1000 years is only half of the time the
condition existed. nando_ronteltap is guilty of revisionism and
anti=semitism and he reflects certain values of creationists. He
appears to be Muslim but sounds like a radical Christian.
We all do that already in our everyday life, tracing back probabilities
this way to decisions where they were set, it's a basic part of common
knowledge. However it needs to be pointed out that this is also handy
in intellectual life and science, because of the authoritarian willful
ignorance of people such as mightymartia polluting the intellectual
climate of opinion on the subject.
So basic a part apparently that I, for one, have not the slightenst
awareness of ever doing this, let alone any inkling of why i would even
want to. What benefit does it give me to think like this. A concrete
example would be nice. Why not pursue for my/our benefit the example you
give above with the plant business?
Basically some statistics. But prior to statistics people also used to
have a sense of when something is likely to happen, when something
might happen, and an eye to pinpoint the precise moment in which it is
decided. It's common human experience. Perhaps sports is a clear
example of it, of people thinking like that all the time. Or movies,
the tension grows, some big decision might fall, etc. You can tell when
the decision falls, coz that's when the dramatic music starts playing.
| | | | | | | | | |
