| 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: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
31 Jul 2005 11:53:23 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Ok, they started out as fitter, but along the way, not finding any
food, they became less fit.
Yes, because, in this wildly inaccurate scenario you are trying to
proffer, as a species, they could not survive, but another species that
is closely related, could. The other species (while they may have
thinner coats) were the fitter species.
Now, can we get out of this scenario? Stuff like this (a small amount
of "thick-furred" animals, completely speciated from its genetic
bretheren, in cold climate unable to find food) doesn't happen in real life.
--
****************************************************
* 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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
01 Aug 2005 12:04:33 AM |
|
|
They weren't speciated, you imagined that, I simply said their in the
same population.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
01 Aug 2005 12:14:38 AM |
|
|
wrote:
They weren't speciated, you imagined that, I simply said their in the
same population.
They still were not the fittest. They were simply genetic mutations
that did not survive.
--
****************************************************
* 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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
01 Aug 2005 06:01:28 AM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com wrote:
They weren't speciated, you imagined that, I simply said their in the
same population.
They still were not the fittest. They were simply genetic mutations
that did not survive.
And when they did survive and reproduce it would simply be natural
selection.
Once again, it is shown that darwinists identify the workings of
natural selection with the result of optimal fitness.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
31 Jul 2005 05:05:51 PM |
|
|
On 31 Jul 2005 07:03:11 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
You just fail to see that when an organism is fitter, has a higher
chance of reproduction, it may still not reproduce, not realise that
chance.
That's well understood in evolution. Survival of the fittest is really a
statistical notion. By and large, the fittest will survive and pass on
their genes.
So we can all see that your conception of natural selection is tied to
a result, the result of the fittest coming to dominate the population.
No, this is your strawman of natural selection, which feeds back into your
attempt to foist a fallacious appeal to consequences on us.
If I made the scenario say that the thick furred creatures reproduced,
then you would have just acknowledge it as natural selection, no
problem.
If the climate becomes warmer, then selection is going to favor creatures
with thinner and/or lighter furs.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
31 Jul 2005 12:57:40 PM |
|
|
wrote:
The climate changes it becomes colder. There are a few thicker
furred animals in the population, who have a more economical
resource-use in the cold climate. The thick furred animals die
before reproducing, because they don't find enough food in the
barren climate, and the decimated but still greater majority
of thin furred animals sweep to fixation because some of them
did find the neccessary food.
Natural selection swept the less fit to fixation.
True or false?
False. The thin furred animals cannot survive the cold and they all
die, whereas the thicker furred animals can survive the cold and it is
those individuals which find the food, reproduce and perpetuate the
species.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
31 Jul 2005 12:25:06 AM |
|
|
On 30 Jul 2005 21:25:27 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
So natural selection may result in extinction of the fittest?
NAtural selection isn't a guarantee, it's a statistical observation.
So it is wrong to talk in terms of natural selection being opposed by
other forces or chance?
What does this question even mean? Natural selection is an observation that
the more fit tend to see their genes passed on more than the less fit.
Fitness is determined by environment, and thus is not some overarching
concept of perfection, but rather simply an observation that due to
inevitable variation in a population, some are better at surviving than
others. You might be the fittest human on the planet, but there's no
guarantee that a drunk driver might not crash through your window and crush
as you type.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
30 Jul 2005 10:29:38 PM |
|
|
More meaningless assertions of the objectivity of science. Hint, it's
not very credible that you assert the objectivity of science, when you
respond with anger when somebody questions the objectivity of a
specific theory. How can science be objective, when you not vigorously
try to root out the subjectivity from it?
"there was considerable crossfertilization of racial ideas between
"respectable" academics, and racial popularizers. (Klaus Fischer, Nazi
Germany)
the scientific method rigorously insures honesty (David Jensen, talk
origins)
Truth: the scientific method is weak to deal with events going one way
or another, decisions.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charles & Mambo Duckman" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
01 Aug 2005 02:44:44 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I misrepresent nothing, the theory of natural selection is prejudiced,
as I've been saying for many years, and now some philosophers of
biology are also saying it. And I've exactly showed how it is
prejudiced, how no Darwinist recognizes scenario's of the fittest going
extinct, when they are most likely to go extinct, as natural selection.
Thereby they identify the workings of natural selection with the goal
of the fittest dominating. So far on the evolutionist the argumenation
has been, "science is objective so it can't contain a prejudice".
Vacaous circular reasoning, just like arguing in terms of the standard
formulation of natural selection often results in tautological
circular reasoning.
Oh yeah, and besides vacaous circular reasoning as some kind of
argument, the typical response is also huge amounts of anger for
anybody who dare question the objectivity of Darwinist science. That
attitude of anger for anybody who questions the objectivity of
scientists explains why the fault continues to be in the theory for
150+ years. It also explains much the spread of racist eugenical
darwinism, anybody who stood in it's path being bullied away, like
William Jennings Bryan was.
Yup. Still a fucking nutjob.
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
30 Jul 2005 05:46:47 AM |
|
|
On 29 Jul 2005 22:17:21 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
I misrepresent nothing, the theory of natural selection is prejudiced,
as I've been saying for many years
again, as a chemist, i don't see the 'prejudice' in evolutionary
biology. YOU may object to it because of your medieval attitudes, but
SCIENTISTS don't object to it.
...
Thereby they identify the workings of natural selection with the goal
of the fittest dominating.
'goal'? 'dominating'? language. convenient language. if THAT'S your
objection, i suggest you take a few aspirin and lay down until the
feeling passes.
Oh yeah, and besides vacaous circular reasoning as some kind of
argument, the typical response is also huge amounts of anger for
anybody who dare question the objectivity of Darwinist science. That
attitude of anger for anybody who questions the objectivity of
scientists explains why the fault continues to be in the theory for
150+ years. It also explains much the spread of racist eugenical
darwinism, anybody who stood in it's path being bullied away, like
William Jennings Bryan was.
ever hear of phillip lenard, nobel physicist? he objected to
relativity because, he said, the laws of physics had to be 'racially
understood'.
the fact that some biologists were racist has NO effect on the
validity or objectivity of evolutionary biology.
your argument boils down to 'i don't like evolution so it can't be
true'.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
30 Jul 2005 01:14:44 AM |
|
|
On 29 Jul 2005 22:17:21 -0700, in talk.origins
"nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com" <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1122700641.646028.43940@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
I misrepresent nothing, the theory of natural selection is prejudiced,
as I've been saying for many years, and now some philosophers of
biology are also saying it. And I've exactly showed how it is
prejudiced, how no Darwinist recognizes scenario's of the fittest going
extinct, when they are most likely to go extinct, as natural selection.
Thereby they identify the workings of natural selection with the goal
of the fittest dominating. So far on the evolutionist the argumenation
has been, "science is objective so it can't contain a prejudice".
Vacaous circular reasoning, just like arguing in terms of the standard
formulation of natural selection often results in tautological
circular reasoning.
Oh yeah, and besides vacaous circular reasoning as some kind of
argument, the typical response is also huge amounts of anger for
anybody who dare question the objectivity of Darwinist science. That
attitude of anger for anybody who questions the objectivity of
scientists explains why the fault continues to be in the theory for
150+ years. It also explains much the spread of racist eugenical
darwinism, anybody who stood in it's path being bullied away, like
William Jennings Bryan was.
No. Every once in a while I look in on your comments to find out if you
have learned anything. It appears that you have not, you have no grasp
of science or integrity. Your dishonest, ignorant arguments are quite
tiresome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
30 Jul 2005 07:12:19 AM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
No. Every once in a while I look in on your comments to find out if you
have learned anything. It appears that you have not, you have no grasp
of science or integrity. Your dishonest, ignorant arguments are quite
tiresome.
More intimidating accusatory drivel of someone who can't handle the
history of darwinist racist pseudoscience. From the context I make out
that by integrity you mean, not to question the objectivity of
Darwinist scientists.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
30 Jul 2005 11:45:58 PM |
|
|
On 30 Jul 2005 05:12:19 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
No. Every once in a while I look in on your comments to find out if you
have learned anything. It appears that you have not, you have no grasp
of science or integrity. Your dishonest, ignorant arguments are quite
tiresome.
More intimidating accusatory drivel of someone who can't handle the
history of darwinist racist pseudoscience.
Because it's a lie, a bit of propaganda, an attempt to set up a fallacious
appeal to consequences.
From the context I make out
that by integrity you mean, not to question the objectivity of
Darwinist scientists.
You have no integrity. Anyone who continuously tries to use a logical
fallacy and a misrepresentation of history lacks honesty.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
30 Jul 2005 11:56:58 PM |
|
|
More intimidating accusatory drivel. You continuously try to assert the
objectivity of natural selection, while actually it illegitemately
carries a valueladen goal.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
31 Jul 2005 12:21:39 AM |
|
|
On 30 Jul 2005 21:56:58 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
More intimidating accusatory drivel.
Nobody's intimidating you.
You continuously try to assert the
objectivity of natural selection, while actually it illegitemately
carries a valueladen goal.
I continue to assert that you're full of ***** and trying to foist propaganda
on people. You're just simply a liar.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
31 Jul 2005 01:54:46 AM |
|
|
Yeah, you're simply a bully, ignorant too.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
31 Jul 2005 05:03:07 PM |
|
|
On 30 Jul 2005 23:54:46 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yeah, you're simply a bully, ignorant too.
Nobody is bullying you, Nando. Quit trying to claim your rhetorical
failures are the result of bullying. No one can bully you here. You can't
be turned off, you can't be beaten, and judging by your dull, repetitive
responses, no one can even make you make any sense.
You aren't a victim, Nando. Not at all.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
31 Jul 2005 05:16:37 PM |
|
|
On 31 Jul 2005 22:03:07 GMT, in talk.origins
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
<slrndeqimi.v5h.mightymartianca@nobody.here>:
On 30 Jul 2005 23:54:46 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yeah, you're simply a bully, ignorant too.
Nobody is bullying you, Nando. Quit trying to claim your rhetorical
failures are the result of bullying. No one can bully you here. You can't
be turned off, you can't be beaten, and judging by your dull, repetitive
responses, no one can even make you make any sense.
You aren't a victim, Nando. Not at all.
Of his own ignorance, surely.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
31 Jul 2005 11:03:42 PM |
|
|
Says the guy who's every other word is an insult, judgement of mental
condition, judgement of character or similar, "I can't bully".
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
01 Aug 2005 11:26:59 AM |
|
|
On 31 Jul 2005 21:03:42 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Says the guy who's every other word is an insult, judgement of mental
condition, judgement of character or similar, "I can't bully".
You really do have a martyr complex. On top of your propagandist nature it
makes you an altogether amusing, but horribly incompetent individual. Where
you get less amusing is when you start comparing people to Hitler.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
30 Jul 2005 10:07:47 AM |
|
|
On 30 Jul 2005 05:12:19 -0700, in talk.origins
"nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com" <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1122725539.478706.165250@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
No. Every once in a while I look in on your comments to find out if you
have learned anything. It appears that you have not, you have no grasp
of science or integrity. Your dishonest, ignorant arguments are quite
tiresome.
More intimidating accusatory drivel of someone who can't handle the
history of darwinist racist pseudoscience. From the context I make out
that by integrity you mean, not to question the objectivity of
Darwinist scientists.
As is clear to anyone who reads English, there is nothing intimidating
about what I wrote.
While it is true that many racists seized on the theory of evolution as
yet another excuse to claim that their bigotry was correct, they also
seized on religions and government actions to make the same claims. The
process of science is not and cannot be racist. You make that assertion,
but when asked to provide evidence to support your claim, you repeatedly
fail to provide that evidence.
So, before you make your claim again, please provide _evidence_ that the
study of evolution is racist. If your behavior is consistent, you will
fail, again, to provide this evidence, but you will also fail to
acknowledge that your claim is wrong, even libellous. Remember,
asserting that Darwin, as a creature of his time, might have been mildly
racist, is not evidence that the science of evolution is racist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
29 Jul 2005 05:49:53 PM |
|
|
On 28 Jul 2005 22:19:21 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
It is a common opinion among historians that the intellectual climate
of opinion that developed from the Darwinian revolution, occasioned a
man to reinterpret the bible in terms of a single few words of
"natural" law, "the strong should dominate the weak".
What a pity that that isn't what Darwin even said, and I actually don't need
to go even that far, because I dsipute your claim of common opinion.
It is your
delusion that it is only creationists who put the blame to the
darwinist discipline, because as we can all see, you hate creationists
no end.
Oh for goodness sake, now the murder of Jews and mocking Creationists are
somehow tied together? Nando, you amaze me. Just when I think you can't
get more idiotic and pathetic, you find a way to do so.
Again all your response consists of is to just mindlessly assert a few
times words to the effect that science is objective.
Mindlessly assert? I have repeatedly demonstrated that anti-Semitism was a
longstanding issue in Christian Europe, citing examples, and all you've done
is just say over and over that it's Darwinism's fault.
Below is what you have approved of as objective science by your
mindless standards of objectivity:
"and as natural selection works by and for the good of each being, each
physical and mental endowment will tend to progress towards perfection"
(C. Darwin, Origin of Species)
Not a passage I agree with at all, but I fail to see how it supports your
case in the least.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
29 Jul 2005 08:33:55 PM |
|
|
More baseless assertions of the objectivity of science. You're an
automaton of the scientific method, you haven't developed a sense of
judgement of what is objective. You just use your sense of judgement to
bully with, that typical "I call em as I see em" attitude. What you see
is your own prejudices.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charles & Mambo Duckman" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
01 Aug 2005 02:43:18 AM |
|
|
wrote:
More baseless assertions of the objectivity of science. You're an
automaton of the scientific method, you haven't developed a sense of
judgement of what is objective. You just use your sense of judgement to
bully with, that typical "I call em as I see em" attitude. What you see
is your own prejudices.
You're still a fucking nutjob.
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
29 Jul 2005 07:38:54 PM |
|
|
On 29 Jul 2005 22:49:53 GMT, AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 28 Jul 2005 22:19:21 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
It is a common opinion among historians that the intellectual climate
of opinion that developed from the Darwinian revolution, occasioned a
man to reinterpret the bible in terms of a single few words of
"natural" law, "the strong should dominate the weak".
What a pity that that isn't what Darwin even said, and I actually don't need
to go even that far, because I dsipute your claim of common opinion.
It is your
delusion that it is only creationists who put the blame to the
darwinist discipline, because as we can all see, you hate creationists
no end.
Oh for goodness sake, now the murder of Jews and mocking Creationists are
somehow tied together? Nando, you amaze me. Just when I think you can't
get more idiotic and pathetic, you find a way to do so.
Again all your response consists of is to just mindlessly assert a few
times words to the effect that science is objective.
Mindlessly assert? I have repeatedly demonstrated that anti-Semitism was a
longstanding issue in Christian Europe, citing examples, and all you've done
is just say over and over that it's Darwinism's fault.
Below is what you have approved of as objective science by your
mindless standards of objectivity:
"and as natural selection works by and for the good of each being, each
physical and mental endowment will tend to progress towards perfection"
(C. Darwin, Origin of Species)
Not a passage I agree with at all, but I fail to see how it supports your
case in the least.
Darwin used the word "perfection" perhaps differently than we do today.
Consider this from pp. 201-202 of _Origin_, 1st ed.:
Natural selection tends only to make each organic being as perfect
as, or slightly more perfect than, the other inhabitants of the
same country with which it has to struggle for existence. And we
see that this is the degree of perfection attained under nature.
The endemic productions of New Zealand, for instance, are perfect
one compared with another; but they are now rapidly yielding before
the advancing legions of plants and animals introduced from Europe.
Natural selection will not produce absolute perfection, nor do we
always meet, as far as we can judge, with this high standard under
nature. The correction for the aberration of light is said, on high
authority, not to be perfect even in that most perfect organ, the
eye.
<http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/origin1859/origin06.html>
Darwin meant the term as equivalent to what we might call "well-adapted"
and, even then, he recognized that it can only be measured in comparison to
the competition.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
It was not Darwin or Spencer who said that religion
could not withstand the shock of evolutionary theory,
it was ... the party that spoke in the name of religion.
- William LeSueur -
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
27 Jul 2005 12:44:07 PM |
|
|
On 27 Jul 2005 00:36:48 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
- natural selection posits the result of optimal fitness
No it does not.
- now I identify myself in terms of natural selection, I am an
organism, then my goal is optimal fitness
Your goal, in this context, is to pass on your genes.
It doesn't matter I don't like ugly people, if ugly people are more
fit, then I should achieve the result of ugly people dominating the
population, as the goal nature has given me, but actually Darwinism.
Generally speaking any sexual species has a range of traits that make
partners acceptable. Appearance is an important behavorial consideration,
but not the only one.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Merrill" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
26 Jul 2005 03:46:48 PM |
|
|
Dabbler wrote:
.....
"Optimal fitness" or the "most fit" doesn't mean the
smartest, the strongest, the fastest, or the best looking. It simply
means that the one to reproduce is the one that is most fit. It could
be the slowest in the group, or the ugliest, or something else that
gives it the opportunity to reproduce.
That would be more correct if you added "... while the environment
remains the same."
For an example, while the strongest males in the group fight each other
for the right to mate, a small weak male that posed no threat and was
therefore ignored sneaks in during the confusion and mounts the female
becoming the most fit because he was the one to pass on his DNA. He
wasn't the strongest but he was the "most fit" to complete the
task. After many generations the males become smaller and weaker
because of this.
That would be more correct if you added "... until the others catch him!-)"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 08:39:01 AM |
|
|
wrote:
And, with much patience, I've shown you about 10 times how Darwinists
identify the workings of natural selection with the goal of the fittest
coming to dominate the population.
That is incorrect for a few reasons.
1. My guess is the last darwinist died about 50-75 years ago, so why are
you using such outdated thinking to criticize modern evolutionary
biology? Of course there may be the odd one or two Darwinists still
alive so why not identify them for us, and explain why you think they
would accept being describes as a Darwinist?
2. You have shown nothing, you have occasionally trotted out some fariy
tale species that you supply your own parameters to, and then show how
the natural consequence of those paramenters supports your ideas. Then
you assume that this then applies to all species all the time.
The assertion that there is no goal inherent to the theory is based on
nothing more then say-so.
Well why not support that statement and quote someone directly involved
in evolutionary science who agrees with you?
We've always had the evidence of Darwinists
talking in valueladen terms, now we have the evidence of exactly where
in the framework of natural selection this valueladen talk comes from.
It comes from illegitemately positing a goal of optimal fitness, where
we can easily see that that the underlying process does not have this
tendency, because the process is commonly most likely to result in the
less fit sweeping to fixation.
Your repeated use of the meaningless term "Darwinist" is rather telling.
And your evidence for those assertions would be? Because you keep making
statements like those above, but it's sad how there is never any
citations or references to back them up, only rarely, is there a second
or third hand quote from someone who thinks he knows what someone else
said, and meant, when he said it.
It is regrettable that you sustain a fault which makes one of the main
theories in science to be a kind of ideology, supporting related
ideologies.
I disagree, nothing ideological about NS and evolution, just plain old
science, done in the real world, on real species, using understandable
and demonstrable ideas. But be that as it may, if your ideas are
correct, how would anyone know, you do not relate them to the real
world, you do not define your terms and you do not supply any evidence
for all the statements you make. What a winner. The only person in the
world who understands the truth of NS and evolution, and you are going
to take it to the grave, because you're not telling. Is it really so
important to you to go around thinking you have this great big secret, I
mean, how old are you, twelve?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 10:09:17 AM |
|
|
If you do not wish to know of any decision in 15.000.000.000 years of
history stick with Darwinism, if you wish to know some of them, turn to
creationism.
If only it is a speck of dust ending up here in stead of there, a fly
turning left in stead of right, a leaf falling now in stead of a second
later, anything, keep your eyes peeled for any scientific text that
traces back a probablity right down to the decisionpoint at which the
probability was set. Then memorize it, emblazon it in your mind, and by
itteration of the phenomenon to the appearance of all things, you have
a basic sense of the creationist view on things. Then you may begin to
wonder, well aren't there any bigger decisions then a leaf falling or
not, like the earth coming to be or not, or fishes coming to be or not,
or plants? Do these probabilities culminate gradually, or do they leap
and bound?
And then you may find, this view in terms of decision gives the
neccessary oxygen for a spiritual view on nature, where you relate to
the owners of these decisions, and ask "Why?", why this way and not the
other?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 03:39:26 PM |
|
|
wrote:
If you do not wish to know of any decision in 15.000.000.000 years of
history stick with Darwinism, if you wish to know some of them, turn to
creationism.
If only it is a speck of dust ending up here in stead of there, a fly
turning left in stead of right, a leaf falling now in stead of a second
later, anything, keep your eyes peeled for any scientific text that
traces back a probablity right down to the decisionpoint at which the
probability was set. Then memorize it, emblazon it in your mind, and by
itteration of the phenomenon to the appearance of all things, you have
a basic sense of the creationist view on things. Then you may begin to
wonder, well aren't there any bigger decisions then a leaf falling or
not, like the earth coming to be or not, or fishes coming to be or not,
or plants? Do these probabilities culminate gradually, or do they leap
and bound?
You've the essence of evolutionism, really.
0 + 1 = A
A + 1 = B
B + 1 = C
C + 1 = D
D + 1 = E
E + 1 = F
F + 1 = G
G + 1 = H
Then something happens that causes a split off. H has two siblings, HA
and HB.
Now:
HA + 1 = HAA
HB + 1 = HBA
....
HUMAM + 1 = HUMAN
HAL + 1 = HAM
Oh, look, we've arrived at humans, and ham, from the sam "common
ancestor," "H." That is essentially how evolution works, though it's a
bit more complicated than that.
And then you may find, this view in terms of decision gives the
neccessary oxygen for a spiritual view on nature, where you relate to
the owners of these decisions, and ask "Why?", why this way and not the
other?
Here is the answer to that question of "Why?"
Why not?
--
****************************************************
* 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 *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
