Is Syamsu a creationist or an evolutionist?

Well I would say that you and PaulK are quite obviously dishonest?Anyone agree?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I answered that question in the elitism and nazism thread already, which nobody here reads that well apparently.....http://EvC Forum: Elitism and Nazism -->EvC Forum: Elitism and Nazismregards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 09-18-2003]

quote:

---

I'm sure I have been clear enough about what my argument is already, enlessly repeating it would weaken my argument. [sic]

​

The creation vs evolution controversy is essentially political IMO, I count myself as a creationist. For as far as the science of it goes, I'm sure that creation is true as a principle to get something from zero, on the other hand evolution seems still very questionable to me.

---

Why don't we drop it, folks? I'm as much to blame here as anyone, but enough is enough. Zephyr was absolutely correct when he said:

quote:

---

How many times has Syamsu been bashed over the head with the fact of competition among varying organisms?
He doesn't get it. He ignores it whenever anyone points out that there are limited resources in any ecosystem, predators that will eat the slowest and most obvious prey, and myriad other factors that produce the "differential" success of variants. I can't explain his insistence on removing this vital aspect of fitness, but it's a fact, and nothing seems to change it.

---

Same goes for his conflation of Darwin and Hitler.Has he ever offered anything worthwhile to the discussion? Has he ever taken evidence against his bizarre theories into account instead of merely denying its existence?I'm done with him.------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

Yes, that is about as clear as you usually get, anyone other than Syamsu have any idea what this actually means?

Thank you, for digging that statement out of the many (729 at the moment) messages you have posted.{Note: Statement is quoted in message 19, above).Moose

I explained this before, there wouldn't be a creation vs evolution controversy IMO if it weren't for the politics associated to Natural Selection. I mean there might still have been a controversy in the backhalls of some university if there weren't much of any politics associated to Natural Selection, but it would have no signficant societal interest IMO.I've also explained several times how Creation can be true, and trivialize evolution. By tracing the likelyhood of any particular creature coming to be. So for instance we could possibly trace back in time the likelyhood of humans coming to be to a single creation event, where the formation of humans whole became a relative certainty from that single creation event onwards.Some days ago I read some paper about an organism reverting back to a pre-meiotic stage before evolving. That reminded me of Salty, and how the shaky evidence of evolution theory can still be covered by many very different descriptions.edited to add:I think the Scopes trial is an excellent arena to stake your position on creation vs evolution. The scientific community at large supported Scopes, ignoring, neglecting or supporting the eugenic textbook teacher Scopes teached from, which eugenics Bryant explicitely argued against.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 09-18-2003]

Tihs snouds lkie amlsot etcxaly the same thnig you just dineed bnivleieg in the otehr tarehd. Why do you tihnk the use of the troehy of eoutvoiln by eesgticinus, or even by evtooisnuilts, bears in any way on the vliadity of the theroy isletf.--Precy

Are you testing out the theory from that recently circulating email?I tnihk it wroks jsut fnie msot of the tmie, but wehn uesd essxceviely can bcoeme ditinrstcag and diciffult to dphecidr.

quote:

---

I explained this before, there wouldn't be a creation vs evolution controversy IMO if it weren't for the politics associated to Natural Selection.

---

At this forum, this would seem to be the opinion held by you, and perhaps 1 or 2 others.I doubt that even 5% of the creationist side would agree with the above quoted.Moose

You tend to ignore the politics, I tend to ignore the science. I think you are the more foolish to ignore that Scopes teached from a eugenics textbook, or to treat that fact as somehow subordinate in importance to the question if or not evolution theory is scientifically valid.Most all Christians and some Muslism I've seen are mainly focused on the immoral beliefs associated to Natural Selection / evolution. I don't think this is just 5 percent, but 99 percent, who find this aspect most important.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You are the one who made a statement that paulK was misleading me, PaulK presented his evidence in the form of your own words supporting exactly what he said...and you claim we are dishonest...you don't seem to even accept your own words but maybe you could clear the entire matter up if you are not to busy doing laundry..or telling lies

Yes folks..we have it....understatement of the century!

quote:

---

I tend to ignore the science.

---

Every time you post you show your belief that facts are just neutral to be a fairytale. You are simply quite dishonest, manipulating evidence to the conclusion you like, and I have no reason to assume you don't act exactly the same way in your practice of science.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Every time you post you show your belief that facts are just neutral to be a fairytale.

---

Allele frequencies in populations change over time..that is a fact and it is neutral whether I post it or anyone else does...or are you going to show us all a partisan fact regarding natural selection?

quote:

---

You are simply quite dishonest, manipulating evidence to the conclusion you like, and I have no reason to assume you don't act exactly the same way in your practice of science.

---

You are in no position to question my honesty or my practice of science. You are the one who made a racist statement and then denied it even in the face of your own words...so you are a liar....you are also a hypocrite because you claim that you are worried about "judgemental language in science" yet in every post you yourself put yourself above all others and claim to be able to judge them....you could use a heavy dose of reality....that is if you have time to spare from doing that mountain of laundry that prevents you from researching support for your assertions or ignoring the science.

Don't mock doing laundry, that stuffs just piles up you know, I blame personal hygiene, think how much less washing you would need to do if you only wore 2 pairs of socks a week.