BBC hates nature
nando_r...@yahoo.com
of grassy meadow in terms of a bloodcurling struggle for survival.
This is not science anymore just Nazism. This bloodthirsty vision of
nature is not accurate, meadows are not really like this, it is just
the Nazi view of things. Pure evil. Its crystal clear the Darwinists
caused the holocaust by teaching the Hitler youth natural selection.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Inez
That's why I have a communist lawn- I like the bugs to all share.
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I saw 7 minutes of a BBC documentary. They managed to portray a piece
> of grassy meadow in terms of a bloodcurling struggle for survival.
> This is not science anymore just Nazism.
nando is worried about offending grass and birds.
in the meantime, he advocates denying christians the right to practice
their religion if it offends muslims.
such is the creationist view of freedom
This bloodthirsty vision of
> nature is not accurate, meadows are not really like this
does nando know how many animals die before they reproduce?
no. he worries more about frogs and birds than he does about humans
typical creationist
, it is just
> the Nazi view of things. Pure evil. Its crystal clear the Darwinists
> caused the holocaust by teaching the Hitler youth natural selection.
>
i suggest nando read a document entitled 'dabru emet'. written by 200
jewish scholars, it says 'although christianity did not CAUSE the
holocaust, without the existence of chrstian antisemitism, the shoah
could never have happened'.
and the most anti semitic people in the world today? muslims
so nando
1. whitewashes current islamic antisemitism
2. advocates the oppression of christians and jews
3. whitewashes historical causes of the shoah
all in the name of his perverted religion of creationism
Burkhard
sigh, you discover Nazism at all the wrong places, it seems. Here a
bot of Nazism when they were not cozying up with Christians:
"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why
didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for
the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would
have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it
have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"
(Adolf Hitler, quoted by Albert Speer, p. 96, Inside the Third Reich.
David Hare-Scott
Never looked down a microscope have you?
David
Mike Painter
Tell us what meadows are like.
Are those spiders vegatarians?
When that wasp drops suddenly is it taking food to a sick ant?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
for survival.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The BBC says weed out the Jews from the meadow in the holy struggle
> for survival.
>
no, you have the BBC mixed up with the muslim grand mufti of jerusalem
who invited eichmann during the war to discuss establishing
concentration camps to kill jews.
Friar Broccoli
I use pesticides so the survivors can enjoy abundance.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> of grassy meadow in terms of a bloodcurling struggle for survival.
> This is not science anymore just Nazism. This bloodthirsty vision of
> nature is not accurate, meadows are not really like this,
You are somebody's lunch, waiting to happen.
> it is just
> the Nazi view of things. Pure evil. Its crystal clear the Darwinists
> caused the holocaust by teaching the Hitler youth natural selection.
Darwin and his theory of natural selection were never mentioned in any
known speech of Hitler, nor in Mein Kampf. He talked about God a lot,
though.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
My cute little pussy cat would occasionally leave headless mice in our
living room. Is she a Nazi? She's old now; if she were feral she'd
have been coyote food some time ago. Good thing she's living with a
compassionate atheist evolutionist(1).
(1) I'm not actually an evolutionist; I'm not a scientist of any kind.
Kermit
nando_r...@yahoo.com
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
redd...@bresnan.net
Nando, how about this....
Take a trip to Africa, or maybe India. Find the largest carnivore
you can, a lion, tiger, or crocodile. Ask that carnivore to decide
not to eat you. Report back your findings.
DJT
nando_r...@yahoo.com
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
wf3h
yeah. creationism does that. glad to see you're finally wising up
redd...@bresnan.net
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You go stand in line in Auschwitz and see if the doctor lets you live.
My point is that nature is a violent place, and just because you don't
like it, it doesn't make it any less violent. Trying to claim that
struggle for existence doesn't exist in nature is foolish.
The people who ran the camp at Auschwitz were not acting that way
because nature is violent. They acted that way because they were
humans who believed in a foolish notion of "might makes right".
The problem is not with nature, or science, but believing foolish
notions.
DJT
nando_r...@yahoo.com
fantasy.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There is no struggle for survival, it does not take place, it is a
> fantasy.
nando's never seen a dead animal apparently. to him, the world is oz.
wf3h
> fantasy.
>
> regards,
incidentally, nando, a real world observation
in my back yard, there is a koi pond. this past summer 2 frogs mated
and laid their eggs in the koi pond.
the bottom of the pond was black...absolutely covered with tadpoles
thousands of them
do you know how many escaped being eaten?
zero. none. not a single one survived. so unless you consider being
eaten a fantasy, there is a struggle for survival in the natural world
Will in New Haven
> for survival.
Did you read that in _The Book of Arab Feats of Arms_ The chapters
that come after 1500 are blank pages. .
I would appeal to someone OTHER than the god of battle were I you
guys.
--
Will in New Haven
Will in New Haven
> fantasy.
You are, and this is a tough decision, the biggest idiot on UseNet. I
know it's a high honor and I think you should celebrate by killing
yourself.
Vend
That would be Lysenkoism.
Shhh! Didn't you read the memos? We are supposed to pay lip service to
free-market economy until the biologists find a way to resurrect
Lenin's body.
Greg G.
wrote:
Don't be like that. Let's suggest that he visit a zoo with some large
predators. Then he should pet a tiger, a lion, a bear, and/or a
crocodile. Then he might see if there is a struggle for survival. He
would give his arm the freedom to be _free_, to decide who it wants to
be with.
VoiceOfReason
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Wow. Goodwin's law in the very first post.
Nothing left to do except an autopsy
> I saw 7 minutes of a BBC documentary.
Let me get thi straight... A *Whole Seven Minutes" of a BBC
documentary.
> They managed to portray a piece
> of grassy meadow in terms of a bloodcurling struggle for survival.
That's "bloodcurdling". Aside from that, so what?
> This is not science anymore just Nazism.
Now, that's a jump of illogic. It doesn't matter if the "meadow" was
the wcene of a lion taking down an impala, or a spider catching a
butterfly, or a toad eating a beetle, that's reality. How that
becomes "Nazism" is beyond rational thought.
> This bloodthirsty vision of
> nature is not accurate,
It's not?
> meadows are not really like this,
It's not?
> it is just
> the Nazi view of things.
How, pray tell, is reporting the facts of life in a meadow, a "Nazi
fiew of things"?
> Pure evil.
How so?
> Its crystal clear the Darwinists
> caused the holocaust by teaching the Hitler youth natural selection.
Yet, odd as it may seem to idiots, like you, I accept NS as part of
the ToE, and have no desire to see anyone persecuted and murdered, not
even Muslim extremists as a group, the way the Jews were persecuted
and murdered by the Nazis.
So, Brainiac, how do you explain that?
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Steven J.
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The BBC says weed out the Jews from the meadow in the holy struggle
> for survival.
>
assuming that "dandelion" is a BBC codeword for "Jew?"
Mohammad, if the BBC hates (presumably nonhuman) nature, why would
they want people to imitate nonhuman nature? Why does pointing out
that life is full of competition and struggle mean that we ought to
try to increase the amount of struggle and suffering in the world?
You might as well argue that a documentary on the Arctic implies that
we all ought to turn the thermostat down to freezing and keep polar
bears in the home.
Surely your own frequent complaint that evolution denies free will (at
least for nonsentient entities like electrons, asteroids, and trees)
implies that evolution cannot want anything from us; it cannot have
goals that we could embrace or adopt (or resist, for that matter).
Even if it could, that by itself would not give us any reason to
adopt its goals for our own. And, of course, a purely mechanistic
explanation for biological complexity and diversity rather undercuts
the idea that natural selection could be "holy," any more than gravity
or electromagnetism could be.
Your reasoning on this issue is rather confused.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
-- Steven J.
Devils Advocaat
Can you name this documentary and when it was aired?
Devils Advocaat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
theory is great, nature however is a piece of crap.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Boikat
> for survival.
Bullshit.
Boikat
Boikat
wrote:
Now, now. Let's not go down that road. The bugger may just be that
mentally ill.
But I agree, he's doing his best to remain a notch more insane that
adman. Maybe nando feels his hand sculpted throne of bullshit is
being threatened?
Boikat
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There is no struggle for survival, it does not take place, it is a
> fantasy.
Clearly, you need to watch more than 7 minutes of nature
documentaries. But then there's the danger of your mind exploding as
you watch some prey animal do it'd damndest to outrun a predator. You
might say it's "struggling for existence". You might have a spark of
understanding, then all the methane from the bullshit decaying in your
skull would go "Whooooooph!"
But then again, what you're probably trying to do is place a "good/
evil" moral value slant on the realty of the natural world. That is
also incredibly stupid. Is the lion "evil" because it kills a
gazelle? Is a spider "evil" because it catches and eats a butterfly
in it's web? How is that "evil"? Or, are you *that* screwed up in
the head?
Boikat
Boikat
<nando mode: on>
Killer Nazis in the Back yard.
> and when it was aired?
Right after I smoked a whole kilo of "herbs" and ate some little green
and red pills.
<nando mode: Off>
Boikat
Burkhard
Obviously, animals live together in peace and harmony. Spiders and
flies enjoy a good scrabble evening. Then a vile BBC report comes.
He knows that gore drives up the viewing figures (you ever watched
"fierce creatures" with Cleese?). First he ingratiates himself with
them, gives them lots of alcohol. Then he takes out his checkbook and
tells them: if you act out really brutal spider-eats fly scenes, this
can all be yours. Checkbook journalism at its worst. Under lots of
giggling and laughing, spider and fly act out a brutal "eat the
weaker" scene. Stupid BBC audience is fooled into believing than
nature is not a place where animals choose to be real nice and
friendly all the time, as they have been told by their creator.
PS: Steaks bought in supermarkets grow on trees, did you know that?
Thurisaz the Einherjer
Syamsu arsefucking a male hooker in a dark alley, all the while
shouting "Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!". That proves it is a piece of worthless
nazi scum.
And if you now cry out in anger that "this is nonsense, you have not a shred
of evidence supporting your claim!!!"...
...then you just described the problems with your own pathetic little story.
Live and learn.
If you can.
Moron.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Nomen Publicus
> I saw 7 minutes of a BBC documentary. They managed to portray a piece
> of grassy meadow in terms of a bloodcurling struggle for survival.
But that's exactly what the experiment demonstrated (apart from the lack of
a central organising body that you assume next.)
> This is not science anymore just Nazism. This bloodthirsty vision of
> nature is not accurate, meadows are not really like this, it is just
> the Nazi view of things. Pure evil. Its crystal clear the Darwinists
> caused the holocaust by teaching the Hitler youth natural selection.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Ever seen Honey I Shrank The Kids?
>
--
Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church
Steven J.
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The final judgement of the BBC, Darwin is great, natural selection
> theory is great, nature however is a piece of crap.
>
prey, and where most individuals born don't survive to adulthood.
Shouldn't you be directing your complaints about that to Allah rather
than to Charles Darwin and the BBC?
richardal...@googlemail.com
...which is evidently all the education you have ever had in science
in general and evolutionary theory in particular.
Pity none of it stuck.
RF
<snipped>
Ernest Major
<2da6b2fe-7a29-48d3...@x13g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> writes
>The BBC says weed out the Jews from the meadow in the holy struggle
>for survival.
>
>Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
You ought to stop trying to put anti-semitic opinions into the mouths of
others; it's immoral, unblblical (I presume it's condemned by the Koran
as well), and makes you look like an anti-semite.
--
alias Ernest Major
Dogma Discharge
"Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:72bb220a-fe70-4563...@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 6, 1:31 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 5 Mar, 23:09, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I saw 7 minutes of a BBC documentary. They managed to portray a piece
> > of grassy meadow in terms of a bloodcurling struggle for survival.
> > This is not science anymore just Nazism. This bloodthirsty vision of
> > nature is not accurate, meadows are not really like this, it is just
> > the Nazi view of things. Pure evil. Its crystal clear the Darwinists
> > caused the holocaust by teaching the Hitler youth natural selection.
Hey, the 'fundies say the darndest things' website just got another quote!
Surely Nando is not *this* mad! Goodgads!
Iain
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There is no struggle for survival, it does not take place, it is a
> fantasy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqpLF-KS8BI
--Iain
Bruce Stephens
> Foster an enormous amount of hate -> bloody genocide.
In the UK there's a law against inciting religious hatred:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006>.
So (quite apart from other regulations the BBC has as a public service
broadcaster) if they're doing what you claim then they're breaking UK
law, and you should present your evidence.
Erwin Moller
> I saw 7 minutes of a BBC documentary. They managed to portray a piece
> of grassy meadow in terms of a bloodcurling struggle for survival.
> This is not science anymore just Nazism. This bloodthirsty vision of
> nature is not accurate, meadows are not really like this, it is just
> the Nazi view of things. Pure evil. Its crystal clear the Darwinists
> caused the holocaust by teaching the Hitler youth natural selection.
>
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
Nature doesn't care for your moral verdict.
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
nando_r...@yahoo.com
real?
What is the mathematical formulation of "struggle"?
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
John S. Wilkins
"I should premise that I use the term Struggle for Existence in a large
and metaphorical sense, including dependence of one being on another,
and including (which is more important) not only the life of the
individual, but success in leaving progeny. Two canine animals in a time
of dearth, may be truly said to struggle with each other which shall get
food and live. But a plant on the edge of a desert is said to struggle
for life against the drought, though more properly it should be said to
be dependent on the moisture. A plant which annually produces a thousand
seeds, of which on an average only one comes to maturity, may be more
truly said to struggle with the plants of the same and other kinds which
already clothe the ground. The missletoe is dependent on the apple and a
few other trees, but can only in a far-fetched sense be said to struggle
with these trees, for if too many of these parasites grow on the same
tree, it will languish and die. But several seedling missletoes, growing
close together on the same branch, may more truly be said to struggle
with each other. As the missletoe is disseminated by birds, its
existence depends on birds; and it may metaphorically be said to
struggle with other fruit-bearing plants, in order to tempt birds to
devour and thus disseminate its seeds rather than those of other plants.
In these several senses, which pass into each other, I use for
convenience sake the general term of struggle for existence." Origin of
Species, first edition, p62f
All you had to do was read it...
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
TomS
<6a9d7437-95e2-4449...@j39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
nando_r...@yahoo.com stated..."
>
>So is the "struggle" that Darwinists talk about a metaphore or is it
>real?
>
>What is the mathematical formulation of "struggle"?
dx/dt
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
wf3h
> So is the "struggle" that Darwinists talk about a metaphore or is it
> real?
>
> What is the mathematical formulation of "struggle"?
>
percentage of organisms that die before reproducing. in the case i
observed, it was 100%.
and why do you think being eaten is not a 'struggle for survival'?
Nomen Publicus
> So is the "struggle" that Darwinists talk about a metaphore or is it
> real?
Real
>
> What is the mathematical formulation of "struggle"?
>
If you had bothered to watch the next program (Darwin's Dangerous Idea) you
would have seen it.
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
--
Gustaf Lindborg: The sailor does not pray for wind, he learns to sail
nando_r...@yahoo.com
a metaphore.
But that BBC presenter wasn't using it metaphorically, he was using it
in conjunction with qualifiers such as "ruthless" and "brutal".
"ruthless" and "brutal" are not metaphores for mathematical
expressions.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Phil
> So there is not really a struggle for survival in nature, that is just
> a metaphore.
>
Again we have strong evidence that you can't be bothered to read the
replies of anyone who patiently and courteously answers your questions.
wf3h
IOW because of the limitations of thought imposed by your religious
beliefs, you're not able to understand metaphors...
you have the same problem sean pitman has...inability to think for
yourself.
Boikat
> So is the "struggle" that Darwinists talk about a metaphore or is it
> real?
>
The struggle is real enough, but not in the moral context you are
trying to assign it.
> What is the mathematical formulation of "struggle"?
What makes you think there is, or even needs to be, a mathematical
formulation for "struggle"? Do you plan on whinging some stupidity
about "If it can't be expressed mathematically, it's not science", or
something equally stupid?
Boikat
Boikat
> So there is not really a struggle for survival in nature, that is just
> a metaphore.
>
You're stupid.
> But that BBC presenter wasn't using it metaphorically, he was using it
> in conjunction with qualifiers such as "ruthless" and "brutal".
> "ruthless" and "brutal" are not metaphores for mathematical
> expressions.
Mathematical expressions have nothing to do with it. I smell straw.
Boikat
Walter Bushell
TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 07:03:08 -0800 (PST), in article
> <6a9d7437-95e2-4449...@j39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> nando_r...@yahoo.com stated..."
> >
> >So is the "struggle" that Darwinists talk about a metaphore or is it
> >real?
> >
> >What is the mathematical formulation of "struggle"?
>
> dx/dt
and remember d(Hi)/d(Hoe)=d(Hi)/d(Roe)*d(Roe)/d(Hoe)
Mitchell Coffey
> "On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 07:03:08 -0800 (PST), in article
> nando_rontel...@yahoo.com stated..."
>
>
>
> >So is the "struggle" that Darwinists talk about a metaphore or is it
> >real?
>
> >What is the mathematical formulation of "struggle"?
>
> dx/dt
That of course being the generalized model.
Mitchell
Walter Bushell
<cf95730a-ebf3-4b04...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Obviously, animals live together in peace and harmony. Spiders and
> flies enjoy a good scrabble evening.
I remember a cartoon. A lion and a Zebra are face to face a couple of
feet apart. The Zebra is saying "I give up, 'What is black and white and
red all over?'".
The zebra cannot make a social call on the lion, "Hello Mr. Lion, how
are wives and kittens?".
Walter Bushell
Well yes, McDonnell's has produced a documentary that shows hamburgers
growing on trees.
Walter Bushell
<f0f8edef-86cf-485d...@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 8:45 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > There is no struggle for survival, it does not take place, it is a
> > fantasy.
>
> You are, and this is a tough decision, the biggest idiot on UseNet. I
> know it's a high honor and I think you should celebrate by killing
> yourself.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
We rename him "Nano" for the size of his brain?
Inez
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The BBC says weed out the Jews from the meadow in the holy struggle
> for survival.
>
That's a rather disturbing thought.
Walter Bushell
<6856e017-e828-4a9e...@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 6:37 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The BBC says weed out the Jews from the meadow in the holy struggle
> > for survival.
>
> Did you read that in _The Book of Arab Feats of Arms_ The chapters
> that come after 1500 are blank pages. .
>
> I would appeal to someone OTHER than the god of battle were I you
> guys.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
Er, in 1683 the Turkish Army lay siege to Vienna and might have sacked
the city, but the bakers beat them.
At least up to that time a resident of what used to be Constantinople
would consider the world to revolve around that city and empire and
Europe a side show.
Devils Advocaat
> On 6 Mar, 07:31, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > There is no struggle for survival, it does not take place, it is a
> > > fantasy.
>
> > > Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
> > What do you think happens in nature?
>
> Obviously, animals live together in peace and harmony. Spiders and
> flies enjoy a good scrabble evening. Then a vile BBC report comes.
> He knows that gore drives up the viewing figures (you ever watched
> "fierce creatures" with Cleese?). First he ingratiates himself with
> them, gives them lots of alcohol. Then he takes out his checkbook and
> tells them: if you act out really brutal spider-eats fly scenes, this
> can all be yours. Checkbook journalism at its worst. Under lots of
> giggling and laughing, spider and fly act out a brutal "eat the
> weaker" scene. Stupid BBC audience is fooled into believing than
> nature is not a place where animals choose to be real nice and
> friendly all the time, as they have been told by their creator.
>
> PS: Steaks bought in supermarkets grow on trees, did you know that?
So I guess that porkchops grow on ambushes do they? :P
And I would imagine dairy produce can be harvested from the
milkwort? :P
Actually methinks beef is woven from the fibres of the cowslip. :P
The list could go on and on. lol
Steven L.
It would be even more disturbing, if he had "American Idol" inside his head.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
> I saw 7 minutes of a BBC documentary. They managed to portray a piece
> of grassy meadow in terms of a bloodcurling struggle for survival.
> This is not science anymore just Nazism. This bloodthirsty vision of
> nature is not accurate, meadows are not really like this, it is just
> the Nazi view of things.
You keep posting that stuff,
and those ants in your meadow are going to consider humans an inferior
species--thanks to you.
Will in New Haven
> In article
> <6856e017-e828-4a9e-a63d-7de5bb732...@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 5, 6:37 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > The BBC says weed out the Jews from the meadow in the holy struggle
> > > for survival.
>
> > Did you read that in _The Book of Arab Feats of Arms_ The chapters
> > that come after 1500 are blank pages. .
>
> > I would appeal to someone OTHER than the god of battle were I you
> > guys.
>
> > --
> > Will in New Haven
>
> Er, in 1683 the Turkish Army lay siege to Vienna and might have sacked
> the city, but the bakers beat them.
>
> At least up to that time a resident of what used to be Constantinople
> would consider the world to revolve around that city and empire and
> Europe a side show.
The Turks never were Arabs. If the Ottomens were still in control in
1947 the Jews would have a nice little enclave where they would be
allowed to run their own affairs and their neighbors would have
_liked_ it. For that matter, the Jews would not have complained
either.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
real or just metaphorical. Is there a struggle or not.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
bunch of rocks roll down a hill may that be said to be a struggle to
roll down the farthest. So is the Darwinian struggle for survival
equally unreal, or is it more real.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lets take the old rocks rolling down the hill example again. If a
> bunch of rocks roll down a hill may that be said to be a struggle to
> roll down the farthest. So is the Darwinian struggle for survival
> equally unreal, or is it more real.
>
since rocks aren't alive there is no 'survival'.
and you seem to be as dumb as a bag of rocks.
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is unclear to everybody if the Darwinian struggle for survival is
> real or just metaphorical. Is there a struggle or not.
>
it's clear to me. speak for yourself.
Friar Broccoli
> bunch of rocks roll down a hill may that be said to be a struggle to
> roll down the farthest. So is the Darwinian struggle for survival
> equally unreal, or is it more real.
The rocks we see today are much like the rocks we would
have seen 500 million years ago.
Very few species we see today look anything like those
we would have seen 500 million years ago. More than
99% of the species that have ever existed have gone
extinct.
Do you think the individuals in the species that went
extinct gave up without a struggle?
Will in New Haven
Please. His example is a "bunch of rocks." And it isn't nice to call
people dumb.
He is as smart as a bunch of rocks.
--
Will in New Haven
"I agree with Nando" - Box o' Hammers
John S. Wilkins
A hard roe to hoe.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
John S. Wilkins
> Inez wrote:
> > On Mar 5, 3:37 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> The BBC says weed out the Jews from the meadow in the holy struggle
> >> for survival.
> >>
> > I didn't know that the voices in your head have their own BBC show.
> > That's a rather disturbing thought.
>
> It would be even more disturbing, if he had "American Idol" inside his head.
What would be most upsetting is if "American Idol" ever found its way
into *my* head.
Dana Tweedy
> There is no struggle for survival, it does not take place, it is a
> fantasy.
Then you should be in no danger from those predators I mentioned. When do
you expect to make your field study?
DJT
Mark Isaak
> So is the "struggle" that Darwinists talk about a metaphore or is it
> real?
Both. And according to the Bible, it's what god wants.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
wf3h
wrote:
> On Mar 6, 3:16 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 6, 3:08 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Lets take the old rocks rolling down the hill example again. If a
> > > bunch of rocks roll down a hill may that be said to be a struggle to
> > > roll down the farthest. So is the Darwinian struggle for survival
> > > equally unreal, or is it more real.
>
> > since rocks aren't alive there is no 'survival'.
>
> > and you seem to be as dumb as a bag of rocks.
>
> Please. His example is a "bunch of rocks." And it isn't nice to call
> people dumb.
>
> He is as smart as a bunch of rocks.
>
falling down a mountain :-)
nando_r...@yahoo.com
ruthless, brutal struggle is a hate fanatic. And the BBC wasnt
asserting metaphore, they were asserting it was really true because it
is science, contrasting it with socalled metaphorical fairytales like
creationism.
Normal people dont like ruthless, brutal struggle, which is why normal
people come to hate nature (hate everything) on accepting Darwinism.
Creationists on the other hand come to see the decisions in nature,
and the judgements on nature of creationists are generally kind, and
understanding, and full of glorification for the acts of creation.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
XaurreauX
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I saw 7 minutes of a BBC documentary. They managed to portray a piece
> of grassy meadow in terms of a bloodcurling struggle for survival.
> This is not science anymore just Nazism. This bloodthirsty vision of
> nature is not accurate, meadows are not really like this, it is just
> caused the holocaust by teaching the Hitler youth natural selection.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Did you use your dung hand while typing this?
Dana Tweedy
> Anybody that portrays a meadow as basically operating in terms of
> ruthless, brutal struggle is a hate fanatic.
Or an observer of nature.
>And the BBC wasnt
> asserting metaphore, they were asserting it was really true because it
> is science, contrasting it with socalled metaphorical fairytales like
> creationism.
Creationism is a fairy tale, but that doesn't affect the fact that there is
life and death struggles in any meadow. Nature is a rough place, and
natural laws don't have any pity.
>
> Normal people dont like ruthless, brutal struggle, which is why normal
> people come to hate nature (hate everything) on accepting Darwinism.
It's irrelevant if someone likes, or doesn't like how nature works. I
don't know of anyone who both accepts evolution, and hates nature. Many
evolutionary scientists speak with feeling about their love of nature, and
their amazement at it's grandeur.
Nature is what it is. No amount of wishing or hoping will make it
different. Every animal has to eat, and that means the death of, or damage
to some other living thing. That's simply what happens in nature. It's
no reason to hate nature, or hate everything else.
>
> Creationists on the other hand come to see the decisions in nature,
> and the judgements on nature of creationists are generally kind, and
> understanding, and full of glorification for the acts of creation.
"Creationists" that I've come in contact don't seem to care much about
nature, or how it works. Making judgements on nature is absurd, as
there's no reason to judge nature on human terms.
DJT
nando_r...@yahoo.com
ofof struggle in nature by which species originate. What struggle you
are talking about is ideological.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Iain
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anybody that portrays a meadow as basically operating in terms of
> ruthless, brutal struggle is a hate fanatic.
Or a fly.
Yours is a special kind of ineffable stupidity.
--Iain
Nomen Publicus
> Darwinist struggle is just metaphorical. There is no force or process
> ofof struggle in nature by which species originate. What struggle you
> are talking about is ideological.
So, lions don't chase and eat zebra that are running away? It would be a
good idea for a zebra to run as fast as it can because the slowest will be
eaten.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
--
Atheists accept that "what we see in nature is what
we get." There is no magical basis to the universe.
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Darwinist struggle is just metaphorical. There is no force or process
> ofof struggle in nature by which species originate. What struggle you
> are talking about is ideological.
>
If there is no "metaphorical" struggle, there is no "ideological"
struggle, either.
Has your keepers put you on some new drugs or something?
Boikat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
its hard to get, you struggle for it.
Darwinists dont believe freedom is real, natural selection is a
compendium of forces acting mechanically, therefore Darwinist struggle
is merely metaphore, and does not describe a will to survive or any
other kind of will.
Most probably when a zebra runs from a lion its scared of pain. It is
merely a metaphorical rationalization to describe it as the zebra is
struggling to survive.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Ernest Major
<4a834bd7-9e9c-421e...@p20g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> writes
>A non-metaphorical use of struggle is based on freedom, you want it,
>its hard to get, you struggle for it.
>
>Darwinists dont believe freedom is real, natural selection is a
>compendium of forces acting mechanically, therefore Darwinist struggle
>is merely metaphore, and does not describe a will to survive or any
>other kind of will.
If you want to complain about denying the existence of freedom, then you
should be addressing your complaints to physicists, philosophers and
priests, rather than to evolutionary biologists.
You might also like to consider the observation that in this thread you
appear to have been denying the existence of freedom.
>
>Most probably when a zebra runs from a lion its scared of pain. It is
>merely a metaphorical rationalization to describe it as the zebra is
>struggling to survive.
>
>regards,
>Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lets take the old rocks rolling down the hill example again. If a
> bunch of rocks roll down a hill may that be said to be a struggle to
> roll down the farthest. So is the Darwinian struggle for survival
> equally unreal, or is it more real.
No, since the rocks are not alive or putting forth any effort of
will. This has been expolained to you,
Boikat
Burkhard
and the difference between "avoiding pain" and "struggling to survive"
would be ?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
to avoid pain. If survival is an effort of will, then the organisms
that wanted to survive may be more likely to survive then organisms
than are more adapted to survive. The effort of will could cancel out
the adaptation. So you see the Darwinist struggle is merely a
metaphore for describing how the organisms' structure is adapted to
survive in relation to the environment. Besides being adapted the
organisms have a measure of freedom. They need this freedom for
instance for being unpredictable in running away, and have surprise in
attacking. And this is the proper way to look at an organism's
struggle, to look at the spirit which chooses one of the options.
There courage, or some other spiritual quality may manifest itself as
you can see by subjective judgement, and this is a rewarding way of
looking at organisms. Evenso this freedom on the whole facillitates
survival, it is not the goal of the choice, because then it would not
be unpredictable anymore.
I'm glad to have released some Darwinists from this horrific view of a
meadow as a place of eternal struggle.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
gregwrld
Does your Imam know you write
this crap?
gregwrld
Dana Tweedy
> Darwinist struggle is just metaphorical.
Nevertheless, struggle does take place in nature. What makes Darwin's use
of "struggle" metaphorical is that existance is not always a fight between
individuals, but the individual versus nature itself.
>There is no force or process
> ofof struggle in nature by which species originate.
All individuals compete to survive. That is the force. Such competition
doesn't have to be a literal struggle between individuals, but it's a
competition nontheless.
> What struggle you
> are talking about is ideological.
No, I'm talking about actual physical competition. Ideology has nothing
to do with whether one individual gets eaten, and another escapes.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> A non-metaphorical use of struggle is based on freedom, you want it,
> its hard to get, you struggle for it.
What Darwin was talking about was the competition between individuals to
access scarce resources. The metaphor is that individuals don't
consciously try to compete, but they are engaged in competition anyway.
Most organisms don't have the consciousness to make decisions. The concept
of 'freedom' doesn't apply when the individual lacks the capacity to make
choices.
>
> Darwinists dont believe freedom is real,
Of course, that's nonsense. Freedom is real, when there is the conscious
ability to choose. It's simply that the vast majority of living, and non
living things don't have the ability to choose.
> natural selection is a
> compendium of forces acting mechanically,
As are all natural forces.
> therefore Darwinist struggle
> is merely metaphore, and does not describe a will to survive or any
> other kind of will.
Nevertheless, organisms do compete for resources in nature. Predators do
kill and eat prey. Prey species do compete to escape. You can't simply
ignore that this happens.
>
> Most probably when a zebra runs from a lion its scared of pain. It is
> merely a metaphorical rationalization to describe it as the zebra is
> struggling to survive.
The individual zebra is trying to avoid being eaten. It's competing with
others in its population to avoid that fate. Consciously, or not, it's
engaged in a struggle to survive.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> The difference is the intention, the intention is not to survive but
> to avoid pain.
Avoiding pain is part of survival. They tend to go hand in hand.
> If survival is an effort of will, then the organisms
> that wanted to survive may be more likely to survive then organisms
> than are more adapted to survive.
Survival is normally not a effort of will, but rather having traits that
give some kind of advantage. The organism that survives is not usually the
one who "wants it more" but the one who is faster, or stronger, or has
better camoflage, or cooperates with others toward a common goal (in the
case of human populations).
>The effort of will could cancel out
> the adaptation. So you see the Darwinist struggle is merely a
> metaphore for describing how the organisms' structure is adapted to
> survive in relation to the environment.
Still, individuals are engaged in competition with others of their
population. Even though "struggle" is a metaphor, organisms do have to
avoid predation, and get food more efficently than their competitors, in
order to survive.
> Besides being adapted the
> organisms have a measure of freedom.
Freedom only applies when one has the ability to make conscious choices.
In most cases, organisms lack the ability to make choices.
>They need this freedom for
> instance for being unpredictable in running away, and have surprise in
> attacking.
Again, this doesn't apply to the vast majority of organisms.
> And this is the proper way to look at an organism's
> struggle, to look at the spirit which chooses one of the options.
What decides the options is normally instinct, not conscious choice.
> There courage, or some other spiritual quality may manifest itself as
> you can see by subjective judgement, and this is a rewarding way of
> looking at organisms.
Rewarding to whom? A rabbit that displays courage is more likely to be
eaten than one that runs away.
> Evenso this freedom on the whole facillitates
> survival, it is not the goal of the choice, because then it would not
> be unpredictable anymore.
Again, you are using the term "freedom" in an inappropriate way.
>
> I'm glad to have released some Darwinists from this horrific view of a
> meadow as a place of eternal struggle.
The fact remains that a meadow is a place of "struggle" for the organisms
involved. It's only your inappropriate view to call it "horrific".
DJT
nando_r...@yahoo.com
about freedom. You have no knowledge about conscious choice, dont
pretend you have. Choices are free, either alternative may be
realized. This is why a distinct category is needed to describe
choosing. Distinct from material, cause and effect. This is the reason
that ¨why¨ questions are subjective.
What is real is decisions made in nature, even in meadows, a meadow
can turn out alternative ways. The Darwinist struggle for survival is
not real, it is a practical fact for use, not a true fact.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
VoiceOfReason
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hey Darwinist, better to listen and learn when a creationist talks
> about freedom.
Creationists are fanatically anti-freedom. They seek to supress
science while forcing their religious views on everyone else.
Listen to what a creationist says about freedom? I'd sooner talk to a
prostitute about chastity.
<...>
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hey Darwinist, better to listen and learn when a creationist talks
> about freedom. You have no knowledge about conscious choice, dont
> pretend you have. Choices are free, either alternative may be
> realized.
Ask your mental health provider to re-examine your case. Whatever
they are doing now, it isn't working.
> This is why a distinct category is needed to describe
> choosing. Distinct from material, cause and effect. This is the reason
> that ¨why¨ questions are subjective.
For now, the answer to your "question" seems to be a straight jacket.
>
> What is real is decisions made in nature, even in meadows, a meadow
> can turn out alternative ways. The Darwinist struggle for survival is
> not real, it is a practical fact for use, not a true fact.
If it isn't a a true fact, it would not be a practical fact for use.
Boikat
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hey Darwinist, better to listen and learn when a creationist talks
> about freedom.
except if you're a christian, jew or atheist because nando thinks
freedom is only for muslims
>
> What is real is decisions made in nature, even in meadows, a meadow
> can turn out alternative ways. The Darwinist struggle for survival is
> not real, it is a practical fact for use, not a true fact.
gee...that makes even less sense that you usually do.
so when you gonna start jailing christians, nando?
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
fundamentally about (ruthless, brutal) struggle. You cause people to
have this view, you coerce them by calling alternative views a
fantasy, by failing them on schooltests, by putting the authority of
science behind it, by making the issue of free will a big
questionmark, by opposing creationism.
Creationism enforces freedom, it demands subjectivity in regards to
the spiritual, the spiritual domain which does the job of choosing in
the universe.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Dana Tweedy
> Hey Darwinist, better to listen and learn when a creationist talks
> about freedom.
Why? What will happen if I don't?
>You have no knowledge about conscious choice, dont
> pretend you have.
What do you base that assertion on?
> Choices are free, either alternative may be
> realized.
What makes you think there are alway alternatives?
> is is why a distinct category is needed to describe
> choosing. Distinct from material, cause and effect. This is the reason
> that ¨why¨ questions are subjective.
This appears to be gibberish. Can you please rephrase into English?
>
> What is real is decisions made in nature, even in meadows, a meadow
> can turn out alternative ways.
Irrelevant to the fact that a meadow is a violent place to live, if you
happen to be an insect, or a rodent.
>The Darwinist struggle for survival is
> not real, it is a practical fact for use, not a true fact.
Where do you get the idea that observations are "practical facts for use"?
The Darwinian struggle for survival is an observation of nature, not a
suggested plan for living. It's true no matter if you choose to believe
it or not.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> It is your personal and culpable fault when people view life as being
> fundamentally about (ruthless, brutal) struggle.
Most people don't consider life as being "fundamentally about
(ruthless,brutal) struggle. That doesn't change the fact that for the vast
majority of living things, life is a struggle. What do you think the
average life expectancy of a meadow vole is?
> You cause people to
> have this view, you coerce them by calling alternative views a
> fantasy, by failing them on schooltests, by putting the authority of
> science behind it, by making the issue of free will a big
> questionmark, by opposing creationism.
All creationists have to do is present evidence to support their claims.
Until they do so, it's a fantasy. Alternate views still require evidence
to support them. If they don't have evidence, they are useless to science.
Incidentally, science doesn't deal in issues of "free will". That's
philosophy, and theology.
>
> Creationism enforces freedom, it demands subjectivity in regards to
> the spiritual, the spiritual domain which does the job of choosing in
> the universe.
Whatever Creationism "enforces" it's not science. Until you can provide
some evidence of the "spiritual domain", it will continue to be
unscientific.
DJT
Boikat
Word salad with whine dressing.
The Theory of Evolution is not prescriptive, it is *descriptive*. Get
over
Boikat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
then that. While its true the one is more white than the other, there
is no relationship in nature on the basis of one thing being more
white than another. Natural selection is like this, there is no
relationship between organisms on the basis of being slightly
different than another organism. So natural selection as it is, is
based on practical, manufactured facts, not true facts.
To be short, all Im saying is that the feeling you get when a
scientist tells you a meadow is about ruthless, brutal struggle, that
it is just evil, that feeling is true. A guilty pleasure to look at a
meadow in that evil way, you all feel it Im sure.
Now in society people normally get their beliefs from common
experience. But sometimes that experience is bad, especially when
somebody done some crimes. So then the experience is not useful to
derive beliefs from. At this point people start looking for beliefs
elsewhere, and then they see a BBC show which says a meadow is about
ruthless, brutal struggle.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
BTW, I keep forgetting to correct you thread title. Fixed it.