Expelled (Documentary about the atheist stranglehold over science in the USA)

[NNoor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIZAAh_6OXg&feature=topics

I can't believe I hadn't heard of this sooner. This documentary beautifully lays out what I have seen firsthand.

[Sulaiman84]

Word up. I'm gonna send this to some of my friends in college, :insh:.

It seems like the atheist scientists have oppressed and suppressed the proponents of intelligent design. They're now sorta doing what Christian authorities did to scientists in medieval Europe.

History repeating itself in different ways.


Just heard this Ayah recited in a video from another thread. Thought about its relevance.


We have not created the heavens, the earth and whatever is between the two in vain (without a special purpose). That is the false belief of the Kuffar (they think that they have no purpose in this world and therefore do as they please). May the destruction of the Fire be for those who commit kufr.

Saad: 27

[Maripat]

One (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEvq4xIHmH4&feature=relmfu)
Two (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taeKN19q3AI&feature=related)
Three (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWeU6sH7XsE&feature=relmfu)
Four (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx5BwnwUDjo&feature=relmfu)
Five (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB8_CWFJm3I&feature=relmfu)
Six (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w4sbpbXj4c&feature=relmfu)
Seven (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ceTeJeUnNw&feature=relmfu)
Eight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtVmT63tbmY&feature=relmfu)
Nine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p54ofBkMiHw&feature=relmfu)
Ten (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Csop4ROeNg&feature=relmfu)

[StopS]

The movie is fabricated from A - Z.

It is cheap Christian propaganda, associating Darwin with Hitler and making it look as though Intelligent Design was a scientific alternative.
All the people shown as examples are misrepresented and have been shown to be examples of wishful thinking and sheer lies.

Atheism has nothing to do with science. The people shown were either not working where they claimed they were working or were fired for "normal" reasons. Would Muslims allow an Imam to lead the Friday prayer in a mosque if the found out it was a Catholic woman? Hardly.
I would suggest to first check the claims and then make a decision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-1KwNQAXrs

[qibla]

The movie is fabricated from A - Z.

It is cheap Christian propaganda, associating Darwin with Hitler and making it look as though Intelligent Design was a scientific alternative.
All the people shown as examples are misrepresented and have been shown to be examples of wishful thinking and sheer lies.

Atheism has nothing to do with science. The people shown were either not working where they claimed they were working or were fired for "normal" reasons. Would Muslims allow an Imam to lead the Friday prayer in a mosque if the found out it was a Catholic woman? Hardly.
I would suggest to first check the claims and then make a decision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-1KwNQAXrs


Hehehe!
That went home!
I have been wondering why these atheists = scientists been driving their agendas from the very beginning.
Anyway its sour grapes now.
No more funding for "space explorations" etc. and monkeying with AIDS!...
and they still feel they lead the world!!

[Maripat]

The movie is fabricated from A - Z.

It is cheap Christian propaganda, associating Darwin with Hitler and making it look as though Intelligent Design was a scientific alternative.
All the people shown as examples are misrepresented and have been shown to be examples of wishful thinking and sheer lies.

Atheism has nothing to do with science. The people shown were either not working where they claimed they were working or were fired for "normal" reasons. Would Muslims allow an Imam to lead the Friday prayer in a mosque if the found out it was a Catholic woman? Hardly.
I would suggest to first check the claims and then make a decision.


It hurts when you loose your job because you do not believe in Darwinism.
There are incidents mentioned to that effect in the film.
And it hurts more when your career is destroyed.
Nothing cheap about it nor it is propaganda.
People are progressively becoming aware of the excess being committed in the name of evolution.

Luckily this one thing can not be blamed squarely on Muslims and Islam. The most vigorous debate on it is in the US and then in the UK and then in the rest of Europe. In the east we never allowed ourselves to be taken for a ride.

[faizol]

some refutations against darwinians;

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

[NNoor]

Atheism has nothing to do with science. The people shown were either not working where they claimed they were working or were fired for "normal" reasons. Would Muslims allow an Imam to lead the Friday prayer in a mosque if the found out it was a Catholic woman? Hardly.
I would suggest to first check the claims and then make a decision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed


I agree that atheism has nothing to do with science. But if this is the case, then why is it that "scientists" like Richard Dawkins feel the need to take it upon themselves to preach atheism? They seem to think that their philosophical views are validated by their scientific views. People like Dawkins and PZ Myers know nothing about philosophy or history, they cannot even formulate a logical argument, but because they have good PR machines behind them, have become famous. Dawkins' fame especially is totally out of proportion to his merit as either a philosopher or a biologist.

I'll admit I wasn't aware of the criticisms of the film, but from what I can see, it's just a case of "he said, she said", and of course the atheists would go to pains to defend themselves. By the way, the film is primarily about the refusal of the scientific community at large to even entertain the questions posed by the "intelligent design" camp, not about atheism vs theism. The community in general treats any questioning of the prevailing dogma the way religious institutions like the church treat blasphemy. Your second statement which I bolded speaks to that. The question posed by the documentary and many people like myself is, why? Why are scientists who are supposed to be entirely objective so touchy when evolution is questioned? You don't get the same kind of emotional reaction from physicists when the speed of light is seen to be at the risk of being surpassed, or when ridiculous theories like string theory and multiverses are proposed.

One possible answer is that this kind of reaction stems from the wider implications of design and evolution. The truth is, atheism is a belief just like theism is. Atheists react angrily when evolution is questioned because they perceive it as an indirect questioning of their a priori worldview (atheism), just like theists do when their scriptures are questioned. The irony is, it is the atheists who are always accusing theists of being irrational and emotional.

As far as being duped into a false portrayal in a documentary, Dawkins is guilty of the same on his ridiculous interviews of "religious" people where he clearly cherry-picks imbeciles to interview. Funny how he is too cowardly to debate an actual theist philosopher like WL Craig or design proponent like Stephen Myer, and offers lame excuses of "only talking to people who have real merits" (which the two former have in spades) and "not giving creationists a platform", yet he has enough time to go around interviewing the buffoons that he does.

PS I believe that using intelligent design to support arguments for theism is a weak approach. Probably why Dawkins refuses to debate Craig, since the letter does not appeal to the teleological argument like most apologists do.

[StopS]

some refutations against darwinians;

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

Wow! I am amazed. Totally! Do you always ands blindly believe Christian apologetics?

Is there something called Darwinism? Is that like Newtonism or Einsteinism?

And I wonder why people who are not evolutionary biologists seem to find these "refutations" when biologists don't know them or have shown them to be nonsense. Why would religion, without any proof or evidence, be considered correct and a scientific branch with evidence and proof for a theory be considered wrong? What a strange world.

[StopS]

I agree that atheism has nothing to do with science. But if this is the case, then why is it that "scientists" like Richard Dawkins feel the need to take it upon themselves to preach atheism? They seem to think that their philosophical views are validated by their scientific views. People like Dawkins and PZ Myers know nothing about philosophy or history, they cannot even formulate a logical argument, but because they have good PR machines behind them, have become famous. Dawkins' fame especially is totally out of proportion to his merit as either a philosopher or a biologist.

I'll admit I wasn't aware of the criticisms of the film, but from what I can see, it's just a case of "he said, she said", and of course the atheists would go to pains to defend themselves. By the way, the film is primarily about the refusal of the scientific community at large to even entertain the questions posed by the "intelligent design" camp, not about atheism vs theism. The community in general treats any questioning of the prevailing dogma the way religious institutions like the church treat blasphemy. Your second statement which I bolded speaks to that. The question posed by the documentary and many people like myself is, why? Why are scientists who are supposed to be entirely objective so touchy when evolution is questioned? You don't get the same kind of emotional reaction from physicists when the speed of light is seen to be at the risk of being surpassed, or when ridiculous theories like string theory and multiverses are proposed.

One possible answer is that this kind of reaction stems from the wider implications of design and evolution. The truth is, atheism is a belief just like theism is. Atheists react angrily when evolution is questioned because they perceive it as an indirect questioning of their a priori worldview (atheism), just like theists do when their scriptures are questioned. The irony is, it is the atheists who are always accusing theists of being irrational and emotional.

As far as being duped into a false portrayal in a documentary, Dawkins is guilty of the same on his ridiculous interviews of "religious" people where he clearly cherry-picks imbeciles to interview. Funny how he is too cowardly to debate an actual theist philosopher like WL Craig or design proponent like Stephen Myer, and offers lame excuses of "only talking to people who have real merits" (which the two former have in spades) and "not giving creationists a platform", yet he has enough time to go around interviewing the buffoons that he does.

PS I believe that using intelligent design to support arguments for theism is a weak approach. Probably why Dawkins refuses to debate Craig, since the letter does not appeal to the teleological argument like most apologists do.

Oh dear! What have you been reading???
You cannot "preach" atheism. Atheism is a reaction to theism.
Dawkins does not publicly propagate any philosophical views - as far as I am aware of, anyway. He does however appeal to rational thinking, scepticism and reasoning. Both Myers and Dawkins are Professors and are both highly educated and academically trained, so they totally and absolutely are capable of formulating logical arguments.

But I don't even know why I need to defend them against such absurd, emotional attacks.

Excuse me? Why would atheists have to defend themselves. The film lies about the circumstances under which some people were fired. The film makes it look as though there is some conspiracy keeping people together who "believe in" biology and biological evolution. What utter rubbish. Science is dogma? Next thing you'll tell people that scientists gather on week-ends to hold hands and praise Newton. Are you for real? Do you have any kind of normal education? Did you even read the Wikipedia link I gave and then go to the bottom and check the sources???

Why are scientists touchy? Are you touchy when it comes to criticising something proven? Do you question gravity, germs, music? A scientist gets touchy when idiots from the "Institute" or the "ID" camp come up with stupidity. Ask real a dn tough questions, but please stop including nonsense such as what you are doing.

No, atheism is not a belief.
No, atheists don't react when evolution is questioned.
No, atheism is not a worldview.
No, atheist don't always accuse theists of being irrational and emotional.
No, Dawkins just does not see any point in debating total wipeouts such as Craig or any creationist.

Look, it seems you have no idea what you are talking about and just wildly throw around mud, hoping that something will stick. My suggestion would be to check up on what an atheist is and what ID has to do with religion.

Oh and if you think that evolution and its theory is so wrong, why don't you contact an evolutionary biologist and ask him or her? There you have knowledge and not just a layman's understanding like mine.
But why do you post something like this without even a basic understanding of what you are saying?

[mh16388]

Why would religion, without any proof or evidence, be considered correct and a scientific branch with evidence and proof for a theory be considered wrong? What a strange world.
your 'proofs' for scientific theories are taken from media reports or do you actually download/order the papers and study them alongside consultation with professionals?
are you aware of the many assumptions taken to reach a conclusion in a scientific paper?
are all your 'instruments' infinitely precise or finite precise?
if they are finite precise then what level of accuracy is acceptable to you?who decides this accuracy?and what happens if we decrease or increase this accuracy?do your results concur with each other?

thing is you can fool laymen with these big words but in reality few people know what are scientific theories and how they are 'proven'. atheists do not admit it but their assumptions and their hypothesis' are based on belief; either on science or their own (presumed) superior intellect.
to us our beliefs are inherited from a Creator. and your beliefs become meaningless if one is educated enough in science.

now time to answer my questions above.
one by one.

[NNoor]

blah blah blah

Once again, nothing but emotional ad hominem drivel from you.

Atheism is a belief and a worldview because there is no indisputable proof for atheism. To say "There is no God" is to make a knowledge claim, meaning if there is no proof for it, then it is a belief, just the same as "There is a God" is a belief.

I don't think evolution is wrong (I happen to have done my degree in biology, so I do know what I'm talking about). When did I say that? I think that at present, there is good evidence for evolution.

Being educated and academically trained doesn't mean a person can formulate logical arguments without (knowingly or unknowingly) committing fallacies. The truth is, most people, be they scientists or otherwise, have never been trained in formal logic (I know this because philosophy was my other concentration of study).

Dawkins doesn't publicly propagate his philosophical views?! Have you been living under a rock? Among other things, he publishes books attacking theism (never mind that they are filled with piss-poor arguments). Ever heard of "the God Delusion"? You don't call that publicly propagating his views?

No on ever asked Dawkins to debate Craig about evolution vs. creation. He has, however, been invited on numerous occasions to debate Craig on the existence of God- not an unreasonable request, since Dawkins seems to have appointed himself a defender of atheism and seems to think he's a good enough philosopher to write books about it.

So why not debate Craig? He doesn't have time? But he has time to talk to hacks like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaXD_igv4
and this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

No, the simple truth is Dawkins is afraid to debate Craig on the issue of God because he knows he'll lose. It has nothing to do with creation/design vs evolution. Even other atheists have called him out on it.

I'm not touchy if someone asks about things which are proven, like germs. Why should I be touchy? If I think I have good evidence for germs, then I simply present it when asked. If I believe the person asking has some mistaken ideas, I simply try my best to explain it to them. There is no need for me to become emotional and resort to insults and mockery.

PS "Prevailing dogma" is a term used within the scientific community (perhaps facetiously) to refer to the currently agreed upon theory/paradigm in any given topic. But since, as you say, you're a layman, I guess you wouldn't know that.

[mh16388]

He does however appeal to rational thinking, scepticism and reasoning. Both Myers and Dawkins are Professors and are both highly educated and academically trained, so they totally and absolutely are capable of formulating logical arguments.


you just assumed he appeals to them.
how can you prove that?

is academic training accepted universally?then why do we have theists who are equally or better trained and yet do not agree with their arguments?
and does being able to form logical arguments mean the arguments are automatically correct?is that what you are saying?

we do not consider them to be logical. not because we disagree to what they say but because they are simply illogical.

how can you disprove that?

how can you prove or disprove correct or incorrect logic?

[mh16388]

Once again, nothing but emotional ad hominem drivel from you.

Atheism is a belief and a worldview because there is no indisputable proof for atheism. To say "There is no God" is to make a knowledge claim, meaning if there is no proof for it, then it is a belief, just the same as "There is a God" is a belief.

I don't think evolution is wrong (I happen to have done my degree in biology, so I do know what I'm talking about). When did I say that? I think that at present, there is good evidence for evolution.

Being educated and academically trained doesn't mean a person can formulate logical arguments without (knowingly or unknowingly) committing fallacies. The truth is, most people, be they scientists or otherwise, have never been trained in formal logic (I know this because philosophy was my other concentration of study).

Dawkins doesn't publicly propagate his philosophical views?! Have you been living under a rock? Among other things, he publishes books attacking theism (never mind that they are filled with piss-poor arguments). Ever heard of "the God Delusion"? You don't call that publicly propagating his views?

No on ever asked Dawkins to debate Craig about evolution vs. creation. He has, however, been invited on numerous occasions to debate Craig on the existence of God- not an unreasonable request, since Dawkins seems to have appointed himself a defender of atheism and seems to think he's a good enough philosopher to write books about it.

So why not debate Craig? He doesn't have time? But he has time to talk to hacks like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaXD_igv4
and this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

No, the simple truth is Darwin is afraid to debate Craig on the issue of God because he knows he'll lose. It has nothing to do with creation/design vs evolution. Even other atheists have called him out on it.

I'm not touchy if someone asks about things which are proven, like germs. Why should I be touchy? If I think I have good evidence for germs, then I simply present it when asked. If I believe the person asking has some mistaken ideas, I simply try my best to explain it to them. There is no need for me to become emotional and resort to insults and mockery.

PS "Prevailing dogma" is a term used within the scientific community (perhaps facetiously) to refer to the currently agreed upon theory/paradigm in any given topic. But since, as you say, you're a layman, I guess you wouldn't know that.


its dawkins brother.

[mh16388]

No, atheism is not a belief.
No, atheists don't react when evolution is questioned.
No, atheism is not a worldview.
No, atheist don't always accuse theists of being irrational and emotional.
No, Dawkins just does not see any point in debating total wipeouts such as Craig or any creationist.


thanks for contradicting yourself in the very same and also other posts.
2nd point was hilarious.

[NNoor]

its dawkins brother.

lol. corrected; thanks.

[faizol]

Wow! I am amazed. Totally! Do you always ands blindly believe Christian apologetics?

Is there something called Darwinism? Is that like Newtonism or Einsteinism?

And I wonder why people who are not evolutionary biologists seem to find these "refutations" when biologists don't know them or have shown them to be nonsense. Why would religion, without any proof or evidence, be considered correct and a scientific branch with evidence and proof for a theory be considered wrong? What a strange world.

sorry but I have to pass your comment as an *extremely* stupid comment.

Regardless if the data is from a Christian site or not, it is the argument with the context and framework that has to taken into account. Case as an example, a few Islamophobe websites may use Quranic verses, but the context and framework were totally misleading. Hence the wrong interpretations, and the argument is tossed out. Data and theories are gathered from both pro darwinism and against darwinism. Anyone with some basic science background can read the data further and check on the info supplied. A few of the lab tests mentioned in the link I provided is a good starting point to double check on darwinism. Can the data disprove some of the darwinians hypothesis? Maybe yes, may no. But lets's let the scientists present their case. Why are you getting nervous and quickly jumping a big NO to anything that might be against darwin theory? The darwin theory itself is still far from complete anyways.

Example from the link:
"DNA homology between ape and man has been reported to be 96% when considering only the current protein-mapping sequences, which represent only 2% of the total genome. However, the actual similarity of the DNA is approximately 70% to 75% when considering the full genome, including the previously presumed "junk DNA," which has now been demonstrated to code for supporting elements in transcription or expression. The 25% difference represents almost 35 million single nucleotide changes and 5 million insertions or deletions."

Regardless if "junk DNA" might contribute something or not, we have seen many examples of some popular notion in science that turned out to be completely wrong. The famous and more recent example of that is the speed of light in vacuum space. Almost all scientists accept that there should be nothing faster than the speed of light in vacuum space, which turned out to be wrong.

[StopS]

your 'proofs' for scientific theories are taken from media reports or do you actually download/order the papers and study them alongside consultation with professionals?
are you aware of the many assumptions taken to reach a conclusion in a scientific paper?
are all your 'instruments' infinitely precise or finite precise?
if they are finite precise then what level of accuracy is acceptable to you?who decides this accuracy?and what happens if we decrease or increase this accuracy?do your results concur with each other?

thing is you can fool laymen with these big words but in reality few people know what are scientific theories and how they are 'proven'. atheists do not admit it but their assumptions and their hypothesis' are based on belief; either on science or their own (presumed) superior intellect.
to us our beliefs are inherited from a Creator. and your beliefs become meaningless if one is educated enough in science.

now time to answer my questions above.
one by one.

You are horribly mistaken.

Anyone can read published papers and follow their route. Anyone can investigate and correct these papers. Anyone can research and improve, validate or invalidate a theory. In science you have an open playing field and any scientist would LOVE to find an error made by big names. So your assertions and conclusions are terribly wrong.

It is not a matter of whether instruments are precise, infinite or not (not suer what this is supposed to mean) but what the human brain manages to observe, test and document. And then to re-test and reproduce all the research. Then predictions are made and tested. And a whole lot of other ideas are considered and tested. And only then, after the facts have been established, does an idea, a hypothesis, become a theory.

This is a scientific process. It is followed by Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc etc. It has NOTHING to do with atheists. Atheists don't see evidence for the existence of a god. That's all. It has NOTHING to do with science.

Sure, I also believe things. It is called a reasonable or rational belief. It has nothing to do with imaginary beliefs. But if you doubt all scientific branches and procedures it is your personal preference - just don't make meaningless and wild claims and assertions, please.

Science does not make any statements about a creator or a god. If you believe in a creator that is your prerogative. It does not preclude anything in science.

[StopS]

Once again, nothing but emotional ad hominem drivel from you.

Atheism is a belief and a worldview because there is no indisputable proof for atheism. To say "There is no God" is to make a knowledge claim, meaning if there is no proof for it, then it is a belief, just the same as "There is a God" is a belief.

I don't think evolution is wrong (I happen to have done my degree in biology, so I do know what I'm talking about). When did I say that? I think that at present, there is good evidence for evolution.

Being educated and academically trained doesn't mean a person can formulate logical arguments without (knowingly or unknowingly) committing fallacies. The truth is, most people, be they scientists or otherwise, have never been trained in formal logic (I know this because philosophy was my other concentration of study).

Dawkins doesn't publicly propagate his philosophical views?! Have you been living under a rock? Among other things, he publishes books attacking theism (never mind that they are filled with piss-poor arguments). Ever heard of "the God Delusion"? You don't call that publicly propagating his views?

No on ever asked Dawkins to debate Craig about evolution vs. creation. He has, however, been invited on numerous occasions to debate Craig on the existence of God- not an unreasonable request, since Dawkins seems to have appointed himself a defender of atheism and seems to think he's a good enough philosopher to write books about it.

So why not debate Craig? He doesn't have time? But he has time to talk to hacks like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaXD_igv4
and this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

No, the simple truth is Dawkins is afraid to debate Craig on the issue of God because he knows he'll lose. It has nothing to do with creation/design vs evolution. Even other atheists have called him out on it.

I'm not touchy if someone asks about things which are proven, like germs. Why should I be touchy? If I think I have good evidence for germs, then I simply present it when asked. If I believe the person asking has some mistaken ideas, I simply try my best to explain it to them. There is no need for me to become emotional and resort to insults and mockery.

PS "Prevailing dogma" is a term used within the scientific community (perhaps facetiously) to refer to the currently agreed upon theory/paradigm in any given topic. But since, as you say, you're a layman, I guess you wouldn't know that.

Once again? Have I ever provided "emotional drivel"? I doubt it. But you are entitled to your opinion.

OK, look, you have NO idea what you are talking about and still insist on parading your ignorance here. Why?

Why do you suddenly bring up the validity of evolution? We are talking about a movie. Dawkins shows that rational thinking and scepticism are valid methods of examining the world we live in. It is a factual approach. Where is your claimed PR machinery or the philosophical plea? I did not say anything about Dawkins or Myers not voicing their opinions. I objected to your claims.

I don't speak for Dawkins. I only know he sees no reason to engage in debates with creationists. Do you see a purpose for a debate on the existence of a god? I don't. But if you don't like that, go and complain to Dawkins. I don't understand your whining about a scientist not wishing to debate a Christian apologist and don't want to comment this. Just don't accuse Myers or Dawkins of not being able to formulate a logical argument. It's childish.

You maybe understand biology - but you sure have no clue about atheism. But I don't want to open up all sorts of cans here. I want to keep the discussion focused on the movie Expelled and how atheists are supposed to be influencing science - when atheism has nothing to do with science.

So why don't you explain to me how atheism, a lack of belief, causes a scientist to be fired in the movie.

[StopS]

you just assumed he appeals to them.
how can you prove that?

is academic training accepted universally?then why do we have theists who are equally or better trained and yet do not agree with their arguments?
and does being able to form logical arguments mean the arguments are automatically correct?is that what you are saying?

we do not consider them to be logical. not because we disagree to what they say but because they are simply illogical.

how can you disprove that?

how can you prove or disprove correct or incorrect logic?

No, I have heard both state this.

As soon as you bring the Nobel Prize for Creation I will shut up.

No, oh dear, why am I being punished like this. Stop putting words in my mouth.

[StopS]

thanks for contradicting yourself in the very same and also other posts.
2nd point was hilarious.

I did? I contradicted myself? Oh dear, that's not like me.

Where?

I'm glad I made you laugh. Is that all you have regarding the movie?

[StopS]

sorry but I have to pass your comment as an *extremely* stupid comment.

Regardless if the data is from a Christian site or not, it is the argument with the context and framework that has to taken into account. Case as an example, a few Islamophobe websites may use Quranic verses, but the context and framework were totally misleading. Hence the wrong interpretations, and the argument is tossed out. Data and theories are gathered from both pro darwinism and against darwinism. Anyone with some basic science background can read the data further and check on the info supplied. A few of the lab tests mentioned in the link I provided is a good starting point to double check on darwinism. Can the data disprove some of the darwinians hypothesis? Maybe yes, may no. But lets's let the scientists present their case. Why are you getting nervous and quickly jumping a big NO to anything that might be against darwin theory? The darwin theory itself is still far from complete anyways.

Example from the link:
"DNA homology between ape and man has been reported to be 96% when considering only the current protein-mapping sequences, which represent only 2% of the total genome. However, the actual similarity of the DNA is approximately 70% to 75% when considering the full genome, including the previously presumed "junk DNA," which has now been demonstrated to code for supporting elements in transcription or expression. The 25% difference represents almost 35 million single nucleotide changes and 5 million insertions or deletions."

Regardless if "junk DNA" might contribute something or not, we have seen many examples of some popular notion in science that turned out to be completely wrong. The famous and more recent example of that is the speed of light in vacuum space. Almost all scientists accept that there should be nothing faster than the speed of light in vacuum space, which turned out to be wrong.


Ok, so I feel *extremely* rebuked.

My comment was: "Wow! I am amazed."

How is that "an *extremely* stupid comment"?

Now I ask 3 questions. Do you answer my questions? No.

Instead of answering my questions you call my comment stupid. Does that help? Does that do anything to clarify something?

How does mentioning "a few Islamophobe websites" without any clarification what they are or why you consider them Islamophobe or what Islamophobe is appear to help in any way?

Oh dear! Now we get the real scientist speaking. Are you an evolutionary biologist?

You need to calm down and read some facts. You seem to be one of those who gladly accept any failing of what you call "science" as an indication your creationist thinking is validated. And no, nobody has found anything faster than light. Go and do your homework.

[faizol]

Ok, so I feel *extremely* rebuked.

My comment was: "Wow! I am amazed."

How is that "an *extremely* stupid comment"?

Now I ask 3 questions. Do you answer my questions? No.

Instead of answering my questions you call my comment stupid. Does that help? Does that do anything to clarify something?

How does mentioning "a few Islamophobe websites" without any clarification what they are or why you consider them Islamophobe or what Islamophobe is appear to help in any way?

Oh dear! Now we get the real scientist speaking. Are you an evolutionary biologist?

You need to calm down and read some facts. You seem to be one of those who gladly accept any failing of what you call "science" as an indication your creationist thinking is validated. And no, nobody has found anything faster than light. Go and do your homework.


You can't even find one anti-Islam website to double check what I've told you and need to be spoonfed? Laughable.

Why don't you re-apply this suggestion to yourself; "Go and do your homework".

link: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/22/loose-wire-led-to-stunning-faster-than-light-particle-finding/

Quote:
"After tightening the connection and then remeasuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the cable, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed, the website said. (More data will be needed to confirm this hypothesis.)

Yet a Thursday morning statement from CERN's OPERA team, the European science group that first reported the faster-than-light finding, noted that the faulty cable could have led to an undercalculation instead.

Neutrinos could move even faster than the speed of light than previously suggested, in other words."

And what's your qualification? You've asked other people around here about other people's qualification, why don't you tell about yours?

Btw you should change your name from stop spamming to stop skipping, as that's what you should do, stop skipping from answering to questions you can't reply. You've been doing that to others who reply to you ever since you came to "learn" about the mindset of Muslims in this forum.

You atheist always claim that there's no evidence of God :taala: since science fails to detect Him :taala:. But even science accepts that an absence of an evidence doesn't conclude non-existance. However when it comes to God you just somehow being a hypocrite and always insist any theists to give "hard evidence" about God's existence. For you who swears by science, name one instrument which can detect anything beyond mass/space and time?

[StopS]

You can't even find one anti-Islam website to double check what I've told you and need to be spoonfed? Laughable.


Oh, so you are the one that thinks "Islamophobe" means anti-Islam? That explains it. No, Sir! You need to go out and read more.

You mentioned Christians and then "Islamophobe". Does that mean all Christian web-sites are anti-Islam?

Can't you see that you are making no sense at all?




Why don't you re-apply this suggestion to yourself; "Go and do your homework".

link: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/22/loose-wire-led-to-stunning-faster-than-light-particle-finding/

Quote:
"After tightening the connection and then remeasuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the cable, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed, the website said. (More data will be needed to confirm this hypothesis.)

Yet a Thursday morning statement from CERN's OPERA team, the European science group that first reported the faster-than-light finding, noted that the faulty cable could have led to an undercalculation instead.

Neutrinos could move even faster than the speed of light than previously suggested, in other words."


Now THAT is a classic!!! Taking FoxNews as a source for anything makes anyone with just a little education laugh.

Try reading the article again:
the faulty cable could have led to an undercalculation

That means: there was a mistake which could have been caused by the cable.


What FoxNews interprets:
the faulty cable was not the mistake but neutrinos could travel even faster.

And now think about who needs to do some homework.



And what's your qualification? You've asked other people around here about other people's qualification, why don't you tell about yours?



Where have I asked someone for their qualification? You are making things up when it suits you.





Btw you should change your name from stop spamming to stop skipping, as that's what you should do, stop skipping from answering to questions you can't reply. You've been doing that to others who reply to you ever since you came to "learn" about the mindset of Muslims in this forum.


Your next inane claim. Why are you attacking my personality and character? Why are you not capable of a rational and civilised discussion? Am I somehow your enemy? Did I ever do something to you?
What says that I can answer all questions? No, of course there are things I don't know, so don't make absurd statements.
And instead of some wide-angle claims, why don't you specify what problem you have with me? You should care less about what I have done "to others" than focusing on the topic at hand.




You atheist always claim that there's no evidence of God :taala: since science fails to detect Him :taala:. But even science accepts that an absence of an evidence doesn't conclude non-existance. However when it comes to God you just somehow being a hypocrite and always insist any theists to give "hard evidence" about God's existence. For you who swears by science, name one instrument which can detect anything beyond mass/space and time?


You are now lying. Why do you do that? What benefit do you have by making something up? Is it so difficult to stay with the truth?

My statement is that atheists see no evidence for the existence of a god. That's all. That's it. No more. No less. Will you finally read this and stop adding your own words and interpretations?

I also clearly stated that atheism has NOTHING to do with science. Is this clear? Is this in any way ambiguous or can this be wrongly interpreted?

You don't know what "hypocrite" means and yet you accuse me of being one. How silly!

Listen: if you have a problem with me personally, why don't you PM me or contact me on Skype or via the JinnAndTonicShow and we can take this off-line because it has nothing to do with this thread or this forum. It's very easy to contact me and you don't need this as platform.

"science accepts that an absence of an evidence doesn't conclude non-existance" is not a scientific but philosophical issue.

And lastly:
A light-meter measures photons beyond mass/space and time.
http://www.lisungroup.com/product-id-241.html?gclid=CK3v_L3ehLACFcfP3wod53g7jw
http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/photon-meter.html
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=58208

[faizol]

bla bla bla..

as usual, master at skipping questions. Failed to grasp the basic understanding of data presentation as reported by the given link.

Your arrogance and talking down to people is clear and evidence from many threads, like those discussing about Hamza Tzortzis in Biographies section.
link: http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?63505-Hamza-Andreas-Tzortzis

No matter what Muslims present to you about Quran, according to you, "everything in the Quran was already known in the 7th century". Many people have studied in depth about the message in Quran, the available knowledge in the 7th century and so forth. And indeed, brother Hamza Tzortzis himself is a Greek with first hand experience on some Greek books of 7th century. Do you know Greek language? I bet you don't, not as much as a native speaker like Hamza Tzortzis. Are you a logic student? Nay, can't be. Your logical reasoning is not well structured to be identified as a logic student.

And there's no need to supply a link to physicforum to me. I'm a member of that forum anyway. But hilariously, what "photons in 1 cubic meter at temp T" has to do with beyond mass/space and time?

And somehow photons meter can measure something beyond mass/space and time? LOL. So NASA and all other scientists doing cosmology research can gather data from beyond the big bang using those meters you recommend and buy them cheaply from alibaba.com. Yeah, splendid.

[StopS]

as usual, master at skipping questions. Failed to grasp the basic understanding of data presentation as reported by the given link.


Which question did I skip?
Which link with what contents?
Did you make this up again?



Your arrogance and talking down to people is clear and evidence from many threads, like those discussing about Hamza Tzortzis in Biographies section.


Arrogance? I show how someone lies to you and misleads you and deceives you and then it is me who is wrong? I am talking down when exposing the fake claims someone makes? Are you sure you have the right attitude?



No matter what Muslims present to you about Quran, according to you, "everything in the Quran was already known in the 7th century". Many people have studied in depth about the message in Quran, the available knowledge in the 7th century and so forth. And indeed, brother Hamza Tzortzis himself is a Greek with first hand experience on some Greek books of 7th century. Do you know Greek language? I bet you don't, not as much as a native speaker like Hamza Tzortzis. Are you a logic student? Nay, can't be. Your logical reasoning is not well structured to be identified as a logic student.


Hahaha, what? I was not aware that the Koran was originally written in Greek.
You need to check your facts.




And there's no need to supply a link to physicforum to me. I'm a member of that forum anyway.


What? YOU?! Sorry, but I find that VERY hard to believe. Could you point me to a posting of yours, please?



But hilariously, what "photons in 1 cubic meter at temp T" has to do with beyond mass/space and time?

And somehow photons meter can measure something beyond mass/space and time? LOL. So NASA and all other scientists doing cosmology research can gather data from beyond the big bang using those meters you recommend and buy them cheaply from alibaba.com. Yeah, splendid.

This is the only correct word you use: hilarious.

Look, you asked a question, I answered it. You don't understand the answer. Your reply is just a remarkable display of your ignorance.
Follow the Koran which suggests you don't talk about things you have no knowledge of.

And please explain what any of this has to do with a movie????

[malone]

This is a lost cause for sure. The reason that woman lost her job was not because she showed the problems with evolution but because she tried to teach creationism. It is not appropriate to teach creationsim in scientific setting because IT IS NOT SCIENTIFICALLY VALIDATED. This movie is pathetic propaganda, but as I seen before people don't mind the most pathetic propaganda if it bulks up their own belief.

Pre cambrian rabbit, anyone?????

[faizol]

Which question did I skip?
Which link with what contents?
Did you make this up again?
LOL. Can't say anything to to those who blind.


Arrogance? I show how someone lies to you and misleads you and deceives you and then it is me who is wrong? I am talking down when exposing the fake claims someone makes? Are you sure you have the right attitude?
And

Hahaha, what? I was not aware that the Koran was originally written in Greek.
You need to check your facts. LOL. Who was talking about Quran? Hamza Tzortzis referred to the Greek manuscript about embryology, the source which was often used by anti-Muslim apologist to "refute" Quran. And of course often quoted by you yourself. And surely the info from "the source" was totally different from described in the Quran.


What? YOU?! Sorry, but I find that VERY hard to believe. Could you point me to a posting of yours, please?LOL. Why would I need to show you my postings, moreover to someone who always evade questions about "qualifications" but quick to question others about it.



Look, you asked a question, I answered it. You don't understand the answer. Your reply is just a remarkable display of your ignorance. And please explain what any of this has to do with a movie???? LOL. Hahahahhaa... Now explain to us all how the heck those photons meter can determine the event before the big bang.

[StopS]

LOL. Can't say anything to to those who blind.

LOL. Who was talking about Quran? Hamza Tzortzis referred to the Greek manuscript about embryology, the source which was often used by anti-Muslim apologist to "refute" Quran. And of course often quoted by you yourself. And surely the info from "the source" was totally different from described in the Quran.

LOL. Why would I need to show you my postings, moreover to someone who always evade questions about "qualifications" but quick to question others about it.


LOL. Hahahahhaa... Now explain to us all how the heck those photons meter can determine the event before the big bang.

You accuse me of something and when I ask where I did this you call me blind (well, I assume that is what you mean when you say: who blind). Is that how you solve problems?

YOU were talking about the Koran and how Hamza Tzortzis speaks Greek. You need to learn to be more precise and focused.

I "often quote" "anti-Muslim apologists"? What? Are you insane?

You claim you are a member of a forum with highly trained people. I am asking for proof. If you don't or can't prove it you are opening yourself to being called a liar.

I have evaded questions about my qualifications and I have asked others for their qualifications? What? Are you insane?

What does any of this have anything to do with Expelled?

[StopS]

LOL. Hahahahhaa... Now explain to us all how the heck those photons meter can determine the event before the big bang.



Oh and just so that you can't say I did not answer something:

You asked:


name one instrument which can detect anything beyond mass/space and time

You see, you asked a stupid question, something which people say does not exist. What you wanted, was to make a cheap point. Because you believe in invisible and superior beings which are undetectable, you asked for a scientific instrument. Knowing full well that an instrument capable of detecting a god, an angel or jinn is impossible, since your definition of a god lies outside our natural Universe and its time/space continuum.

But you messed up the question by asking for something which can detect something "beyond mass", which would be a photon, which can be detected by any cheap light meter. This photon was created during the Big Bang, which is beyond our measurable Universe as that is when time and space - along with the photon I measured - were created.

Now if the Big Bang was the origin of time, can you explain to me what the "before" signifies? How can there be something before the before was defined?

Because you did not understand anything of this you started changing your question, as it dawned on you that it was the question and its formulation at the very start that made this a stupid question.

Now can we get back to Expelled and how it is in any aspect accurate and how atheists, not scientists, are a stranglehold?

[faizol]

Oh and just so that you can't say I did not answer something:

You asked:



You see, you asked a stupid question, something which people say does not exist. What you wanted, was to make a cheap point. Because you believe in invisible and superior beings which are undetectable, you asked for a scientific instrument. Knowing full well that an instrument capable of detecting a god, an angel or jinn is impossible, since your definition of a god lies outside our natural Universe and its time/space continuum.

But you messed up the question by asking for something which can detect something "beyond mass", which would be a photon, which can be detected by any cheap light meter. This photon was created during the Big Bang, which is beyond our measurable Universe as that is when time and space - along with the photon I measured - were created.

Now if the Big Bang was the origin of time, can you explain to me what the "before" signifies? How can there be something before the before was defined?

Because you did not understand anything of this you started changing your question, as it dawned on you that it was the question and its formulation at the very start that made this a stupid question.

Now can we get back to Expelled and how it is in any aspect accurate and how atheists, not scientists, are a stranglehold?

LOL. If everything is determinable using science, then why don't science go all the way for it?

I asked the right question, and you knew exactly what I asked, i.e can there be any instrument that can detect anything encompasses the fabric of time and space? And yet you answered that with photons meter. Surely I would ask you to prove that.

"This photon was created during the Big Bang, which is beyond our measurable Universe as that is when time and space - along with the photon I measured - were created. " <-- see, photons never were beyond the realm of time and space, never at any time. And yet you so adamantly putting your photons meter as an instrument that can detect something beyond the time-space realm, and that even after you knew what exactly I asked.

The question I asked is a legit question coz, if even the mysteries of the universe (singularity and all that) are yet to be understood, you atheist people are already negating of what's outside of the universe and without any solid proof of that.

Just like anything else, proof and setup are needed, only then you can conclusively say that according to this certain setup and within this certain framework, the result of this particular experiment about that something is as such.

We the Muslims have the Quran, and we stick by it, :insh:.

And regardless of what's the outcome of expelled movie (never liked Ben Stein anyway), isn't the discussion is ultimately about God Al-Mighty?

[StopS]

LOL. If everything is determinable using science, then why don't science go all the way for it?

I asked the right question, and you knew exactly what I asked, i.e can there be any instrument that can detect anything encompasses the fabric of time and space? And yet you answered that with photons meter. Surely I would ask you to prove that.

"This photon was created during the Big Bang, which is beyond our measurable Universe as that is when time and space - along with the photon I measured - were created. " <-- see, photons never were beyond the realm of time and space, never at any time. And yet you so adamantly putting your photons meter as an instrument that can detect something beyond the time-space realm, and that even after you knew what exactly I asked.

The question I asked is a legit question coz, if even the mysteries of the universe (singularity and all that) are yet to be understood, you atheist people are already negating of what's outside of the universe and without any solid proof of that.

Just like anything else, proof and setup are needed, only then you can conclusively say that according to this certain setup and within this certain framework, the result of this particular experiment about that something is as such.

We the Muslims have the Quran, and we stick by it, :insh:.

And regardless of what's the outcome of expelled movie (never liked Ben Stein anyway), isn't the discussion is ultimately about God Al-Mighty?

Why don't you listen?

1. I never said "everything is determinable using science"
2. I answered the question you asked.
3. "you atheist people" is a non-existent group and thus a nonsensical term
4. Atheists have no opinion on what the origins of the Universe are. That is up to someone studying cosmogony.
5. Expelled is about the stupidity of Christian apologists who lie about the reasons why some people were fired.
6. You are the one making funny claims without being able to prove them.

[faizol]

"I answered the question you asked."

Hahaha.. LOL.. anyone can claim that. Well, nevermind, you yourself knew the answer you gave was wrong from the original context of the question, only suited to your own modified framework instead of the original question.

Another question for you, how do you define "atheist people" as a non-existent group? Atheists gather as groups in various part of the States and held protests in many areas as a group.

[StopS]

"I answered the question you asked."

Hahaha.. LOL.. anyone can claim that.



I will show you some of the questions you have not answered. Why can't you prove what you claim?



Well, nevermind, you yourself knew the answer you gave was wrong from the original context of the question, only suited to your own modified framework instead of the original question.


Are you capable of understanding simple, plain English?

I explained why your question was a stupid question. I answered your stupid question as best I could. You have not shown me what is wrong or why my answer is wrong. You just modified the question. So: what makes my answer wrong?



Another question for you, how do you define "atheist people" as a non-existent group? Atheists gather as groups in various part of the States and held protests in many areas as a group.


You did not understand my definition of atheist?

How can a person who reacts to the claims of a theist be a group? What would atheists in a group have in common with others in that group? Where do atheists "in many areas" protest something? I only know of the Atheist Convention, where people gathered to hear whether it is ok to live life without believing what others claim.

Do you consider the Reason Rally to be a gathering of atheists?



Other question which you have not answered yet:

Do you always and blindly believe Christian apologetics?

Is there something called Darwinism?

Is that like Newtonism or Einsteinism?

How is that "an *extremely* stupid comment"?

Does that help? Does that do anything to clarify something?

How does mentioning "a few Islamophobe websites" without any clarification what they are or why you consider them Islamophobe or what Islamophobe is, appear to help in any way?

Why are you attacking my personality and character? Why are you not capable of a rational and civilised discussion? Am I somehow your enemy? Did I ever do something to you?

You are now lying. Why do you do that? What benefit do you have by making something up? Is it so difficult to stay with the truth?

Could you point me to a posting of yours, please?

Which question did I skip?
Which link with what contents?
Did you make this up again?

And please explain what any of this has to do with a movie????

What does any of this have anything to do with Expelled?

Now if the Big Bang was the origin of time, can you explain to me what the "before" signifies?

How can there be something before the before was defined?

How are atheists, not scientists, a stranglehold?

[faizol]

bla bla bla
Who would take seriously those who twisted the questions purposely (while knowing perfectly well of the original question) just in order to appear as answering those questions? I definitely won't. Talking about dishonesty.

[StopS]

Who would take seriously those who twisted the questions purposely (while knowing perfectly well of the original question) just in order to appear as answering those questions? I definitely won't. Talking about dishonesty.

Oh dear! Does this mean I have wasted so much time and effort on someone who can only argue on the level of a child?
Does this mean that if you ask a wrong question I need to know what it is that you actually want to ask and then answer the question you wanted to ask but are unable or too young ask?

And you intentionally ignore my questions? Again! Or are you really a stubborn child who has just been told that no, they can't have the lolly? Oh boy!

[abuhajira]

This is what I am saying. Why bring up things without checking up. Again Master Wiki tells us there there is something called Darwinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism). I mean if normal people are saying Darwinism, then maybe, just maybe they are referring to what everyone refers Darwinism to. So now that we have that out of the way, let's accept the terms Darwinian Theory, Atheistic belief, etc etc in their contextual understanding by the people and move the discussion forward.

[mh16388]

Anyone can read published papers and follow their route. Anyone can investigate and correct these papers. Anyone can research and improve, validate or invalidate a theory. In science you have an open playing field and any scientist would LOVE to find an error made by big names. So your assertions and conclusions are terribly wrong.

anyone?i am asking which papers 'you' have read and 'investigated'...and under whom did you carry out your research and what methodologies did you adopt?


It is not a matter of whether instruments are precise, infinite or not (not suer what this is supposed to mean)
in fact your faculty of 'observation' is wholly determined by these instruments you 'trust'. ever heard of the limitations of naked eye?
since you do not even know what is the difference between infinite and finite precision you cannot make any claim regarding validity of a theory using any form of 'observations'.

rest of what you said are your assumptions about what i am supposed to have said. i'll leave it at that.

[mh16388]

I did? I contradicted myself? Oh dear, that's not like me.

Where?

I'm glad I made you laugh. Is that all you have regarding the movie?

your own posts are a contradiction to what you say in other posts on this very thread. every post is filled with emotion and blanket statements and devoid of facts. its a pity i have to point you to your own contradictions. you are not intelligent enough to do so yourself.

[mh16388]

No, I have heard both state this.

As soon as you bring the Nobel Prize for Creation I will shut up.

No, oh dear, why am I being punished like this. Stop putting words in my mouth.

this has got to be one of the most irrelevant answers given to any question asked. when you are asked to prove something you do this. you have failed to answer any question i asked you and in this post you didn't even go close to attempting it. you are a waste of time.

and you are cordially invited to islam via this (http://www.central-mosque.com/quran/introquran.htm) article:

[StopS]

This is what I am saying. Why bring up things without checking up. Again Master Wiki tells us there there is something called Darwinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism). I mean if normal people are saying Darwinism, then maybe, just maybe they are referring to what everyone refers Darwinism to. So now that we have that out of the way, let's accept the terms Darwinian Theory, Atheistic belief, etc etc in their contextual understanding by the people and move the discussion forward.

Practice what you preach! Look it up and you will see that not "everyone refers" to what you want.

And maybe ask a bit more. I firmly reject the term "Darwinism" for several reasons. Just because many people use the word does not make it correct and defined. But if you insist on using an erroneous, faulty, stupid and wrong word, go ahead. Like I said, it does not make sense as nobody refers to Newtonism or Einsteinism, but it's a free world, so do whatever blows your hair back.

We have a perfectly valid and agreed upon name: Theory of Evolution. Why not use that? Because Darwin's theory has very little in common with what we have today.

No, it seems you have not read more of my postings. Unfortunately my information thread on the definition of atheism was not approved and immediately deleted.
So here it is again: atheism has NOTHING to do with science or evolution. Most atheists don't even know what the ToE even is.
There is no such thing as an "atheistic belief", it is an oxymoron.
Are you aware of the definition of a theory as used in science? The ToE is not something anyone can "believe" in. It is a fact just like gravity here on this planet. I don't know of people questioning gravity or calling it an "atheistic belief in gravity" - yet both are scientific theories.

To move a discussion forward, I prefer asking people what it is they believe and why they believe it. That way I don't make silly mistakes and come off as an arrogant prick who is driven by preconceptions. Makes sense, right?

Now: do you think that Expelled actually has a valid background and that the people depicted were really fired because they were believing nonsense?

[StopS]

anyone?i am asking which papers 'you' have read and 'investigated'...and under whom did you carry out your research and what methodologies did you adopt?

in fact your faculty of 'observation' is wholly determined by these instruments you 'trust'. ever heard of the limitations of naked eye?
since you do not even know what is the difference between infinite and finite precision you cannot make any claim regarding validity of a theory using any form of 'observations'.

rest of what you said are your assumptions about what i am supposed to have said. i'll leave it at that.

Are you asking me for a list of papers I have read? Did I ever claim I did?

By saying: "Anyone can read published papers and follow their route. Anyone can investigate and correct these papers" I am in no way insinuating that I have read a single paper. You should not jump to conclusions and rather ask.

I will ignore the second part of your question as it is nonsensical.

Again you make a statement about what I believe and what I do. Why don't you ask? Well, because the eye has evolved we see several flaws and limitations, yes. A hawk or an octopus have better eyes in their environment, which is why we humans have learned to develop instruments which enhance or broaden our capabilities of observation. Example: A FLIR camera enables us to literally see different temperatures, which we can't do naturally.

I do not know the difference between "infinite and finite precision"? What does that mean? And because I can't make observations and show the validity of a theory? What are you on about? You need to seriously evaluate your attitude.

I think it was you who told me I had somehow contradicted myself - without saying how or why and never gave an explanation. Come on, get real and cough up some evidence for what you are saying. And, if you can't formulate something, it helps to provide an example.

Just suggestions to make communication easier.

And in my opinion, this personality banter is inefficient. I'd rather find out whether you think there is something accurate in this movie and why.

[StopS]

this has got to be one of the most irrelevant answers given to any question asked. when you are asked to prove something you do this. you have failed to answer any question i asked you and in this post you didn't even go close to attempting it. you are a waste of time.

and you are cordially invited to islam via this (http://www.central-mosque.com/quran/introquran.htm) article:

I was not aware that you are in the committee awarding prizes for irrelevant answers. I could submit a few :)

But since you fail to see the link:

Your question was: you just assumed he appeals to them. how can you prove that?

My answer: No, I have heard both state this.

This means that
1. no, I did not assume anything. You see, asking helps clarify things.
2. I have talked to both and this is what they told me (regarding rational thinking, scepticism and reasoning) (Oh, the one if I remember correctly, is on public record when I talked to PZMyers on the Magic Sandwich Show)

I don't understand how you are able to contradict yourself in 2 adjacent sentences, but you manage somehow. First you say I DO prove something when asked and then you say I DON'T answer any questions. It is also FACTUALLY incorrect because I did answer your first question, which I have just explained? Why are you so difficult?

Then you have a block of 4 questions which I also answer. Maybe you don't understand the answer or maybe you don't like the answer. But saying I did not answer, is not exactly the truth, is it?

The last 2 questions made me angry because they implied something I did not say and you were - instead of asking - putting words in my mouth.

Now, have you seen a common element here? Do you think that we can get along much better if we ask instead of assuming stuff?

Why do you, when we are talking about a Christian movie, think you need to bring up an introduction to the Koran? Do you think I have never read a Koran before? Do you think reading a Koran will make anyone automatically and immediately accept the contents?
I met a bloke who postulated that a Muslim is only allowed a limited time of interaction with a non-Muslim. Are you also of this opinion?

[faizol]

Practice what you preach! Look it up and you will see that not "everyone refers" to what you want.

And maybe ask a bit more. I firmly reject the term "Darwinism" for several reasons. Just because many people use the word does not make it correct and defined. But if you insist on using an erroneous, faulty, stupid and wrong word, go ahead. Like I said, it does not make sense as nobody refers to Newtonism or Einsteinism, but it's a free world, so do whatever blows your hair back.

bla bla bla

yeah right. So you have the authority to define what is "Darwinism" and to accept the term or to reject it? Even though people world wide accepted the term as pointed out by my respected brother abuhajira. You have a personality complex of thinking that you're extremely intelligent, aren't you? Apparently from all the posts you replied, that doesn't seem so.

[abuhajira]

yeah right. So you have the authority to define what is "Darwinism" and to accept the term or to reject it? Even though people world wide accepted the term as pointed out by my respected brother abuhajira. You have a personality complex of thinking that you're extremely intelligence, aren't you? Apparently from all the posts you replied, that doesn't seem so.

@Stops,

whether you like it or not, the above is correct. You perceive a notion from your angle and then feel that this perception is the only, valid, non stupid, intellectual, unquestionable, logical, free from error, right concept. I am not in any form of discussion with you, but the above is simply a reflection of your incorrect assertions.

So what if you reject Darwinism, I reject the whole idea of atheism being a moral thought. Would you then accept my rejection and sulk in a corner now? Come on, you are discussing with people here. Show some intellect. "But if you insist on using an erroneous, faulty, stupid and wrong word, go ahead"

Atheism as per your explanation is simply a denial. You keep saying it is not belief, yet the whole definition of "belief" demands that the insistence in your denial has to be based on some belief. for example, Merriam-Webster says "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence". Do you deny the assertion of Metaphysical beliefs in Divinity / God? Do you accept that denial to be your conviction or true? If you do, then you are by definition a believer. Although in atheism, still a believer. Now, you may go one and rant and rave, make all your justification...

"If it acts like a frog, and looks like a frog, croaks like a frog, it is a reasonably certain judgment call that IT IS A FROG"

Then you say that Theory of Relativity is a fact, and yet go on to tell me about being oxymoron. If its a fact, then CHANGE the darn name! There is a reason Theory remains a theory while Newton's law of gravity becomes a law. So, sorry mate, you didn't make sense. and if you did, then the intellectual academia failed.

You are in denial. That is your belief system. Whether you call it Cthuhulism or Atheism. If you want to move the discussion forward, then stop "acting" like a Socrates and start answering question like a human being.

While I do agree with a few points with you in this thread, eg "atheistic belief of gravity" is an incorrect usage of the term, but that does not render a discussion moot. You need to mature up and explain it in a mature manner that belief of gravity (or law of it) is separate from atheism. So, once you have made the point, move along to something better.

Now, do you realize, I don't really care what your discussion is about. I am modding this thread. So I need to see if the thread is beneficial for the forum or not. So far you are not making a good case.

[mh16388]

maybe people need to realize the conditions and assumptions along with theory of relativity.
i'll name one and describe it for the layman:
your observer has to be stationary. if it is moving, the theory fails.

even recently many physicists were so excited that the neutrinos had broken the speed barrier...why would they be excited if the theory was the Law?do not equate this with a scientists' determination to prove things right or wrong: many scientists simply believe the speed of light can be broken: the neutrinos incident fueled this 'belief' and turned it into excitement.

yet the restriction on the observer remains.

[mh16388]

I am in no way insinuating that I have read a single paper.






I do not know the difference between "infinite and finite precision"? What does that mean? And because I can't make observations and show the validity of a theory? What are you on about? You need to seriously evaluate your attitude.



this shows how much you actually 'know': you know nothing.
we are not responsible for your ignorance so that we have to repeat our questions again and again.
go read about precision of instruments and actually read papers of science that will tell you what i said about assumptions and in fact limitations of science.

[mh16388]

Do you think that we can get along much better if we ask instead of assuming stuff?

i ask.
you do not know the answer.
sometimes you reply incorrectly
sometimes you say you do not know
sometimes you accuse me of putting words in your mouth when all i did was ask a question.
sometimes you accuse me in your response of not asking you...when in fact first thing i did was 'ask'...and i was still asking till the last post. here you go boy, a contradiction for you.
your responses are laden with emotion. yet you claim atheists do not get emotional when people expose/question the theory of evolution. another contradiction. you also claim : "your last two questions made me angry"...another one.
your responses lack academic worth.
your responses also make assumptions on other people. uneducated inaccurate assumptions.

hence you are a complete waste of time im afraid.

now you will respond with : "chee i didnt know!!...thankss..."or are we done with the "handing out awards" cliche?

the link i shared was meant to be an introduction to many things, not just the Qur'an...if you actually read it some things like 'faculties of reasoning' might interest you. do read it.
peace.

[StopS]

yeah right. So you have the authority to define what is "Darwinism" and to accept the term or to reject it? Even though people world wide accepted the term as pointed out by my respected brother abuhajira. You have a personality complex of thinking that you're extremely intelligent, aren't you? Apparently from all the posts you replied, that doesn't seem so.


If you don't ask a question relating to this movie I will no longer react to your taunts. You just claim and claim and don't even understand why. I asked you questions to clarify your rants and you refuse to answer. Your choice.

[StopS]

@Stops,

whether you like it or not, the above is correct. You perceive a notion from your angle and then feel that this perception is the only, valid, non stupid, intellectual, unquestionable, logical, free from error, right concept. I am not in any form of discussion with you, but the above is simply a reflection of your incorrect assertions.


How is this correct in any way? It is a stubborn and childish knee-jerk reaction and not a rational response.

How is the Theory of Evolution any form of -ism? The link you yourself provided shows there is more than one connotation to Darwinism. Darwinism is an emotional, factually incorrect term. Darwinism does not carry a unique definition and identity. Yes, my opinion is that this is wrong. Totally, utterly and completely wrong. This is my personal verdict and my personal opinion.
How did I form my opinion? By asking a simple question:
Does "Theory of Evolution" accurately, precisely and without ambiguity or the possibility of a misunderstanding convey the contents of what I am talking about? Answer: yes.
Does "Darwinism" accurately, precisely and without ambiguity or the possibility of a misunderstanding convey the contents of what I am talking about? Answer: no.

It is that easy. But if you want to use the wrong word, you are right: who cares?




So what if you reject Darwinism, I reject the whole idea of atheism being a moral thought. Would you then accept my rejection and sulk in a corner now? Come on, you are discussing with people here. Show some intellect. "But if you insist on using an erroneous, faulty, stupid and wrong word, go ahead"


Exactly, who cares? Except if you want to discuss evolution or the theory, we need to define it each and every time if you use Darwinism because I don't know what you are referring to. This is why in science you get very precise and accurate definitions instead of vague, emotional words.
I reject the term Darwinism. Atheism is not a moral thought. I don't care what you accept or reject as long as you don't expect me to do the same.




Atheism as per your explanation is simply a denial.


Wrong!



You keep saying it is not belief, yet the whole definition of "belief" demands that the insistence in your denial has to be based on some belief. for example, Merriam-Webster says "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence". Do you deny the assertion of Metaphysical beliefs in Divinity / God? Do you accept that denial to be your conviction or true? If you do, then you are by definition a believer. Although in atheism, still a believer. Now, you may go one and rant and rave, make all your justification...



Of course it is about belief. You see, you don't have the definitions; I defined atheism in a separate thread, but the mods deleted it.

Do you understand epistemology? The difference between belief and knowledge? So according to epistemological definitions atheism is about belief or lack of belief. Belief/denial is a false dichotomy.
Denial is a term which can only be used for factual claims. I can't deny there is another planet in our solar system, I just don't believe there is.
So the positive statement is: atheism is the lack of belief that a god exists. Finito. Nothing more. Nothing about science or anything else.
There are metaphysical beliefs, but they are - to my knowledge - not standardised. Could you explain what your definition of metaphysical beliefs regarding divinity are?


"If it acts like a frog, and looks like a frog, croaks like a frog, it is a reasonably certain judgment call that IT IS A FROG"
So you DO accept deductive, empirical reasoning.



Then you say that Theory of Relativity is a fact, and yet go on to tell me about being oxymoron. If its a fact, then CHANGE the darn name! There is a reason Theory remains a theory while Newton's law of gravity becomes a law. So, sorry mate, you didn't make sense. and if you did, then the intellectual academia failed.


What?!?!!? I said what? There is no way I would ever say that. Ah, I went back and checked and, to my relief found, I did not.
I said that the Theory of Evolution is a fact just like gravity here on this planet.
I said that "atheistic belief"is an oxymoron. Because, as I just explained, atheism is a lack of belief. So you can't atheism = "lack of belief belief". It does not make much sense, does it?

Oh dear! Ok, now you have seriously shown you have no understanding of science, of how science works and what science is.

Try Google and enter definition scientific theory. You will get >21m hits. Start on Wikipedia, which starts by saying : "The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word." That's a good place to start: throw everything out what you think you know and start asking questions.

And again: even if the terms are wrong it is the scientists who are to blame and not the atheists. Clear?



You are in denial. That is your belief system. Whether you call it Cthuhulism or Atheism. If you want to move the discussion forward, then stop "acting" like a Socrates and start answering question like a human being.


No, because I will not believe what you think I believe. It is not philosophical, but all a matter of definitions. If I am an atheist, does this influence my stance towards music, cars, colours, clothes, general knowledge, job, friends, hobbies, etc etc? No, not in any way. Every atheist is completely different. There is no group feeling or joint activity. Recently, because religions are more vocal and more demanding, opposing groups have been formed to counter this.




While I do agree with a few points with you in this thread, eg "atheistic belief of gravity" is an incorrect usage of the term, but that does not render a discussion moot. You need to mature up and explain it in a mature manner that belief of gravity (or law of it) is separate from atheism. So, once you have made the point, move along to something better.

Now, do you realize, I don't really care what your discussion is about. I am modding this thread. So I need to see if the thread is beneficial for the forum or not. So far you are not making a good case.

Man, why don't you first check before posting something??? Try entering "law of gravity" into Google and watch what happens. Then enter "Theory of Gravity". In the first instance you will only find references to Newtonian laws, applicable only here on this planet. The second search will lead to the general term of gravity - which is a theory. But you don't question this every day, do you?

No, why can you make unsubstantiated claim after claim and I am the one who needs to repair your mistakes and erroneous thinking?
Why can't YOU do some homework before attacking my person and my character, based on what we now know are basic misunderstandings and lack of definitions?

This entire thread is about Expelled. A movie. Did anyone here ever go to http://www.expelledexposed.com/? This site shows exactly what nonsensical drivel this movie is and what the lies are. It also shows the attempt at drawing emotional parallels to Hitler and Nazis, which is ridiculous, but fundamentalist Christians prefer this to the truth. Why do Muslims want to even follow Christians into their baseless assertions?
I am here because I am appalled at the contents and the lies. It seems that some people here have not really watched it and are simply following some propaganda. I am trying to point out the truth and background - but some people attack me personally, instead of factually. Pity. Because even though they may not like me because I represent something they don't trust, my arguments are sound and truthful.

[StopS]

maybe people need to realize the conditions and assumptions along with theory of relativity.
i'll name one and describe it for the layman:
your observer has to be stationary. if it is moving, the theory fails.


What!?!?!? Are you seriously saying that the special theory of relativity depends on a stationary observer?
If yes, then you have failed to understand the basic principle of this theory.




even recently many physicists were so excited that the neutrinos had broken the speed barrier...why would they be excited if the theory was the Law?do not equate this with a scientists' determination to prove things right or wrong: many scientists simply believe the speed of light can be broken: the neutrinos incident fueled this 'belief' and turned it into excitement.

yet the restriction on the observer remains.

Exactly: a theory can't ever be a law. A theory is based on facts or even laws, but remains a theory. And no, they were not excited that neutrinos "had broken the speed barrier", but that they had data which indicated that some neutrinos would have had to be traveling at speeds faster than light to validate the data. They researched further and eventually found the mistake.

[StopS]

this shows how much you actually 'know': you know nothing.
we are not responsible for your ignorance so that we have to repeat our questions again and again.
go read about precision of instruments and actually read papers of science that will tell you what i said about assumptions and in fact limitations of science.

Thank you for your vote of confidence. ;)

No, you need to concentrate on what I write and not what you think I am writing.

You are operating under false premisses. If I enter your term "infinite and finite precision" into Google, I get 75 hits, none of which make any sense. So you need to explain what you are on about. Or ignore it.

Let me make something very clear: I HAVE read and still read scientific papers. I DO know of precision and calibration requirements of SOME instruments. I DO know about the scientific method and wish you would adhere to it. This means I DO know how a theory is formulated and the associated processes and definitions. If I write a paper I make it very clear that what I have measured came about under these conditions using this equipment to ensure replication. And falsification in case I have made a mistake. That is the normal process. In other words: if I formulate something I also show what would make it wrong and I make sure I have covered all possibilities available to me before exposing myself publicly. If I make mistakes I am not paid and will eventually lose my job, so I make sure I define and check what I release.

abuhajira told me he is observing this thread to ensure the continuing benefit for the forum. Which means: you can say what you want and I need to watch my step. Now you are dragging me into a nonsensical discussion about something which is totally irrelevant, but which you want because you think it discredits my reliability and trustworthiness.

Why can't you stay on topic and show me what is so beneficial in that movie?

[StopS]

i ask.
you do not know the answer.
sometimes you reply incorrectly
sometimes you say you do not know
sometimes you accuse me of putting words in your mouth when all i did was ask a question.
sometimes you accuse me in your response of not asking you...when in fact first thing i did was 'ask'...and i was still asking till the last post. here you go boy, a contradiction for you.


I appreciate that this is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, I don't recall where I said what, so examples would be helpful.

And yes, if I don't know something, I don't pretend I do.

You misunderstand me. I get emotional if people wrongfully represent atheism when it is very easy to find out what it is and what it is not. And yes, I agree, maybe I get too emotional about this.

I get emotional when someone claims one can "expose" the theory of evolution. That is impossible. You are welcome to correct or expand it.

Your first "remark" to me was: "your 'proofs' for scientific theories are taken from media reports". THAT is how you opened our conversation.

Only then do you start asking "do you actually download/order the papers and study them alongside consultation with professionals?". Would you consider this an objective question?

So, no, no contradiction.





your responses are laden with emotion. yet you claim atheists do not get emotional when people expose/question the theory of evolution. another contradiction. you also claim : "your last two questions made me angry"...another one.
your responses lack academic worth.
your responses also make assumptions on other people. uneducated inaccurate assumptions.

hence you are a complete waste of time im afraid.

now you will respond with : "chee i didnt know!!...thankss..."or are we done with the "handing out awards" cliche?

the link i shared was meant to be an introduction to many things, not just the Qur'an...if you actually read it some things like 'faculties of reasoning' might interest you. do read it.
peace.

Atheists have no stake in the theory of evolution. Evolutionary biologists do. I am not an evolutionary biologist. So I get emotional about general errors, not necessarily about someone thinking he can "expose" a scientific theory. So, no, no contradiction.

And now some more unsubstantiated claims and accusations. And you started so nicely.

I did go and I read the link. I am always curious what others think. That's why I am here, after all.

What I would love to do is print this out, sit down with you with a cup of tea and go through this, line by line, statement by statement to find out why you think this is compelling for anyone. But if I have the time I will do this with Mr. Omar, my favourite Koran teacher at the Cultural Center in Doha.

Sorry that this was a waste for you, but unlike Faizol, who is just ignorant and does not know how to research and probe, your opinions could have been interesting.

[faizol]

bla bla bla

The question is, under who's authority can you reject or accept any terms such as "Darwinism" which is already accepted by the mass populations, including scientists?

you construct your own "theory" of what the world view should be. Anything that doesn't conform to this "view" should be rejected.

What's funny is that a set of your value system valid, only in your own construct.... How pity... . Hey be your own prosecutor, jury and judge, and forget about what other constructs' validity and value system.

hmmm... I think I can establish that you have a sort of self-grandiosity.

Btw, just years ago the appendix was seen more as a nuisance rather than an important part of the human anatomy. Early misconceptions have led to the indiscriminate removal of the appendix from the body. Long thought to be an evolutionary remnant of little significance to normal physiology. But oh boy how wrong they were years later.

[abuhajira]

How is the Theory of Evolution any form of -ism? The link you yourself provided shows there is more than one connotation to Darwinism. Darwinism is an emotional, factually incorrect term. Darwinism does not carry a unique definition and identity. Yes, my opinion is that this is wrong. Totally, utterly and completely wrong. This is my personal verdict and my personal opinion.
How did I form my opinion? By asking a simple question:
Does "Theory of Evolution" accurately, precisely and without ambiguity or the possibility of a misunderstanding convey the contents of what I am talking about? Answer: yes.
Does "Darwinism" accurately, precisely and without ambiguity or the possibility of a misunderstanding convey the contents of what I am talking about? Answer: no.

It is that easy. But if you want to use the wrong word, you are right: who cares?

Exactly, who cares? Except if you want to discuss evolution or the theory, we need to define it each and every time if you use Darwinism because I don't know what you are referring to. This is why in science you get very precise and accurate definitions instead of vague, emotional words.
I reject the term Darwinism. Atheism is not a moral thought. I don't care what you accept or reject as long as you don't expect me to do the same.


Wrong!

Of course it is about belief. You see, you don't have the definitions; I defined atheism in a separate thread, but the mods deleted it.

Do you understand epistemology? The difference between belief and knowledge? So according to epistemological definitions atheism is about belief or lack of belief. Belief/denial is a false dichotomy.
Denial is a term which can only be used for factual claims. I can't deny there is another planet in our solar system, I just don't believe there is.
So the positive statement is: atheism is the lack of belief that a god exists. Finito. Nothing more. Nothing about science or anything else.
There are metaphysical beliefs, but they are - to my knowledge - not standardised. Could you explain what your definition of metaphysical beliefs regarding divinity are?

So you DO accept deductive, empirical reasoning.


only three points. First is extremely super duper important one.

a. " I don't really care what your discussion is about. I am modding this thread. So I need to see if the thread is beneficial for the forum or not."


What?!?!!? I said what? There is no way I would ever say that. Ah, I went back and checked and, to my relief found, I did not.
I said that the Theory of Evolution is a fact just like gravity here on this planet.
I said that "atheistic belief"is an oxymoron. Because, as I just explained, atheism is a lack of belief. So you can't atheism = "lack of belief belief". It does not make much sense, does it?

Oh dear! Ok, now you have seriously shown you have no understanding of science, of how science works and what science is.


b. I am bold in saying that it is not my field. You have stated the obvious. Everyone on the forum knows what my field is. When you will start speaking in that field, I will scrutinize you 100x time more.


Man, why don't you first check before posting something??? Try entering "law of gravity" into Google and watch what happens. Then enter "Theory of Gravity". In the first instance you will only find references to Newtonian laws, applicable only here on this planet. The second search will lead to the general term of gravity - which is a theory. But you don't question this every day, do you?


c. I did just as you said. and the second one did point me to a "Theory of Gravity". Not much of a fact at all. http://www.theoryofgravity.com/Theory_of_Gravity.php

So when you talk about "Theory of Evolution is a fact just like gravity here on this planet". I feel you meant to say "Evolution" is a fact just like "Gravity". Theory of Evolution has its own connotation. This mumbo jumbo is also explained on Wikipedia. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory#Theory

I short, so as not to confuse laity of "science" like my self, should I presume that the concept of evolution is fact like the concept of gravity? Just like we all know that something like gravity exists. So does something intrinsic like Evolution exists. And the opinions in explaining these two concepts are the theories there of. Is that correct?

If so, on what basis should I accept that there is "change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations."?

eg. The one statement explaining this contract nicely on the wiki was ""Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered" ~Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould

And here I see a major falacy in the above presentation. "Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome." and since Gravity is an observable phenomenon. I say observable since the very line before the above statement says, "Commonly "fact" is used to refer to the observable changes in organisms' traits over generations while the word "theory" is reserved for the mechanisms that cause these changes"

But in Evolution, where is this observable change? What observation should cause me to accept this statement as a fact? "humans evolved from ape-like ancestors" ???

The comparison is incorrect. AND if one has to go at scientific length using mambo jumbo to establish it, then it is not fair to say that ToE is as fact as Gravity on planet. Because in that case it definitely is not "AS FACT".

P.S Thanks for the few things I google around because of you.. If only you keep your tone academic rather than offensive defensive ping pong match, it would be very good.

[NNoor]

"I do not believe that God exists" - lack of belief.

"I believe that God does not exist" - belief.

The term atheist as it is commonly used applies to people who subscribe to both.

[StopS]

The question is, under who's authority can you reject or accept any terms such as "Darwinism" which is already accepted by the mass populations, including scientists?

you construct your own "theory" of what the world view should be. Anything that doesn't conform to this "view" should be rejected.

What's funny is that a set of your value system valid, only in your own construct.... How pity... . Hey be your own prosecutor, jury and judge, and forget about what other constructs' validity and value system.

hmmm... I think I can establish that you have a sort of self-grandiosity.



Why do you do this? What drives you to write this?

Did you read what I wrote?



Darwinism is an emotional, factually incorrect term. Darwinism does not carry a unique definition and identity. Yes, my opinion is that this is wrong. Totally, utterly and completely wrong. This is my personal verdict and my personal opinion.
How did I form my opinion? By asking a simple question:
Does "Theory of Evolution" accurately, precisely and without ambiguity or the possibility of a misunderstanding convey the contents of what I am talking about? Answer: yes.
Does "Darwinism" accurately, precisely and without ambiguity or the possibility of a misunderstanding convey the contents of what I am talking about? Answer: no.

It is that easy. But if you want to use the wrong word, you are right: who cares?


Even Wikipedia points out that



The meaning of "Darwinism" has changed over time, and varies depending on who is using the term. In the United States, the term "Darwinism" is often used by creationists as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as atheistic naturalism


Which is why I said that Darwinism does not convey an exact meaning. So every time you use the term Darwinism, I would have to ask: what do you mean by this?

If you want to make communication a lot easier, use the methodology of transferring precise information utilising defined and agreed upon terms, such as "Theory of Evolution".

So I hope you now see that accusing me of "self-grandiosity" was hasty and wrong and that I am driven by efficiency and the truth.


[/QUOTE]
Btw, just years ago the appendix was seen more as a nuisance rather than an important part of the human anatomy. Early misconceptions have led to the indiscriminate removal of the appendix from the body. Long thought to be an evolutionary remnant of little significance to normal physiology. But oh boy how wrong they were years later.



Another claim without any substance, blindly following Christian apologetics.

[QUOTE]Classifying the appendix as “no real value” exemplifies how evolution adherents persist to be woodwinked by ideology. Mounting scientific evidence continues to demonstrate why evolution is NOT true.

Oh dear, not another one! You read something, don't understand it - but it sounds nice. You don't like evolution for some reason, so anything that sounds like anti-evolution is good enough for you. Whether it is a lie, such as the video you are promoting or any other nonsense, you believe it. Why do you believe it? What is your source? Why do you think your source is reliable?

You get names such as Loren G. Martin or Bill Parker, but when you actually look at this, wordings by them such as "the appendix is now thought to be" or "the function of the appendix appears to be" don't reflect much confidence in this, do they?
I have just spent 15 minutes looking at this and have found that only creationist web-sites promote this and then carry on to promote Intelligent Design.
Let's turn to someone like Loren G. Martin himself. Calculating the Hirsch-Index draws a blank. When you look for his CV or academic credentials you don't find much and when you look at his publishing record you find a handfull of papers written 30 or 40 years ago. It seems your sources are neither reliable, nor active.

Can you now really explain who you are referring to when you say: "they" and then show why "they" were wrong about the appendix?
Do you think you can learn to be specific and precise and show where you get your claims from?

[StopS]

only three points. First is extremely super duper important one.

a. " I don't really care what your discussion is about. I am modding this thread. So I need to see if the thread is beneficial for the forum or not."



Fair enough. So why is putting up a set of lies and deceit such as demonstrated in the video under discussion seen as "beneficial" - yet the propagation of truth is not? You say "So far you are not making a good case.", when all I do is stand up for the truth and honesty, rejecting false claims and pointing out deceit.




b. I am bold in saying that it is not my field. You have stated the obvious. Everyone on the forum knows what my field is. When you will start speaking in that field, I will scrutinize you 100x time more.


I don't know your field of expertise.




c. I did just as you said. and the second one did point me to a "Theory of Gravity". Not much of a fact at all. http://www.theoryofgravity.com/Theory_of_Gravity.php



If I write "here on Earth" there is a reason why I do so. The Theory of Gravity consists of 2 parts, one is fact here on Earth and the other is not proven at all.
http://www.numericana.com/answer/physics.htm is if you are REALLY interested.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070807220925AAwEBXl is a non-scientific-jargon-loaded example of what I mean.

We do NOT fully understand gravity yet. We do, however, understand evolution. Just like we know that gravity on this planet can be accurately measured and don't question this, we know that evolution is a fact here. Whether it will be shown to work the same way on another planet is a different story. For some reasons, religious people seem to instinctively reject the concept of evolution.

We had a Dr. Syed on our show last Saturday who says that evolution was developed based on Muslim research and is totally compatible with Islam. So how do I decide which Muslim scholar is right? The one telling me it is compatible or the one telling me it is incompatible - when I have proof that in reality it is true?

Your reading up on evolution shows me that you are more open-minded than I had originally assumed. Yes, the article on Wikipedia explains it nicely. You have theories, which in turn are based on facts, which make the theory factual in principle and basics, but will remain a theory as there is still a lot of room for improved accuracy, proof and experiments when outside our planet.


"change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations."? As I have stated before, I am NOT an evolutionary biologist, so for me it means that it is a change in how tall humans are today compared to humans 500 years ago and how whales evolved from wolf-like creatures. Is this based on evidence? Yes. We have sufficient indicators to know that humans grew and are still growing and we have the step-by-step development of a canine developing an ear for underwater hearing and all steps from Pakicetus all the way to whales. This is from memory, so I don't remember all the in-between names and differences.

You are pointing out the essence of a huge problem - a problem that I am trying to address: names, terms and definitions. Yes, you WILL find seemingly contradictory terms when reading publications. Because if I try and use scientifically correct words, others complain it is too complicated. If I make it more easily understood I lose precision. Absolutely correct observation. Do I have the solution? No.

But then look at examples here on the forum: people have their own agenda when it comes to using pejorative wording and some try to obfuscate matters by deliberately using vague terms.
That's why I object to the usage of Darwinism, as it does not explain succinctly what is meant by the ToE.

[StopS]

"I do not believe that God exists" - lack of belief.

"I believe that God does not exist" - belief.

The term atheist as it is commonly used applies to people who subscribe to both.

Almost.

A theist believes there is evidence for the existence of a god.
An a-theist does not agree.

Whether - as you claim - it is commonly used as something different, is irrelevant. I am giving you my definition, which is based on epistemology and is commonly accepted by atheists, not necessarily theists.
Oh and if there are atheists who will sign off on that definition, I am not amongst them. If, however, you are referring to a personal belief, dissected from the definition of atheist, then you are right, this can apply.

I don't tell you what you believe, but ask what you believe; I would appreciate the same courtesy.

And you are showing me once again that my thread concentrating on only this question was not such a bad idea. Pity it was deleted, actually :)

[NNoor]

Almost.

A theist believes there is evidence for the existence of a god.
An a-theist does not agree.

Whether - as you claim - it is commonly used as something different, is irrelevant. I am giving you my definition, which is based on epistemology and is commonly accepted by atheists, not necessarily theists.
Oh and if there are atheists who will sign off on that definition, I am not amongst them. If, however, you are referring to a personal belief, dissected from the definition of atheist, then you are right, this can apply.

I don't tell you what you believe, but ask what you believe; I would appreciate the same courtesy.

And you are showing me once again that my thread concentrating on only this question was not such a bad idea. Pity it was deleted, actually :)

I should have said: The term applies to people who ascribe to either one, or both. The atheist who believes that God does not exist is a subset of the atheist who does not believe that God exists. The latter only believes that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of God, whereas the former additionally believes that there is sufficient evidence for the non-existence of God.

[Maripat]

Fair enough. So why is putting up a set of lies and deceit such as demonstrated in the video under discussion seen as "beneficial" - yet the propagation of truth is not? You say "So far you are not making a good case.", when all I do is stand up for the truth and honesty, rejecting false claims and pointing out deceit.

There is a tyrannical evolutionist establishment in the biological sciences and that what has been pointed out in the documentary. To call it lies and deceit smacks of an agenda cut-off from truth and honesty.


I don't know your field of expertise.
He specializes in Ifta - Islamic opinion on issues arising in the life of Muslims.

If I write "here on Earth" there is a reason why I do so. The Theory of Gravity consists of 2 parts, one is fact here on Earth and the other is not proven at all.
http://www.numericana.com/answer/physics.htm is if you are REALLY interested.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070807220925AAwEBXl is a non-scientific-jargon-loaded example of what I mean.

We do NOT fully understand gravity yet.
We know awfully lot. Even Newtonian gravity tells us enormous amount of information. The rest, actually most of it, is taken care of by Einstein's general theory of relativity. The only unknown part is whether it is quantized or not and that is a fact that we might never know the answer to. To verify any quantum theory of gravity we need those energies that might never be available to mankind. This is the main criticism of string theory - the most viable candidate for a quantum theory of gravity.


We do, however, understand evolution. Just like we know that gravity on this planet can be accurately measured and don't question this, we know that evolution is a fact here. Whether it will be shown to work the same way on another planet is a different story. For some reasons, religious people seem to instinctively reject the concept of evolution.

Evolution is a theory and there are many scientists who do not believe in that. Unfortunately we Muslims were caught on wrong foot on that matter in the sense that we did not debunk it in its infancy but Christians scientists never accepted it. Because of its historical blunders the Church the Christian society was not in a position to take on the bulldozer of Darwinism but it does not mean that they accepted evolution. And science might be value neutral but all science is not atheist science. Evolution becomes scientific only if atheistic view is taken as the dominant view. And on that front also the view is changing - the creationists are giving a good fight to the atheists in the context of evolution. May they win hands down.



We had a Dr. Syed on our show last Saturday who says that evolution was developed based on Muslim research and is totally compatible with Islam. So how do I decide which Muslim scholar is right? The one telling me it is compatible or the one telling me it is incompatible - when I have proof that in reality it is true?
He is entitled to his opinion but he better be very careful in his actions - he might easily walk out of Islam without knowing it. That is the danger one always faces when going out on a limb.

The main contention with the evolution theory is that it is used by its proponents to prove that there is no God. Now this premise is wrong to begin with. God is all about faith and science is all about observational reality.

I am NOT an evolutionary biologist, ....
Least implication of the admission is that you have to declare that you have made a personal decision to believe in theory of evolution. You are trying to pedal ToE as a fact. Even a scientist can not do that for the hall mark of scientific theories, a la Karl Popper, is their falsifiability. A hypothesis might be elevated to the level of a theory but a theory can never be elevated to a fact. Every theory is always open to falsification. Albert Einstein too asserted that it will only take a single experiment to prove his theory wrong.
What we know about evolution is that there are a large number of biologists who do believe in evolution but they do remain challenged by others and the position of evolutionists does not look as secure any more as they historically have been.


so for me it means that it is a change in how tall humans are today compared to humans 500 years ago and how whales evolved from wolf-like creatures. Is this based on evidence? Yes. We have sufficient indicators to know that humans grew and are still growing and we have the step-by-step development of a canine developing an ear for underwater hearing and all steps from Pakicetus all the way to whales. This is from memory, so I don't remember all the in-between names and differences.
No complain about your memory - but you are merely iterating evolution and we do not agree with that in these quarters. And you too will do yourself good by not siding with the tyrannical evolutionist camp. The most glorious manifestation of atheism, in some ways even bigger than Darwinism, called Marxism lies dead in the history of USSR. We buried it in Afghanistan - with little bit of American help. Why cling to the appendix called evolution?


You are pointing out the essence of a huge problem - a problem that I am trying to address: names, terms and definitions. Yes, you WILL find seemingly contradictory terms when reading publications. Because if I try and use scientifically correct words, others complain it is too complicated. If I make it more easily understood I lose precision. Absolutely correct observation. Do I have the solution? No.
This does not square up. You say that you are not a scientist and then you make a claim that you use precise scientific terms.


But then look at examples here on the forum: people have their own agenda when it comes to using pejorative wording and some try to obfuscate matters by deliberately using vague terms.
That's why I object to the usage of Darwinism, as it does not explain succinctly what is meant by the ToE.
We do have an agenda here. It is called Islam. That is the only currency in this land.
And if any leverage is provided to talk about any thing else then it is merely because of the courtesy which part of Islamic creed. Of course if some one is using vague terms you can always ask for clarification.
Now the other agenda that you have, atheism, is indeed miserable - to say the least. If it gets deleted here then there is not going to be any one amongst Muslims who will regret that. This might be very unpleasant to you but if you have come to a Muslim forum then you must understand that you have come to those people who are completely and whole heartedly against atheism. There is absolutely no likelihood to provide any space to atheism in our life. I suppose I am not vague.

If this is tough then there are soft things also available here. Islam for example. You claim to be interested in understanding Muslims and their attitudes. This one is a simple thing and in deed very interesting and fascinating. We believe in one God, in Prophethood and in hereafter. We detest obscenity, forbidden things and rebellion. We love bravery, charity and modesty. We have hope for future in this world as well as in the hereafter. (No atheism does not provide either of them - it is there in Selfish Gene by Dawkins, just for example.)

Once you know these overall things about Islam and Muslims there still remains the fascinating world of details - you can fruitfully engage in its exploration.

And you might set your own agenda too - as long as it is compatible with Islam. But the best thing, as I have said earlier too, is Islam - the religion to which I happily invited you. I reiterate that once gain. You do have enough intellectual challenges with in the frame work of Islam - including whole of science. Lord willing you shall not be intellectually starved in Islam. I suppose you yourself are not looking for more than that. But your word gets preference in this context.

[faizol]

bla bla bla

see? Just anything that goes against evolution must be coming from some Christian apologetics website. Tsk tsk tsk.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15228837

The vermiform appendix: not a useless organ.
Zahid A.
Source

Department of Anatomy, Allama Iqbal Medical College, Lahore. aliyaimtiaz@hotmail.com
Abstract

The appendix has often been seen more as a nuisance rather than an important part of the human anatomy. Early misconceptions have led to the indiscriminate removal of the appendix from the body. Long thought to be an evolutionary remnant of little significance to normal physiology, the appendix has more recently been identified as an important component of mammalian mucosal immune function, particularly B-lymphocyte-mediated immune responses and extrathymically derived T-lymphocytes. This structure helps in the proper movement and removal of waste matter in the digestive system, contains lymphatic vessels that regulate pathogens, and lastly, might even produce early defences that prevent deadly diseases. The appendix is one of the guardians of the internal environment of the body from the hostile external environment.

PMID:
15228837
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

cited by 10 other articles.

[StopS]

I should have said: The term applies to people who ascribe to either one, or both. The atheist who believes that God does not exist is a subset of the atheist who does not believe that God exists. The latter only believes that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of God, whereas the former additionally believes that there is sufficient evidence for the non-existence of God.

Hahaha, now you got me confused.

Lack of belief in the existence of evidence for the existence of a god
lack of belief in the existence of a god
belief that no god exists

That would be my personal scale. Can we agree on this?

Where the third is a positive claim which would require evidence.

[mh16388]

the only reason i participated in this discussion with stopS was because:
he claimed we believe in something that has no proof while he believes in something that has proof.

we believe in Divine Inspiration upon the Prophets (AS) and the Last Prophet (PBUH) and have adopted their teachings as our way of life. He has chosen to judge everything on science or his faculty of observation/intellect etc.

what i basically tried to accomplish was to demonstrate how his claims about science were completely false. in doing so i expounded on the following:
- scientific theories, are based on assumptions. within the boundaries of that assumption your theory stays valid. outside of it either the results are too unpredictable or the theory fails flat out.
- scientific theories rely upon instruments to provide empirical data. the instruments are all finite precision which means they have a limited degree of accuracy. for example: we can measure the speed of sound accurate to 'x' decimal places. this 'x' is the accuracy. beyond which we have 'believed' that our results will not change significantly so as to affect outcomes. but then that is not the case. therefore using finite precision instruments to fathom proven beliefs is simply illogical. more so what is illogical is the fact that one denies in the authenticity of a 'belief'. for they themselves undeniably rely heavily on belief as just demonstrated. though in reality their beliefs are nothing.

now what i accomplished using these demonstrations were the following:
- StopS does not have the required scientific knowledge to speak for or against science. he demonstrated this by admitting he had not read an actual scientific paper. in all probability his knowledge of science came from media and/or lectures of some 'scientists' he wishes to 'believe' in.
- he is unaware of the limitations of science. this was shown by his ignorance of precision of instruments and the application of assumptions.
- he contradicts himself by getting emotional (and personal) with those who argue with him though he claims this is not the case with atheists whenever their 'theories' are challenged. he later claimed atheism has nothing to do with science (hereby using his ow logic making it a 'belief') and yet brings up science whenever he can.

therefore anywhere he pops up (or indeed any other atheist or non-muslims/muslims) challenging Islam with 'science' then you can use the above discussion as a guide to destroy his arguments. and save countless people from doubts, coined by our nafs and shaytaan.

and yes i have a degree in engineering. though this does not matter much.

[mh16388]

God is all about faith and science is all about observational reality.

actually i would have to disagree with that. Allah (SWT) has given us faculties of observation and intellect precisely to recognize Him. for example my masters' thesis is in dynamic control systems. in a nutshell you have to design your system in a way that given a reference signal the output 'tracks' the reference.
in nature this is everywhere. lets take the example of the planets. They follow a system of equations to follow a particular path or orbit. now we discovered those equations but who gave them in the first place?if we humans stop making the machines work by giving them the said references to track (and the energy to run) would the machines work?no. they will sit idle. hence Allah (SWT) gives the reference to 'everything' to work upon. and it does.
even so-called imperfections are perfect. i do not wish my system to track a straight line. i wish it to track a zigzag signal with random amplitude. if my system is designed 'perfectly' it will do just that. but i wanted it to follow something others may conceive as random/unpredictable etc.
we humans have freedom of will. we have been designed that way. yet whatever we do Allah (SWT) always knew about it. so we still track what was laid down for us. yet unlike inanimate objects we are not compelled to do so. they cannot choose but we have a choice. yet we choose what was already written down for us.
all this can be perfectly explained via just one branch of engineering.

[Maripat]

the only reason i participated in this discussion with stopS was because:
he claimed we believe in something that has no proof while he believes in something that has proof.

we believe in Divine Inspiration upon the Prophets (AS) and the Last Prophet (PBUH) and have adopted their teachings as our way of life. He has chosen to judge everything on science or his faculty of observation/intellect etc.

what i basically tried to accomplish was to demonstrate how his claims about science were completely false. in doing so i expounded on the following:
- scientific theories, are based on assumptions. within the boundaries of that assumption your theory stays valid. outside of it either the results are too unpredictable or the theory fails flat out.
- scientific theories rely upon instruments to provide empirical data. the instruments are all finite precision which means they have a limited degree of accuracy. for example: we can measure the speed of sound accurate to 'x' decimal places. this 'x' is the accuracy. beyond which we have 'believed' that our results will not change significantly so as to affect outcomes. but then that is not the case. therefore using finite precision instruments to fathom proven beliefs is simply illogical. more so what is illogical is the fact that one denies in the authenticity of a 'belief'. for they themselves undeniably rely heavily on belief as just demonstrated. though in reality their beliefs are nothing.

now what i accomplished using these demonstrations were the following:
- StopS does not have the required scientific knowledge to speak for or against science. he demonstrated this by admitting he had not read an actual scientific paper. in all probability his knowledge of science came from media and/or lectures of some 'scientists' he wishes to 'believe' in.
- he is unaware of the limitations of science. this was shown by his ignorance of precision of instruments and the application of assumptions.
- he contradicts himself by getting emotional (and personal) with those who argue with him though he claims this is not the case with atheists whenever their 'theories' are challenged. he later claimed atheism has nothing to do with science (hereby using his ow logic making it a 'belief') and yet brings up science whenever he can.

therefore anywhere he pops up (or indeed any other atheist or non-muslims/muslims) challenging Islam with 'science' then you can use the above discussion as a guide to destroy his arguments. and save countless people from doubts, coined by our nafs and shaytaan.

and yes i have a degree in engineering. though this does not matter much.
Lot of insight there.

But when talking about science the best instrument is Karl Popper's theory of demarcation. He came to the conclusion that the hallmark of scientific theories is their falsifiability. If you are given a theory then it is scientific if you can propose an experiment that will decide about the truth in it - that will either verify it or will prove it wrong.

StopS indeed does not have science background but he does have the paraphernalia of modern western atheists - flippancy, flamboyance and aggression. Personally I am not inclined to invite atheists to Islam for Allah (SWT) says clearly that it is the same whether you call them to truth or not, they shall not believe. But he does come back again and again to SF and thus I made an invitation to him assuming that there might be some spark of doubt about atheism in his heart. I hope this latest round of banning will be utilized by him in some brooding over life and death.


actually i would have to disagree with that. Allah (SWT) has given us faculties of observation and intellect precisely to recognize Him. for example my masters' thesis is in dynamic control systems. in a nutshell you have to design your system in a way that given a reference signal the output 'tracks' the reference.
in nature this is everywhere. lets take the example of the planets. They follow a system of equations to follow a particular path or orbit. now we discovered those equations but who gave them in the first place?if we humans stop making the machines work by giving them the said references to track (and the energy to run) would the machines work?no. they will sit idle. hence Allah (SWT) gives the reference to 'everything' to work upon. and it does.
even so-called imperfections are perfect. i do not wish my system to track a straight line. i wish it to track a zigzag signal with random amplitude. if my system is designed 'perfectly' it will do just that. but i wanted it to follow something others may conceive as random/unpredictable etc.
we humans have freedom of will. we have been designed that way. yet whatever we do Allah (SWT) always knew about it. so we still track what was laid down for us. yet unlike inanimate objects we are not compelled to do so. they cannot choose but we have a choice. yet we choose what was already written down for us.
all this can be perfectly explained via just one branch of engineering.
Again lot of insight there.
There are machines.
Engineers deal with them. My personal experience is that their natural inclination is towards belief.
Then there are biological machines.
And indeed it is an insult to call them machines. Let me give an example. An amoeba moves in water and in the course of its movement it changes its direction. Now this will be against Newton's first law but the amoeba did achieve that. Hence we have stumbled upon some thing more than a machine. We call them living beings.
Biologists deal with them. Owing to the Curse of Darwin too many, though not all or even the majority, are inclined to disbelief. The disbelieving minority rules over the believing majority.
Then there is the man. Living being par excellence. The best of created things.
You need biologists, physicians, psychologists, sociologists to deal with them and even then you are no where. Even after defining eight different kinds of intelligences and IQ in human being you need EQ (emotional quotient). And beyond that. That is called spirituality.

If we stop here and look back we realize that science was left far behind. Science usually means observational and empirical knowledge. In matters related to human beings we must go far beyond that.
It makes empirical and experimental knowledge look rather insignificant.

This is what I was trying to point out in my statement to StopS.

[mh16388]

Lot of insight there.

But when talking about science the best instrument is Karl Popper's theory of demarcation. He came to the conclusion that the hallmark of scientific theories is their falsifiability. If you are given a theory then it is scientific if you can propose an experiment that will decide about the truth in it - that will either verify it or will prove it wrong.

StopS indeed does not have science background but he does have the paraphernalia of modern western atheists - flippancy, flamboyance and aggression. Personally I am not inclined to invite atheists to Islam for Allah (SWT) says clearly that it is the same whether you call them to truth or not, they shall not believe. But he does come back again and again to SF and thus I made an invitation to him assuming that there might be some spark of doubt about atheism in his heart. I hope this latest round of banning will be utilized by him in some brooding over life and death.


Again lot of insight there.
There are machines.
Engineers deal with them. My personal experience is that their natural inclination is towards belief.
Then there are biological machines.
And indeed it is an insult to call them machines. Let me give an example. An amoeba moves in water and in the course of its movement it changes its direction. Now this will be against Newton's first law but the amoeba did achieve that. Hence we have stumbled upon some thing more than a machine. We call them living beings.
Biologists deal with them. Owing to the Curse of Darwin too many, though not all or even the majority, are inclined to disbelief. The disbelieving minority rules over the believing majority.
Then there is the man. Living being par excellence. The best of created things.
You need biologists, physicians, psychologists, sociologists to deal with them and even then you are no where. Even after defining eight different kinds of intelligences and IQ in human being you need EQ (emotional quotient). And beyond that. That is called spirituality.

If we stop here and look back we realize that science was left far behind. Science usually means observational and empirical knowledge. In matters related to human beings we must go far beyond that.
It makes empirical and experimental knowledge look rather insignificant.

This is what I was trying to point out in my statement to StopS.

aoa,
Jazak Allah. learned a lot

[dr.ati]

One of the guys which appeared in this documentary is Dr David Berlinski. Among the people who have recently written on atheism and its connections with science , i find him the most articulate one.His book in response to Richard Dawkins God delusion under the title "The devil's delusion: atheism and its scientific pretensions" is a must read. Here is he interviewed about the book http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyxUwaq00Rc
He has read a rich essay on Darwinism "The deniable Darwin" which can be read here http://www.arn.org/docs/berlinski/db_deniabledarwin0696.htm