Evolution Theory as a Powerful Weapon?

[Abu Zakir]

Charles Simonyi, head of Microsoft’s Intentional Programming team, gave Oxford University funds to establish a Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science with Richard Dawkins specifically in mind.

We might ask why would a powerful corporation like Microsoft pay a Atheistic Scientist like Richard Dawkins to promote his Science?

Evolutionary Theory claims that the talented animals naturally rise to dominate society and become its elite (Social Darwinism). Microsoft has become a dominant corporation therefore it deserves this position by nature. So Microsoft would promote the Scientists who say these things. Then of course we also have Bill Gates the very rich former owner of Microsoft who supposedly gives millions in charity and who promotes the feeding of the poor. I do not know the intentions of Bill Gates, but I suspect he is only promoting his company as most of these elites are followers of Thomas Malthus who said there are too many people in the world and we (the rich and powerful people) need to help reduce the human population, some of these people hate human beings and see them as nothing more than 'a virus'. Gates is probably not giving as much as it is claimed he gives, and the donations are never given free with no conditions tied.


Please note Corporations like Microsoft and Apple etc. did not rise to dominance through competition in a free market. They were mostly protected by their governments and they were given large sums of money by the US government (welfare to the rich). They were also given lucrative contracts by the American Military Industrial Complex, when the American government was involved in the Cold War and the War on Terror. So we see that War is a means of increasing the power of corporations.

[StopS]

Charles Simonyi, head of Microsoft’s Intentional Programming team, gave Oxford University funds to establish a Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science with Richard Dawkins specifically in mind.

We might ask why would a powerful corporation like Microsoft pay a Atheistic Scientist like Richard Dawkins to promote his Science?

Evolutionary Theory claims that the talented animals naturally rise to dominate society and become its elite (Social Darwinism). Microsoft has become a dominant corporation therefore it deserves this position by nature. So Microsoft would promote the Scientists who say these things. Then of course we also have Bill Gates the very rich former owner of Microsoft who supposedly gives millions in charity and who promotes the feeding of the poor. I do not know the intentions of Bill Gates, but I suspect he is only promoting his company as most of these elites are followers of Thomas Malthus who said there are too many people in the world and we (the rich and powerful people) need to help reduce the human population, some of these people hate human beings and see them as nothing more than 'a virus'. Gates is probably not giving as much as it is claimed he gives, and the donations are never given free with no conditions tied.


Please note Corporations like Microsoft and Apple etc. did not rise to dominance through competition in a free market. They were mostly protected by their governments and they were given large sums of money by the US government (welfare to the rich). They were also given lucrative contracts by the American Military Industrial Complex, when the American government was involved in the Cold War and the War on Terror. So we see that War is a means of increasing the power of corporations.

What is the purpose of an essay like this?

Charles Simonyi initiated more than one program, this being the Professorship of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. And?

Is there a difference between an "Atheistic Scientist" and a "Theistic Scientist"??? Why does Prof. Dawkins get to have "his Science"? Is the "Dawkins Science" different from other science or normal science?


What on Earth is "Evolutionary Theory"?

And "talented animals"? How can they "dominate society"? What exactly is "Social Darwinism"? What are "these things" scientists say? Why is it that Bill Gates "supposedly gives millions in charity" when it is a well known fact? The entire article smacks of false accusations, misrepresentation and confirmation bias.

"I do not know" "suspect" "probably" "mostly" are a showing a not too confident and knowledgeable approach to this topic without any serious research or reasoning. Throw in a couple of false accusations and blinkered views and you arrive at cheap propaganda.
Personally, I hate Apple and Microsoft for their monopolistic business tactics, but I stay honest when it comes to their representation.
So sorry: fail.

[Abu Zakir]

[QUOTE=StopS;763328]What is the purpose of an essay like this?

Charles Simonyi initiated more than one program, this being the Professorship of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. And?

Is there a difference between an "Atheistic Scientist" and a "Theistic Scientist"??? Why does Prof. Dawkins get to have "his Science"? Is the "Dawkins Science" different from other science or normal science?

Dawkins science is naturalistic giving the impression that cause and effect are self governing.



What on Earth is "Evolutionary Theory"?

And "talented animals"? How can they "dominate society"? What exactly is "Social Darwinism"? What are "these things" scientists say? Why is it that Bill Gates "supposedly gives millions in charity" when it is a well known fact? The entire article smacks of false accusations, misrepresentation and confirmation bias.

Evolutionary Theory is Darwins theory of evolution. Talented animals are those who are supposed to have the better genes, all so called herd animals have a pecking order, the alpha males and the beta males...please learn to read between the lines without getting too emotional and pedantic. If you do not know what social darwinism is look it up it is not that difficult. Bill Gates does not give millions in charity...it is marketing and the act of giving selflessly means one gives without trying to control people. You do not give with conditions. Do you really think these people who made their millions through robbery will just give the money away selflessly?


"I do not know" "suspect" "probably" "mostly" are a showing a not too confident and knowledgeable approach to this topic without any serious research or reasoning. Throw in a couple of false accusations and blinkered views and you arrive at cheap propaganda.
Personally, I hate Apple and Microsoft for their monopolistic business tactics, but I stay honest when it comes to their representation.
So sorry: fail.

This is how I write because I am trained in the humanities...I know it is difficult to be certain about most things there are always possibilities that I could be wrong...therefore I do not make concrete assertions.

[NNoor]

I disagree on Apple and Microsoft's successes, as well as Bill Gates' motivations behind his charity. They are successful because they produce good products, and because they know how to market themselves. IE being bundled with Windows...may have seemed a big deal in the early days of personal computing and the internet, but now no one bats an eyelid.

[Abu Zakir]

I disagree on Apple and Microsoft's successes, as well as Bill Gates' motivations behind his charity. They are successful because they produce good products, and because they know how to market themselves. IE being bundled with Windows...may have seemed a big deal in the early days of personal computing and the internet, but now no one bats an eyelid.


They are successful because they managed to get the government to protect them and give them (welfare) or government contracts. Free markets are supposed to work where firms and corporations compete against each other freely, the US market is not a free market and never has been, the government has been captured by the rich corporations who use it to protect themselves from competition through laws (aka regulatory capture), or they get plenty of free money from the government. We cannot say they are good products and that is why they are successful because competitors have not been allowed to freely compete against the big corporations which as I have said have been sheltered by the government.

If you open up a company and the government gives you money that your competitors do not get, or they make laws that allow you to gain dominance and prevent competitors from entering the market....it is not because you are a good business person that you would be successful.

[NNoor]

They are successful because they managed to get the government to protect them and give them (welfare) or government contracts. Free markets are supposed to work where firms and corporations compete against each other freely, the US market is not a free market and never has been, the government has been captured by the rich corporations who use it to protect themselves from competition through laws (aka regulatory capture), or they get lost of free money from the government. We cannot say they are good products and that is why they are successful because competitors have not been allowed to freely compete against the big corporations which as I have said have been sheltered by the government.

While this is true in the case of many corporations and especially the financial institutions, I don't think it applies to Microsoft and Apple. Microsoft was subjected to anti-trust legislation in the 90s, remember? They even saved Apple from going under. If people don't like Microsoft or Apple, or don't feel their products are sold at a fair price, they are free to use open source software.

[Abu Zakir]

While this is true in the case of many corporations and especially the financial institutions, I don't think it applies to Microsoft and Apple. Microsoft was subjected to anti-trust legislation in the 90s, remember? They even saved Apple from going under. If people don't like Microsoft or Apple, or don't feel their products are sold at a fair price, they are free to use open source software.


No it is true for Microsoft, Apple and other corporations including Boeing etc., this can easily be researched, and because you are unwilling to accept this as true, it just indicates the power of their propaganda. This is what is known as the military industrial complex. Once a company has adopted a particular computer technology they cannot just dump it and use Open Source...there are many barriers to doing this which would cost money and cause disruption. It is not a simple choice of using either one or another...they have established monopolies.

See

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=72955


See

http://tocqueville.richmond.edu/digitalamerica/?p=1070

[StopS]

[QUOTE]

Dawkins science is naturalistic giving the impression that cause and effect are self governing.


What language is this? What are you trying to say? What is "Dawkins science"? What cause and what effect are self governing? What does "self governing" mean?




Evolutionary Theory is Darwins theory of evolution. Talented animals are those who are supposed to have the better genes, all so called herd animals have a pecking order, the alpha males and the beta males...please learn to read between the lines without getting too emotional and pedantic. If you do not know what social darwinism is look it up it is not that difficult.


Excuse me, but YOU are the one talking about a scientific theory, which is very precise and accurate. There is no "talent" and no "supposed". There is no Darwinism. And no, there is no Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is an invention by Christians how felt threatened in their belief by the ToE. So they tried to take a negative name like Hitler and associate it with evolution. Stupid, but some people will believe anything when it comes to their belief system.



Bill Gates does not give millions in charity...it is marketing and the act of giving selflessly means one gives without trying to control people. You do not give with conditions. Do you really think these people who made their millions through robbery will just give the money away selflessly?


Ak, ok, thank you, I do not know Bill Gates personally. Which means he never told me it was just marketing.

I don't know why he donated money and I will not comment on this. I just know that Microsoft and Apple were initially not "mostly protected" by some government. Learning about the early rise of Microsoft and Apple was part of my curriculum, so I am pretty confident about this.

Both your sources refer to the farewell address of Dwight Eisenhower. Both talk about the merging of suppliers with the armaments industry. I did not see in either that Apple received any money from the US government. Maybe I missed it. If so, can you point out where it says that?



This is how I write because I am trained in the humanities...I know it is difficult to be certain about most things there are always possibilities that I could be wrong...therefore I do not make concrete assertions.

Well, the Theory of Evolution is based on facts. The donations of Microsoft are a fact. The one is biology, the other commerce. You are conflating the two. Why? Do you answer any questions?

[Abu Zakir]

Well, the Theory of Evolution is based on facts. The donations of Microsoft are a fact. The one is biology, the other commerce. You are conflating the two. Why? Do you answer any questions?

Allah is the Cause who creates what we might call Effects. Dawkins thinks all this is Natural and happens by itself, no God, just silly humans who think Gods exist.

Microsoft is not repeat not going to "give charity", it is a corporation, it makes profits, when they quote give charity end quote, they publicise it and once again I am telling you it is given conditionally and some of the amounts given are exaggerated for marketing purposes. Why publicise your giving charity? If you as a individual started to promote yourself saying how much charity you give it would raise red flags as to your intentions...a corporate entity only appears to do good and promotes itself because they want to make more profits...it is publicity seeking, public relations and marketing.

You said both Microsoft and Apple did not start out as part of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), (maybe not), however they definitely gained dominance as a result of their links to government. The microchip, semi-conductor and computing industries are built on war Research and Development and the MIC...without these we would not have a Microsoft or Apple in existence.

Sociobiology and Social Darwinism are promoted by Scientists like Dawkins. They really do believe there is no God and that we are all genes competing for social dominance and of course this story fits in well with the Microsoft and Apple stories of dominance.

This is not "conflating" Science with Economics or Politics, it is describing the real world Scientists have links to corporations and governments they build their reputations and earn a living through Science...it is not a neutral activity that takes place in a vacuum. It looks like it is a mutually self reciprocating relationship...meaning governments and corporations promote scientists who justify the social world that governments and corporations desire, and scientists are happy to do what they want because they get large sums of money and status. Microsoft built through government largesse, promotes Dawkins, the atheist social darwinian, who says the world as built by Microsoft and the US government is naturally as it should be and implicitly those of us who are dominated by them should just accept it and do not try to change or compete against it...because you just do not have the genetic material.

For the MIC and its involvement in the Semi-Conductor Business see:

http://understandingpower.com/chap3.htm

Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Who's Bashing Whom?: Trade Conflict in High-Technology Industries, Washington: Institute for International Economics, 1992. An excerpt (pp. 88-90):

In its early years, up to 100 percent of the [semiconductor] industry's output was purchased by the military, and even as late as 1968 the military claimed nearly 40 percent. In addition, there was a derived defense demand for semiconductor output from the military's large procurement of computer output throughout the 1960s. Direct and indirect defense purchases reduced the risk of investment in both R&D and equipment for semiconductor producers, who were assured that a significant part of their output would be sold to the military. The willingness and ability of the U.S. government to purchase chips in quantity at premium prices allowed a growing number of companies to refine their production skills and develop elaborate manufacturing facilities. . . .

The government continued to pay for a large share of R&D through the early 1970s, providing roughly one-half of the total between 1958 and 1970. As late as 1958, federal funding covered an estimated 85 percent of overall American R&D in electronics. . . . [T]he military, which remained the largest single consumer of leading-edge components throughout the 1960s, was willing to buy very expensive products from brand-new firms that offered the ultimate in performance in lieu of an established track record.

[dr.ati]

Is there a difference between an "Atheistic Scientist" and a "Theistic Scientist"??? Why does Prof. Dawkins get to have "his Science"? Is the "Dawkins Science" different from other science or normal science?



I think the difference is obvious to any sincere student of science. The Newtonian science has set up some rules for scientific procedure and the theory of evolution does not qualify those rules. Lets start with the falsifiability principle. Every scientific theory must be falsifiable to get qualified as a scientific theory and this property of falsifiability must be intrinsic to the theory .Kindly let me know how can i falsify the theory of evolution.

[StopS]

Allah is the Cause who creates what we might call Effects. Dawkins thinks all this is Natural and happens by itself, no God, just silly humans who think Gods exist.



What does the Theory of Evolution have to do with a god?
"Dawkins thinks" NO! Dawkins shows us the proof for the validity of the theory. We can prove evolution happens and does not require any outside assistance. Neither the Koran, nor the Sunnah or anyone in Islam postulates that evolution is a contradiction to a god.
Just like there is gravity and star formation, you need to respect reality.



Microsoft is not repeat not going to "give charity", it is a corporation, it makes profits, when they quote give charity end quote, they publicise it and once again I am telling you it is given conditionally and some of the amounts given are exaggerated for marketing purposes. Why publicise your giving charity? If you as a individual started to promote yourself saying how much charity you give it would raise red flags as to your intentions...a corporate entity only appears to do good and promotes itself because they want to make more profits...it is publicity seeking, public relations and marketing.



Do I disagree with you on this? NO!

I do, however, disagree with your earlier statement:


most of these elites are followers of Thomas Malthus who said there are too many people in the world and we (the rich and powerful people) need to help reduce the human population, some of these people hate human beings and see them as nothing more than 'a virus'. Gates is probably not giving as much as it is claimed he gives, and the donations are never given free with no conditions tied.


That is what I am showing to be wrong.


You said both Microsoft and Apple did not start out as part of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), (maybe not), however they definitely gained dominance as a result of their links to government. The microchip, semi-conductor and computing industries are built on war Research and Development and the MIC...without these we would not have a Microsoft or Apple in existence.



And that's all I want. The truth. If you want to postulate your opinion as a taunt or whatever, go crazy, but don't state it as a fact.
The next step would be to substantiate a claim. You claim that



they definitely gained dominance as a result of their links to government.


they, being Microsoft and Apple specifically. And here, again, you are wrong. They are not definitely connected with the government. The founders of Apple worked for HP and Atari. Are these also government "protected"? They were the first with a colour display and an intuitive GUI. Like I said: it was part of my studies, so you need to bring substantial evidence to the table to make this stick. Just some rumours and your wishful thinking is not enough.



Sociobiology and Social Darwinism are promoted by Scientists like Dawkins. They really do believe there is no God and that we are all genes competing for social dominance and of course this story fits in well with the Microsoft and Apple stories of dominance.



Oh dear, you really are a dreamer without any substance. What do Sociobiology and Social Darwinism have in common? Ah, I forgot: you can't answer questions, you just pile claim upon claim.



This is not "conflating" Science with Economics or Politics, it is describing the real world Scientists have links to corporations and governments they build their reputations and earn a living through Science...it is not a neutral activity that takes place in a vacuum. It looks like it is a mutually self reciprocating relationship...meaning governments and corporations promote scientists who justify the social world that governments and corporations desire, and scientists are happy to do what they want because they get large sums of money and status. Microsoft built through government largesse, promotes Dawkins, the atheist social darwinian, who says the world as built by Microsoft and the US government is naturally as it should be and implicitly those of us who are dominated by them should just accept it and do not try to change or compete against it...because you just do not have the genetic material.

For the MIC and its involvement in the Semi-Conductor Business see:


Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Who's Bashing Whom?


"100 percent of the [semiconductor] industry's output was purchased by the military"

What do Microsoft or Apple have to do with the semiconductor industry?

And yes, wars drive development. BMW used to build aircraft engines for the Nazis. Does that mean it is still protected by the German government???
But what you are doing is taking single words you don't understand and where you don't understand the context and combining them to make them look evil. This reminds me of what Harun Yahya does: no idea, no concept - but bash evolution.
No, the world is not built by the US government or Microsoft. No, Dawkins, to my knowledge, is NOT a social darwinist.
You don't understand the words you are using.

[StopS]

I think the difference is obvious to any sincere student of science. The Newtonian science has set up some rules for scientific procedure and the theory of evolution does not qualify those rules. Lets start with the falsifiability principle. Every scientific theory must be falsifiable to get qualified as a scientific theory and this property of falsifiability must be intrinsic to the theory .Kindly let me know how can i falsify the theory of evolution.

Are you serious?

There are 1000000000000000 of ways. Just one rabbit fossil in the Cambrian. Just one spontaneous creation. Just one non-genetic combination.
I stopped here and simply entered "evolution falsifiability example" into Google and got thousands of hits. Why did you not try this first before embarrassing yourself?

But it gets better. If you take the opposite: "it must be able to make verifiable predictions" it also works out as all facts taken together to predict what would happen if, have all balanced and happened. Try that with creation :)

[Abu Zakir]

"100 percent of the [semiconductor] industry's output was purchased by the military"

What do Microsoft or Apple have to do with the semiconductor industry?

And yes, wars drive development. BMW used to build aircraft engines for the Nazis. Does that mean it is still protected by the German government???
But what you are doing is taking single words you don't understand and where you don't understand the context and combining them to make them look evil. This reminds me of what Harun Yahya does: no idea, no concept - but bash evolution.
No, the world is not built by the US government or Microsoft. No, Dawkins, to my knowledge, is NOT a social darwinist.
You don't understand the words you are using.

Obviously if the government is buying up computer components at premium prices they are subsidising the industry and allowing certain companies to benefit and industries to form and conglomerate. A specific economic geography forms, and If you want to know how governments use regulations to capture and control markets for their friends in corporations you just need to do the research. Government regulations may create barriers to entry for particular firms, or put up so many regulations that new companies would have to abide by making it too expensive to form and compete.

The Capitalist MIC is driven by the US Government, it has a corporatist or even fascist relationship with its 'private' defence companies like Microsoft..who get favourable contracts enabling them to grow and profit. War is profitable for the MIC. Dawkins so called scientific theories support the Capitalist MIC implicitly by giving us a vision of the world which justifies the socio-economic system.

http://arn.org/docs/williams/pw_atheismandchildabuse.htm

An example of Social Darwinism advocated by Dawkins:


However, in Dawkins’ universe ‘purpose’ is nothing but a euphemism for the contingent outworkings of chance and necessity. Dawkins may try to compartmentalise ‘personal meaning’ from ‘cosmic meaning’, but he smashes through this artificial dichotomy with the giant iceberg of naturalistic evolution, reducing the personal to the impersonal, the free to the determined, and so sinking his supposedly unsinkable ship of ‘personal meaning’ in the icy depths of meaninglessness. Dawkins is quite right when he says that:

I can show that from a Darwinian point of view there is more Darwinian advantage to a male in being promiscuous and a female being faithful, without saying that I therefore think human males are justified in being promiscuous and cheating on their wives. There is no logical connection between what is and what ought. . . . [18]

However, the crucial point is that Dawkins' naturalistic philosophy gives him no grounds for saying that someone who takes the opposite point of view is in any sense wrong to do so – ‘There is no logical connection between what is and what ought’; its all just a matter of choice:

If somebody used my views to justify a completely self-centred lifestyle, which involved trampling all over other people in any way they chose. . . I think I would be fairly hard put to it to argue on purely intellectual grounds. . . I couldn’t, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious. I think I could finally only say, “Well, in this society you can’t get away with it” and call the police. [19]

In other words, in the final analysis ‘might makes right’ and the Darwinian ‘law of the jungle’ rules. Dawkins' atheistic worldview doesn’t justify ‘a completely self-centred lifestyle’, but then it doesn’t justify any lifestyle. The choice between lifestyles, including the choice between a life that includes abusing children and a life trying to prevent that abuse, is nothing but a non-rational manifestation of a Neitzchian ‘will to power’. As the agnostic philosopher Anthony O’Hear says of Dawkins, ‘this particular Darwinian is quite unable to explain why we have an obligation to act against our ‘selfish’ genes.’ [20]

Even Dawkins admits: ‘I realise this is very weak. . . But I still think it’s a separate issue from beliefs in cosmic truths.’ [21] It is a separate issue in that truths about an amoral reality can never discredit Dawkins' moral choice not to condone child abuse (of the physical or mental variety); but it is far from being a separate issue in that truths about an amoral reality can never condemn child abuse either.

The doctrine of Hell is the flip side of the doctrine of Heaven [22] , and both doctrines testify that life is not only meaningful, it’s serious. Christians should give some serious thought to how (and what) they teach about Hell, especially to children; but atheists should give some serious thought to the fact that without Heaven and Hell, their worldview offers neither justice nor hope, in a Godless universe that fails to provide any moral grounds for the condemnation of child-abuse. [23]

[dr.ati]

Are you serious?

There are 1000000000000000 of ways. Just one rabbit fossil in the Cambrian. Just one spontaneous creation. Just one non-genetic combination.
I stopped here and simply entered "evolution falsifiability example" into Google and got thousands of hits. Why did you not try this first before embarrassing yourself?

But it gets better. If you take the opposite: "it must be able to make verifiable predictions" it also works out as all facts taken together to predict what would happen if, have all balanced and happened. Try that with creation :)

So this is the state of your affairs and yet you are trolling around making silly claims. I did not enter it into Google because unlike you i biology has been my major and i do know the amount of extrapolation which is needed to "prove" the theory of evolution. Now lets analyze the silly babbling that of yours which is not only deprived of the slightest sense but also depicts your expertise in sciences.

"There are 1000000000000000 of ways. Just one rabbit fossil in the Cambrian. Just one spontaneous creation. Just one non-genetic combination"
So among those 100000000000000 you came up with these three pathetic cliches?

"Just one rabbit fossil in the cambrian"> It is like committing the composition fallacy. The absence of rabbit's fossil in the Cambrian explosion does not necessitate that it was not present before the Cambrian explosion. Secondly , the falsification rule must be intrinsically present in the theory and you should not be coming up with far fetched extrinsic hypothesis to show them as falsifications. So come up with something better than rabbits or i will conclude that the theory of evolution is a tautology at the end of the day.

"Just one spontaneous creation"> The whole set of animal fossils which appeared in the Cambrian explosion depict spontaneous creation and if you disagree then give me a solid proof of Precambrian evolution of the species which appeared in the cambrian explosion.

"Just one non-genetic combination"> What? I have never heard of this phrase in my life. Even Google is silent over it. Apparently it seems to be an oxymoron and deep down i think its your babbling at work.

By the way, tell me one thing. How does every tom and harry become expert on all the sciences the day they become pseudo atheists without going through any "evolution"?

[malone]

"Just one rabbit fossil in the cambrian"> dr wilfred splenebyrst a paleontologist from the London school of ergonomics has recently discovered a 520 millions year old rabbit fossil known as Paleohyrax reprobae. So this is a check mate.

"Just one spontaneous creation"> The whole set of animal fossils which appeared in the Cambrian explosion depict spontaneous creation and if you disagree then give me a solid proof of Precambrian evolution of the species which appeared in the cambrian explosion.

"Just one non-genetic combination"> What? I have never heard of this phrase in my life. Even Google is silent over it. Apparently it seems to be an oxymoron and deep down i think its your babbling at work.


This rabbit you mention. Try googling it. It may interest you to know that on the WHOLE internet there are only FOURTEEN HITS for such a big piece of scientific news, and they are all from religion/christian sites, there is not even one scientific paper mentioning it, so where do you - who are in the field... get your news from?

And the cambrian explotion exists because the fossil records we have are incomplete,,, so at the moment all it means is we are waiting for the evidence to be found. And the wonderful thing about science is that it goes where the evidence takes you. If there is no record ever discovered then scientists will modify the evidence to cover the facts, where as religion states teh facts without evidence then looks for the evidence to back it up.

[malone]

It took me 2 minutes of searching to realise that Dr spleynebyrst is a hoax, that no such person exists (the name was a clue, spleen/burst) and the london school of ergonomics does not exists either. did you do no research on this before making your claims?

this goes to show that when 'evidence' says something we already agree with we do not criticise or question the evidence too much to support our won beliefs!!!

[NNoor]

It took me 2 minutes of searching to realise that Dr spleynebyrst is a hoax, that no such person exists (the name was a clue, spleen/burst) and the london school of ergonomics does not exists either. did you do no research on this before making your claims?

this goes to show that when 'evidence' says something we already agree with we do not criticise or question the evidence too much to support our won beliefs!!!

Hilarious.

[faizol]

If there is no record ever discovered then scientists will modify the evidence to cover the facts, where as religion states teh facts without evidence then looks for the evidence to back it up.

Not really. Science is only one of the disciplines that can be used to study the truth. Science by itself however is incapable to present the absolute truth since the framework keeps on changing and limited in its scopes. Some might argue that the framework keeps on refining, but there's no guarantee that there'll be no drastic changes too it, hence changing is probably a better term. Religion by contrast claims to be the absolute truth. So the test to ascertain the truth of the claim wouldn't and shouldn't be limited by science only.

Allah Knows Best.

[dr.ati]

It took me 2 minutes of searching to realise that Dr spleynebyrst is a hoax, that no such person exists (the name was a clue, spleen/burst) and the london school of ergonomics does not exists either. did you do no research on this before making your claims?

this goes to show that when 'evidence' says something we already agree with we do not criticise or question the evidence too much to support our won beliefs!!!

That was a mistake on my part as i just searched it thoroughly.

[malone]

Not really. Science is only one of the disciplines that can be used to study the truth. Science by itself however is incapable to present the absolute truth since the framework keeps on changing and limited in its scopes. Some might argue that the framework keeps on refining, but there's no guarantee that there'll be no drastic changes too it, hence changing is probably a better term. Religion by contrast claims to be the absolute truth. So the test to ascertain the truth of the claim wouldn't and shouldn't be limited by science only.

Allah Knows Best.

But it is because the frame work keeps changing that it is more likely to get to absolute truth eventually (if you believe in absolute truth). It is limited in its scope, but then so is religion. An example here is when people give 'scientific' proofs of the quran and comment on things like the Big bang is mentioned in the quran, development of the embryo, science only found these things out recently etc etc. But then you ask - what about evolution? SILENCE. Religion manages to grab on to the parts of science that agrees with the religion, but then tries to change/ignore the parts it doesn't like.

I agree that science should be the only way to verify only naturalistic claims about the world. The rest of human experience is more complicated. The problem with many scientists is that they feel only their method that is good for understanding EVERYTHING when human experience is more than just a hypothesis, data, answer.

[StopS]

Obviously if the government is buying up computer components at premium prices they are subsidising the industry and allowing certain companies to benefit and industries to form and conglomerate. A specific economic geography forms, and If you want to know how governments use regulations to capture and control markets for their friends in corporations you just need to do the research. Government regulations may create barriers to entry for particular firms, or put up so many regulations that new companies would have to abide by making it too expensive to form and compete.

The Capitalist MIC is driven by the US Government, it has a corporatist or even fascist relationship with its 'private' defence companies like Microsoft..who get favourable contracts enabling them to grow and profit. War is profitable for the MIC. Dawkins so called scientific theories support the Capitalist MIC implicitly by giving us a vision of the world which justifies the socio-economic system.


Obviously? Why is this obvious? And again: what does this have to do with you claim that


Microsoft and Apple etc. did not rise to dominance through competition in a free market. They were mostly protected by their governments


Are you saying that the government is subsidising every industry? The government also buys desks. Does it thus subsidise the "desk building" industry? You have made some claims and so far are unable to qualify why, how and what these claims are based on.




http://arn.org/docs/williams/pw_atheismandchildabuse.htm



What is this supposed to mean? Is this clip from some Catholic institution relevant to anything? A paper by someone who claims his god creates all humans and this means evolution and speciation are impossible and which slanders anyone who accepts the fact of evolution and especially Richard Dawkins is relevant to you?




An example of Social Darwinism advocated by Dawkins:

It seems I am too much based in reality. I don't see anything on "Social Darwinism" here.

Could you define what "Social Darwinism" means for you?
Ah, but you are unable to answer questions. Oh dear!

[StopS]

So this is the state of your affairs and yet you are trolling around making silly claims. I did not enter it into Google because unlike you i biology has been my major and i do know the amount of extrapolation which is needed to "prove" the theory of evolution. Now lets analyze the silly babbling that of yours which is not only deprived of the slightest sense but also depicts your expertise in sciences.

"There are 1000000000000000 of ways. Just one rabbit fossil in the Cambrian. Just one spontaneous creation. Just one non-genetic combination"
So among those 100000000000000 you came up with these three pathetic cliches?

"Just one rabbit fossil in the cambrian"> It is like committing the composition fallacy. The absence of rabbit's fossil in the Cambrian explosion does not necessitate that it was not present before the Cambrian explosion. Secondly , the falsification rule must be intrinsically present in the theory and you should not be coming up with far fetched extrinsic hypothesis to show them as falsifications. So come up with something better than rabbits or i will conclude that the theory of evolution is a tautology at the end of the day.

"Just one spontaneous creation"> The whole set of animal fossils which appeared in the Cambrian explosion depict spontaneous creation and if you disagree then give me a solid proof of Precambrian evolution of the species which appeared in the cambrian explosion.

"Just one non-genetic combination"> What? I have never heard of this phrase in my life. Even Google is silent over it. Apparently it seems to be an oxymoron and deep down i think its your babbling at work.

By the way, tell me one thing. How does every tom and harry become expert on all the sciences the day they become pseudo atheists without going through any "evolution"?

Now I am exactly where I do not want to be and what I try and avoid: a debate with a creationist! Oh goodness, what have I done to deserve this?

And like all creationists I have had the displeasure of coming across, I get the same mix of ignorance, stupidity, vapid assertions and mostly personal insults. Enjoy your biology major - without evolution - and have a happy day.

[StopS]

It took me 2 minutes of searching to realise that Dr spleynebyrst is a hoax, that no such person exists (the name was a clue, spleen/burst) and the london school of ergonomics does not exists either. did you do no research on this before making your claims?

this goes to show that when 'evidence' says something we already agree with we do not criticise or question the evidence too much to support our won beliefs!!!

Good one, squirrel!

[StopS]

This rabbit you mention.


"Just one rabbit fossil in the cambrian"> dr wilfred splenebyrst a paleontologist from the London school of ergonomics has recently discovered a 520 millions year old rabbit fossil known as Paleohyrax reprobae. So this is a check mate.

So he quickly deleted this part of his reply when he saw he's been had?
What level of academics will the Muslim world have in a few years if this is the level the graduates operate on today.

[malone]

Exactly StopS. This is deeply disappointing that someone who boasts of being in the field and uses that as leverage to tell others that he knows the problem with evolution is taken in by such a childish prank. Anyone with any training in biology should have discovered very quickly this was a hoax!! Unfortunately there is a gullibility amongst some people when it comes to protecting their own beliefs so they will believe the first thing that supports what they already think.

It is not unique to muslims, but as a person with muslim background myself this saddens me.

[malone]

"Just one rabbit fossil in the cambrian"> It is like committing the composition fallacy. The absence of rabbit's fossil in the Cambrian explosion does not necessitate that it was not present before the Cambrian explosion. Secondly , the falsification rule must be intrinsically present in the theory and you should not be coming up with far fetched extrinsic hypothesis to show them as falsifications. So come up with something better than rabbits or i will conclude that the theory of evolution is a tautology at the end of the day.

This is dishonest what you've done. You've changed your post to say something else now when before you were claiming the fossilised rabbit in the pre cambrian existed now you are saying it doesn't matter whether it exists or not!! So when you have evidence that supports your point of view you will happily publicise it no matter how obvious joke it is, but when someone shows your evidence to be rubbish you say never mind it's not important!!! Maybe you should learn to falsify your own claims because there seems to be no way to falsify your beliefs on evolution, you just keep dancing around the evidence if it does not agree with you.

And your argument also supports the idea that the cambrian explosion is not yet fully understood, as the fossil record is complete. The difference is that in science IF someone found a rabbit or any modern animal in the pre cambrian era, science would accomodate this new news, where as you as a religious believer will never believe what the evidence says, only what you choose to believe regardless of the evidence. And you post and the way you changed it is evidence of this.

[dr.ati]

Now I am exactly where I do not want to be and what I try and avoid: a debate with a creationist! Oh goodness, what have I done to deserve this?

And like all creationists I have had the displeasure of coming across, I get the same mix of ignorance, stupidity, vapid assertions and mostly personal insults. Enjoy your biology major - without evolution - and have a happy day.

I am sure that it has started hurting now. Instead of launching adhominems and typing some incoherent statements , let me know what "non-genetic combination" is? I am sure that you invented this term in your home.

[dr.ati]

This is dishonest what you've done. You've changed your post to say something else now when before you were claiming the fossilised rabbit in the pre cambrian existed now you are saying it doesn't matter whether it exists or not!! So when you have evidence that supports your point of view you will happily publicise it no matter how obvious joke it is, but when someone shows your evidence to be rubbish you say never mind it's not important!!! Maybe you should learn to falsify your own claims because there seems to be no way to falsify your beliefs on evolution, you just keep dancing around the evidence if it does not agree with you.

And your argument also supports the idea that the cambrian explosion is not yet fully understood, as the fossil record is complete. The difference is that in science IF someone found a rabbit or any modern animal in the pre cambrian era, science would accomodate this new news, where as you as a religious believer will never believe what the evidence says, only what you choose to believe regardless of the evidence. And you post and the way you changed it is evidence of this.

ah @ dishonesty. There is an edit function appearing below every post which i have used. The edit time is mentioned there as well so lets not try to play the "victim card". The absence rabbit fossils in the cambrian explosion can be explained by some other factors and the tautology of theory of evolution can never be hidden with such examples. Come up with a single falsification rule intrinsic to the theory of evolution. Once i asked another "atheist expert on the theory of evolution" the same question and after three days he came up with the soring response "If there were no genes , the theory of evolution would have been false" and i think your mate stopS is trying to say the same thing but in his sheer ignorance he has called it "Non genetic combination". Don't pass judgments by repeating the most repeated atheist cliches " The difference is that in science IF someone found....." You don't have any monopoly over the sciences and science is not a monolithic tradition so that you can enjoy the liberty of writing such ridiculous statements.

[Maripat]

StopS you are a low yield crop. Even Richard Dawkins would have been a Muslim by now.
And we have other plans too. We shall chase Dawkins into a corner. He has been fooling with Christians. The party is over and now the time is up for him to look for a cover. We Muslims have arrived, by the Desire of Lord Most High.


You said in another post that atheism has nothing to do with science.
So for further discussion a logical thing will be not to use science in support of atheism.
And you should also understand that we Muslims shall keep using science in support of Islam, faith, belief, creationism. We have not disowned science.

Coming back to biology major. If you claim that you know better than a biology major then the onus is on you to substantiate it. If I were you I shall not give it a try. Of course I have already spelled out the better alternative - There is no god but God and Muhammed (PBUH) is His messenger. This solves all the problems of life. And without it one has no clue. In Punjabi they say Kalme bina na mildi toi - you have no clue without Kalima.

You have been with us for so long and you are not taking the best from us. Your enemies will accuse you of in-efficiency.

Please do not leave without Kalima.

[StopS]

Not really. Science is only one of the disciplines that can be used to study the truth.


Spoken with conviction and total ignorance.

What is the truth you talk of here?
What other disciplines are there to study whatever it is you call the truth?




Science by itself however is incapable to present the absolute truth since the framework keeps on changing and limited in its scopes.


What is absolute truth?
What framework changes in what way?
What branch or field of science is limited in its scope?

If you talk science use the parameters and use precise, accurate and definite arguments, please.




Some might argue that the framework keeps on refining, but there's no guarantee that there'll be no drastic changes too it, hence changing is probably a better term. Religion by contrast claims to be the absolute truth. So the test to ascertain the truth of the claim wouldn't and shouldn't be limited by science only.



In science you have laws which don't change. But that is old and boring. And not under any research any longer. Newton or Bernoulli were brilliant and set up observations we use on a daily basis as they provide applications.
Theories however are bound to change as they get more and more accurate. Unlike religion, they also provide for applications used daily.
Religions use parallels and allegorical stories, not factual descriptions.
Religion is spiritual. Science is fact. So why would you want to merge them?

Religion delivers spiritual comfort and not tools to ascertain reality. Finding a word in a religious book which is also used in scientific papers does not make religious book scientifically accurate.
Religion is based on faith. Science on measurements. Why would you want to merge them?

[Abu Zakir]

The government when it is big and involved in every little detail of individuals economic lives, taxing them, printing money and increasing its supply, buying products from private companies it creates inefficient firms protected from competition, I think David Rockefella of Standard Oil is quoted to have said 'Competition is a Sin', and this illustrates for me how badly we are all being shafted by corporations, and Atheists like Dawkins and others defend this status quo, it is no wonder that he is paid and given publicity by companies like Microsoft. Atheists like Dawkins are a disgrace and any atheists who admire him as a champion of atheist science are also to be considered disgraceful and ethically challenged.




Obviously? Why is this obvious? And again: what does this have to do with you claim that




Are you saying that the government is subsidising every industry? The government also buys desks. Does it thus subsidise the "desk building" industry? You have made some claims and so far are unable to qualify why, how and what these claims are based on.



What is this supposed to mean? Is this clip from some Catholic institution relevant to anything? A paper by someone who claims his god creates all humans and this means evolution and speciation are impossible and which slanders anyone who accepts the fact of evolution and especially Richard Dawkins is relevant to you?



It seems I am too much based in reality. I don't see anything on "Social Darwinism" here.

Could you define what "Social Darwinism" means for you?
Ah, but you are unable to answer questions. Oh dear!

[malone]

ah @ dishonesty. There is an edit function appearing below every post which i have used. The edit time is mentioned there as well so lets not try to play the "victim card". The absence rabbit fossils in the cambrian explosion can be explained by some other factors and the tautology of theory of evolution can never be hidden with such examples. Come up with a single falsification rule intrinsic to the theory of evolution. Once i asked another "atheist expert on the theory of evolution" the same question and after three days he came up with the soring response "If there were no genes , the theory of evolution would have been false" and i think your mate stopS is trying to say the same thing but in his sheer ignorance he has called it "Non genetic combination". Don't pass judgments by repeating the most repeated atheist cliches " The difference is that in science IF someone found....." You don't have any monopoly over the sciences and science is not a monolithic tradition so that you can enjoy the liberty of writing such ridiculous statements.

What is this tautology? You keep mentioning it but it would help if you stated what this tautology is supposed to be.

And I love the way you quickly shift the focus on to me by calling me a victim when really it was you with your 'background' in the subject that knows so much about evolution got fooled so easily by such a childish prank. Then, when the prank is made clear, you say that evidence you gave never mattered in the first place!! Of course the absence can be explained by other factors there are alternative explanations for EVERYTHING but the likelihood AT THE PRESENT TIME is that they are not there, nor indeed ANY MODERN ANIMAL is there becuase they DIDNT EXIST IN THE PRE CAMBRIAN ERA. If one is found, or even the part of one, then SCIENCE will be humble enough to change their ideas, but you? You are not humble enough to change any idea no matter what the evidence. And this is not a ridiculous statement, but is usually the way science work - sometimes ideas that were believed for 100s of years were discarded when the evidence came up with better explanations.

[malone]

StopS you are a low yield crop. Even Richard Dawkins would have been a Muslim by now.
And we have other plans too. We shall chase Dawkins into a corner. He has been fooling with Christians. The party is over and now the time is up for him to look for a cover. We Muslims have arrived, by the Desire of Lord Most High.

This is only empty rhetoric born of belief, not evidence. Empty words.


Coming back to biology major. If you claim that you know better than a biology major then the onus is on you to substantiate it. If I were you I shall not give it a try.

From a biology major who doesn't even know enough to check his sources even when they are most obvious prank. I thin we can all do better than such one who just believes what he wants and doesn't critique or question his sources or beliefs at all.

[faizol]

bla bla bla..
why don't you provide explanation first about how to use photons meter to measure events outside of the time-space fabric like you claimed in the other thread? Tell us all how to use the cheapo detector from alibaba.com to measure events before the big bang? Don't tell me you gonna provide the measurements of photons amount in a cubic metre at T temperature for that (like, also how you "explained" in the other thread)?

[faizol]

This is only empty rhetoric born of belief, not evidence. Empty words.



From a biology major who doesn't even know enough to check his sources even when they are most obvious prank. I thin we can all do better than such one who just believes what he wants and doesn't critique or question his sources or beliefs at all.

so you gonna be screaming around the world and shouting for eternity that my brother in Islam dr.ati made a mistake (of which he admitted to it) about his evidence and won't let it go to focus on the actual biology discussion if he wants to properly continue it?

[Saqqib_Ali]

Bill gates doesn't give millions....he gives billions...it is a fact, if this is marketing let it be so. If people didn't know they would say oh this rich man is heartless, doesnt give the poor their due, as a matter of fact he's giving more than the islamically prescribed 2.5 percent.

Secondly, I'm not sure why it is hard to grasp that evolution is a fact, even accepted by many Christians. It is only some Christians on the fringe that try to prove that Adam (A.S) appeared out of no where like a magic trick. Allah in the Quran says Adam came from earth and water. This is what evolution says. That life came from the dead earth. And about the millions of years, would they appear million to Allah, I doubt it.

I think some people showing gaulability and in the same instance showing up Muslims to be backward/Uneducated fools. Wasn't it the great bin baaz who passed a fatwa saying that according to his understanding of the quran and sun ah the world was FLAT. And he is/was one of the great scholars of the Salafi movements.

Saying evolution is false is just like saying the Earth is Flat. Quran wasn't meant to be a scientific book rather a spiritual book guidance for all mankind. Science changes, Quran doesn't.

Salam

Saqqib

[Abu Zakir]

Bill Gates received Billions from the State monopoly which helped him. People who give charity and trumpet their philanthropy either have a guilty conscience or are promoting their self, and if their charity is conditional it is not charity. For example when the American government 'gives aid' to another government it might say we will give x amount of dollars but you must buy y amount of produce from us in return, and you will allow American companies to do this or that in your country. This is not charity it is seeking control disguised as trade.

Evolution is a fact? So apes turned into humans and this is incontestable? So Adam was not the first man he one day emerged as a man only after his ancestor apes had evolved? How common are random mutations, are they mostly beneficial and how much time would be needed for them to create the diverse life forms that we observe?

The early earth was a rock with no atmosphere, yet it rained...this allowed plants to grow and form an atmosphere? These days we have scientists who say that deforestation cause soil erosion, when it rains the water washes away all the soil which the roots of the trees used to hold together. This would then prevent any plants from gaining root where the soil is always being washed away by rain...in the early earth how did plants gain root without being washed away by rain? Obviously trees were little seedlings before they become giant trees?

Should we also accept that Bill Gates and his company deserve to be at the top because they are genetically superior to the rest of us? That they did not get to the top through government handouts, welfare and protection against competition?



Bill gates doesn't give millions....he gives billions...it is a fact, if this is marketing let it be so. If people didn't know they would say oh this rich man is heartless, doesnt give the poor their due, as a matter of fact he's giving more than the islamically prescribed 2.5 percent.

Secondly, I'm not sure why it is hard to grasp that evolution is a fact, even accepted by many Christians. It is only some Christians on the fringe that try to prove that Adam (A.S) appeared out of no where like a magic trick. Allah in the Quran says Adam came from earth and water. This is what evolution says. That life came from the dead earth. And about the millions of years, would they appear million to Allah, I doubt it.

I think some people showing gaulability and in the same instance showing up Muslims to be backward/Uneducated fools. Wasn't it the great bin baaz who passed a fatwa saying that according to his understanding of the quran and sun ah the world was FLAT. And he is/was one of the great scholars of the Salafi movements.

Saying evolution is false is just like saying the Earth is Flat. Quran wasn't meant to be a scientific book rather a spiritual book guidance for all mankind. Science changes, Quran doesn't.

Salam

Saqqib

[Saqqib_Ali]

The questions you ask show you don't actually understand the issues you're talking about, but briefly:

We did not as a species emerge from modern day monkeys rather other "species" we might best describe as monkeys. So monkeys and us came from the same route, but our englightened selves is maybe what is meant by breathing soul into us. Imagine th favour on us, just because of the ruh we are what we are, what you and me would call human. otherwise we are just animals. Allah also says in the Quran some people who disobeyed were turned into monkeys, well this was done maybe by removing this aspect from them, Allah knows best.

Allah created life from lifeless Earth, and this is what evolution teaches, that life came from lifeless matter. Evolution says that over million of years etc... But this is in our refence of time, would it be the same length of time in Allahs time reference (hint:he is out side this thing called time).

So conclusion:Islam isn't at odds with evolution, and we shouldnt support the drivel that comes out of the mouth of some Christians.

Finally, Bill Gates et al. Me personally in the UK only heard about his charity when he first started his charity and because of what was happening, the media took great interest as Bill Gates was one of those personalities famous as the richest man in the world, and if such man starts to give his money away, that would be of great interest. but since then in the Uak I've hardly heard anything at all, I know he's funding things in Africa, something even to do with AIDs etc... But without researching I don't know so at the most his marketing failed.

About backing of Microsoft etc... Well these are just conspiracy theories which people love to believe the fact is that the true nature of what happened could be seen from modern day Facebook, Google, ayoutube, Amazon, twitter, etc... Are these also backed by the US government in a unfair way?

What happened was the company that clicked best with the consumer was the most successful and drove others out of the market. Remember quick books, Netscape Navigator etc...

Ever heard of Bing? Which is more popular Google or Bing? But how, Microsoft is favoured by the government isn't it?
Apple and Microsoft are competitors and after many decades Apple from a company ready to go bankrupt has gone on to become the largest corporate, even bigger than Microsoft, so what happened to the governments favourite? As far as I know, the US administration don't buy Apple products, rather Obama is known for his Blackberry.

Salam

About

[suleimanibnsalim]

What is this tautology? You keep mentioning it but it would help if you stated what this tautology is supposed to be.

And I love the way you quickly shift the focus on to me by calling me a victim when really it was you with your 'background' in the subject that knows so much about evolution got fooled so easily by such a childish prank. Then, when the prank is made clear, you say that evidence you gave never mattered in the first place!! Of course the absence can be explained by other factors there are alternative explanations for EVERYTHING but the likelihood AT THE PRESENT TIME is that they are not there, nor indeed ANY MODERN ANIMAL is there becuase they DIDNT EXIST IN THE PRE CAMBRIAN ERA. If one is found, or even the part of one, then SCIENCE will be humble enough to change their ideas, but you? You are not humble enough to change any idea no matter what the evidence. And this is not a ridiculous statement, but is usually the way science work - sometimes ideas that were believed for 100s of years were discarded when the evidence came up with better explanations.

The point is, we're dealing in probablilities. There is a probability that evolution did not take place exactly and precisely as certain proponents of the theory claim. Of course, you could assert - and it is asserted currently - that certain models present the most likely sequence of events, but that would be within a worldview where the potential existance of a God is not even entertained; I don't blame scientists, philosophy is not their field. However, we as Muslims will continue to interpret evidence under a paradigm where Allah does indeed exist. Hope you understand... I'm not looking for an argument.

was-salam

[Maripat]

This is only empty rhetoric born of belief, not evidence. Empty words.

From a biology major who doesn't even know enough to check his sources even when they are most obvious prank. I thin we can all do better than such one who just believes what he wants and doesn't critique or question his sources or beliefs at all.
I was talking to StopS. He is intelligent, energetic and irreverent. You have only one third of that. And neither you nor StopS stand a chance when it comes to Dr Ati. Being a sinner I do deserve all the insults that come my way but please release all the air you want to release and be done with it. I am completely interested in Dr Ati-StopS conversation. I do not enjoy unnecessary conversation with non-mahram. Kindly be on your way leave me to mine.

[NNoor]

This thread has lost all direction. Too many conversations going on simultaneously, and each clamoring to be heard.

I suggest anyone who wants to understand evolution give http://talkorigins.org/ a thorough read.

[malone]

I was talking to StopS. He is intelligent, energetic and irreverent. You have only one third of that. And neither you nor StopS stand a chance when it comes to Dr Ati. Being a sinner I do deserve all the insults that come my way but please release all the air you want to release and be done with it. I am completely interested in Dr Ati-StopS conversation. I do not enjoy unnecessary conversation with non-mahram. Kindly be on your way leave me to mine.

LOL. Why don't you be on your way if non mahrem offend you so much, this board has brothers only section too you sound you will be more happy there.

And I have read your posts and see that you are in no position to comment on anyone else's intelligence!!

And I will continue to point out Dr Ati's 'mistake' especially when people keep telling me 'no one has a chance because of his great knowledge'. Yeah so far his knowledge has not proved to be very impressive. But it's ok, it's only a 'mistake' he made, a mistake that undermined his whole argument and exposed the quality of this thinking.

[Maripat]

LOL. Why don't you be on your way if non mahrem offend you so much, this board has brothers only section too you sound you will be more happy there.

I was - till you jumped in my conversation with StopS and Dr Ati.

And I have read your posts and see that you are in no position to comment on anyone else's intelligence!!
Next you'll claim that you understand them.


And I will continue to point out Dr Ati's 'mistake' especially when people keep telling me 'no one has a chance because of his great knowledge'.

If there is a mistake at all you must have pointed it out already - why spend the rest of life on it?


Yeah so far his knowledge has not proved to be very impressive.

Please do not say later that I did not warn you against any attempts at fathoming his intelligence.
This is a conundrum that even angels are still at work to come in terms with.


But it's ok, it's only a 'mistake' he made, a mistake that undermined his whole argument and exposed the quality of this thinking.
Do you mean the post where you spelled explosion as explotion . But that is a wrong spelling!

[Abu Zakir]

I do not support Christian creationism. However Evolution Theory has many problems with it, one is that it is naturalistic meaning it sees no role for a God in the process of Evolution. The processes occur naturally it is asserted. Random mutations do not occur by chance if you believe that God had made them occur when He Wills, this is not what Atheist believer proclaim.

It is not a conspiracy theory to assert that companies like Microsoft received Government funding and this helped them to gain market dominance, the process is called the military industrial complex and it is called cartelization. regulatory capture, regulatory barriers to entry, mercantalism, state capitalism, crony capitalism etc. These things can be studied and researched evidence found...there are links posted in this thread that give references to this evidence. Just because I mentioned Microsoft and Apple only it does not mean the other companies are not helped by the government....the whole computer industry was fostered and built by the military industrial complex, Cold War and the War on Terror 'politics'.

You seem to naively believe the government propaganda that there are free markets and competition in so called State Capitalist countries.




http://understandingpower.com/chap3.htm
For sources on the Defense Department's role in fostering high-technology industries, see for example, Kenneth Flamm, Targeting the Computer: Government Support and International Competition, Washington: Brookings Institution, 1987, especially ch. 3 (on the crucial role of the Pentagon in the computer industry); Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Who's Bashing Whom?: Trade Conflict in High-Technology Industries, Washington: Institute for International Economics, 1992. An excerpt (pp. 88-90):

In its early years, up to 100 percent of the [semiconductor] industry's output was purchased by the military, and even as late as 1968 the military claimed nearly 40 percent. In addition, there was a derived defense demand for semiconductor output from the military's large procurement of computer output throughout the 1960s. Direct and indirect defense purchases reduced the risk of investment in both R&D and equipment for semiconductor producers, who were assured that a significant part of their output would be sold to the military. The willingness and ability of the U.S. government to purchase chips in quantity at premium prices allowed a growing number of companies to refine their production skills and develop elaborate manufacturing facilities. . . .

The government continued to pay for a large share of R&D through the early 1970s, providing roughly one-half of the total between 1958 and 1970. As late as 1958, federal funding covered an estimated 85 percent of overall American R&D in electronics. . . . [T]he military, which remained the largest single consumer of leading-edge components throughout the 1960s, was willing to buy very expensive products from brand-new firms that offered the ultimate in performance in lieu of an established track record.

[faizol]

LOL. Why don't you be on your way if non mahrem offend you so much, this board has brothers only section too you sound you will be more happy there.

And I have read your posts and see that you are in no position to comment on anyone else's intelligence!!

And I will continue to point out Dr Ati's 'mistake' especially when people keep telling me 'no one has a chance because of his great knowledge'. Yeah so far his knowledge has not proved to be very impressive. But it's ok, it's only a 'mistake' he made, a mistake that undermined his whole argument and exposed the quality of this thinking.

tsk tsk tsk... and you claim you're a researcher?

[malone]

I was - till you jumped in my conversation with StopS and Dr Ati.

This is an open forum for a reason. Anything private can be kept to personal messages. I and anyone else can join in as they please.


Next you'll claim that you understand them.

You are right - I am sorry. Your posts are too intellectual for me to understand.


If there is a mistake at all you must have pointed it out already - why spend the rest of life on it?

Not IF there was a mistake... there WAS a mistake. Accept it. It is important because immediately when the mistake was shown he said the evidence did not matter and he did no research it in the first place! And you keep telling others that no one stands a chance against someone like this? Pfft I don't think so. If it was StopS or me who had made the mistake and then pretended it didn't matter you would treat it with seriousness also because it shows what kind of thinking one follows and allows.


Please do not say later that I did not warn you against any attempts at fathoming his intelligence.

LOL. No danger of that.


Do you mean the post where you spelled explosion as explotion . But that is a wrong spelling!

I am sorry but I did not grow up in UK so my written english is not very good. But this is a mistake of spelling, and you say it is the same as a mistake about one of the fundamental aspects of evolution IN A THREAD ABOUT EVOLUTION where he is telling us of his KNOWLEDGE in the subject? If this was a thread about spelling you would have a point!!

You had better move on, I don't want you to fall into haram by talking to a non mahrem.

[NNoor]

Social Darwinism may have been a useful propaganda tool for the robber barons of the 1920s, but nobody buys it anymore. Case in point: the entire Occupy movement. People know that we don't have totally free markets. The government does subsidize certain corporations and financial institutions, there are tax loopholes that the corporations abuse, lobbying allows those with wealth to exercise undue influence over the government and enact legislation to bring themselves more wealth. More and more people are becoming aware of this every day. But as far as culprits go, MS and Apple are way down the list.

I really don't think Dawkins comes into the picture.

[AbuFatimah]

They are successful because they managed to get the government to protect them and give them (welfare) or government contracts. Free markets are supposed to work where firms and corporations compete against each other freely, the US market is not a free market and never has been, the government has been captured by the rich corporations who use it to protect themselves from competition through laws (aka regulatory capture), or they get plenty of free money from the government. We cannot say they are good products and that is why they are successful because competitors have not been allowed to freely compete against the big corporations which as I have said have been sheltered by the government.

If you open up a company and the government gives you money that your competitors do not get, or they make laws that allow you to gain dominance and prevent competitors from entering the market....it is not because you are a good business person that you would be successful.

free market is an idea the west promotes to stop the rest of the world catching up with them. They dont practice it themselves but its pretty handy getting wealthy countries to allow all their work to be run by private western businesses rather than strong state owned assets

[AbuFatimah]

p.s. the theory of evolution is nonsense.

Ask a well educated biolgist how the black widow spider came to volunteer itself to be eaten by its mate and you will laugh. They think the whole in built system in the animal world that keeps nature ticking all evolved. Birds evolved to build nests, think of all the amazing things you see in nature that allows the animal world to continue functioning autonomously and they think all of these things "evolved" into these animals

[Maripat]

This is an open forum for a reason. Anything private can be kept to personal messages. I and anyone else can join in as they please.



You are right - I am sorry. Your posts are too intellectual for me to understand.



Not IF there was a mistake... there WAS a mistake. Accept it. It is important because immediately when the mistake was shown he said the evidence did not matter and he did no research it in the first place! And you keep telling others that no one stands a chance against someone like this? Pfft I don't think so. If it was StopS or me who had made the mistake and then pretended it didn't matter you would treat it with seriousness also because it shows what kind of thinking one follows and allows.



LOL. No danger of that.



I am sorry but I did not grow up in UK so my written english is not very good. But this is a mistake of spelling, and you say it is the same as a mistake about one of the fundamental aspects of evolution IN A THREAD ABOUT EVOLUTION where he is telling us of his KNOWLEDGE in the subject? If this was a thread about spelling you would have a point!!

You had better move on, I don't want you to fall into haram by talking to a non mahrem.
Thank you for everything. Now only one point remains.
Why is a Muslim siding with a theory, or the supporters thereof, that has more probability of being kufr than Islam?

[Maripat]

p.s. the theory of evolution is nonsense.

Ask a well educated biolgist how the black widow spider came to volunteer itself to be eaten by its mate and you will laugh. They think the whole in built system in the animal world that keeps nature ticking all evolved. Birds evolved to build nests, think of all the amazing things you see in nature that allows the animal world to continue functioning autonomously and they think all of these things "evolved" into these animals
What is keeping you busy these days?

[Saj]

Thank you for everything. Now only one point remains.
Why is a Muslim siding with a theory, or the supporters thereof, that has more probability of being kufr than Islam?

She is not sure if Allah even exists. Maybe you missed her other posts.

[mh16388]

but our englightened selves is maybe what is meant by breathing soul into us. Imagine th favour on us, just because of the ruh we are what we are, what you and me would call human. otherwise we are just animals.

animals have a ruh as well. the thing that differentiates us from animals and from angels is free will. not ruh. animals base their actions on desire. angles do only that what is commanded by Allah (SWT) i.e good. we on the other hand have the freedom to choose between good and bad (as declared by Allah (SWT))

what doesnt have a ruh are probably rocks and stones.inanimate beings. nor do they have free will.

your quoting sheikh bin baaz in one of the posts is based upon your sectarian hatred for the group he represents and not on academic grasp on the topic. there are scholars other than ibn baaz who may have given different fatawa on the same topic. the scholars of islam stand corrected with the knowledge of Islam. do not brush all of them with the same rag kindly and that too using science of which you seem to have as much idea as the militant atheists who opposed the church in its teachings that supposedly went against scientific facts. it was also rhetoric not academic scholarship.

[StopS]

I am sure that it has started hurting now. Instead of launching adhominems and typing some incoherent statements , let me know what "non-genetic combination" is? I am sure that you invented this term in your home.

Yes, indeed, I do something different than you: I think and draw my own conclusions.

What is an ad hominem?

I want to see if you are capable of answering a simple question.

[StopS]

ah @ dishonesty. There is an edit function appearing below every post which i have used. The edit time is mentioned there as well so lets not try to play the "victim card". The absence rabbit fossils in the cambrian explosion can be explained by some other factors and the tautology of theory of evolution can never be hidden with such examples. Come up with a single falsification rule intrinsic to the theory of evolution. Once i asked another "atheist expert on the theory of evolution" the same question and after three days he came up with the soring response "If there were no genes , the theory of evolution would have been false" and i think your mate stopS is trying to say the same thing but in his sheer ignorance he has called it "Non genetic combination". Don't pass judgments by repeating the most repeated atheist cliches " The difference is that in science IF someone found....." You don't have any monopoly over the sciences and science is not a monolithic tradition so that you can enjoy the liberty of writing such ridiculous statements.

You asked a question



this property of falsifiability must be intrinsic to the theory .Kindly let me know how can i falsify the theory of evolution.


I answered it.

You then went off and ridiculed yourself. Now you are moving the goalpost by asking a different question:


Come up with a single falsification rule intrinsic to the theory of evolution

What happens if I answer this question? Will you move around again and ask a different question? You are not an honest academic.


What does your anecdote of another


atheist expert on the theory of evolution


have to do with our discussion?


Since when is every atheist an expert on evolution? Can you demonstrate that every atheist also accepts evolution AND that every theist rejects it?

Why am I declared as "mate" of anyone else? I don't know anyone here. So please stop making further false and dishonest assertions.

If you declare something as being ridiculous, could you provide something more than just emotional pleading?

[StopS]

StopS you are a low yield crop. Even Richard Dawkins would have been a Muslim by now.



Hahaha, you don't give up easily, do you?



And we have other plans too. We shall chase Dawkins into a corner. He has been fooling with Christians. The party is over and now the time is up for him to look for a cover. We Muslims have arrived, by the Desire of Lord Most High.


Have you informed him of this new development?



You said in another post that atheism has nothing to do with science.
So for further discussion a logical thing will be not to use science in support of atheism.


There is no "support" for atheism. I have opened a thread defining atheism - which I hope will be tolerated as it is purely information - which shows that atheism is purely a reaction. I don't know where this obsession with science comes from.




And you should also understand that we Muslims shall keep using science in support of Islam, faith, belief, creationism. We have not disowned science.

Coming back to biology major. If you claim that you know better than a biology major then the onus is on you to substantiate it.


A guy claims his major is biology (something I strongly doubt). He asked a question. I answered it. He then proceeded to make a fool of himself. What claim did I make which I would need to substantiate?



If I were you I shall not give it a try. Of course I have already spelled out the better alternative - There is no god but God and Muhammed (PBUH) is His messenger. This solves all the problems of life. And without it one has no clue. In Punjabi they say Kalme bina na mildi toi - you have no clue without Kalima.

You have been with us for so long and you are not taking the best from us. Your enemies will accuse you of in-efficiency.

Please do not leave without Kalima.

On the contrary: I am learning all the time and I am ignoring - or trying to ignore - the less flattering aspects. I am beginning to see the humans behind the masks and it is fascinating.

[StopS]

The government when it is big and involved in every little detail of individuals economic lives, taxing them, printing money and increasing its supply, buying products from private companies it creates inefficient firms protected from competition, I think David Rockefella of Standard Oil is quoted to have said 'Competition is a Sin', and this illustrates for me how badly we are all being shafted by corporations, and Atheists like Dawkins and others defend this status quo, it is no wonder that he is paid and given publicity by companies like Microsoft. Atheists like Dawkins are a disgrace and any atheists who admire him as a champion of atheist science are also to be considered disgraceful and ethically challenged.

It seems you have some serious issues.

And some serious misconceptions. You see conspiracies everywhere.

You keep on saying "The Government". Which government. Every country has some form of government.
Which government is big?
Which government is bla bla bla

Have you ever looked into economics? Do you know the difference between micro- and macro-economics? Do you think that if a government needs desks it should open up its own desk factory?


Insulting a person and everyone associated with that person indiscriminately is not exactly helpful either.

It looks as though you have a deep hatred for some people and you don't even know why.


This thread is about evolution and how it can be used as a weapon. May I suggest you stay on topic? This going off into some ridiculous pet peeve of yours is leading nowhere.

[StopS]

why don't you provide explanation first about how to use photons meter to measure events outside of the time-space fabric like you claimed in the other thread? Tell us all how to use the cheapo detector from alibaba.com to measure events before the big bang? Don't tell me you gonna provide the measurements of photons amount in a cubic metre at T temperature for that (like, also how you "explained" in the other thread)?

What does this have to do with evolution?

Just because you don't understand something does not mean you need to follow me around.

But I have a different suggestion: ask! In the appropriate thread or via PM or Facebook or Skype or YouTube or Twitter or any means of communication available to modern human beings.

[faizol]

What does this have to do with evolution?

Just because you don't understand something does not mean you need to follow me around.

But I have a different suggestion: ask! In the appropriate thread or via PM or Facebook or Skype or YouTube or Twitter or any means of communication available to modern human beings.
For what? To check if photons meter can actually detect photons from outside of the space-time realm like you claimed? LOL

[Maripat]

Right sis Saj.

PS: Just saw her thread about her non-route to Islam that I had browsed earlier too.
My apologies to those brothers and sisters who are trying to help her. Kindly keep up the good work.

[abuhajira]

Yes, indeed, I do something different than you: I think and draw my own conclusions.

What is an ad hominem?

I want to see if you are capable of answering a simple question.

Even Master Wiki can answer what an ad hominem is.

Why dont you guys (and I refer to both sides of the table), discuss the issue of the topic instead of these cheesy on liner answering questions with questions. You are making this show boring now, and my popcorn's gone soggy!

[mh16388]

could it be? : O
sir abu hajira gearing up to tackle evolution and atheists?
should be interesting.

[StopS]

Even Master Wiki can answer what an ad hominem is.

Why dont you guys (and I refer to both sides of the table), discuss the issue of the topic instead of these cheesy on liner answering questions with questions. You are making this show boring now, and my popcorn's gone soggy!

:) Sorry to lower the suspense and entertainment value.

drati does not answer any questions and does not seem to know what an "ad hominem" fallacy is. So I combined it into a simple question to check on his ability to look something up, verify his understanding of this and, at the same time, enable a possibility of his answering a simple question.

[malone]

Thank you for everything. Now only one point remains.
Why is a Muslim siding with a theory, or the supporters thereof, that has more probability of being kufr than Islam?

My story is on the general islam forum. you can read it and find out.

[Revert2001]

When one studies the Qur’an to see references to creation, it makes much sense to look at Muslim scientists interpretations of certain verses of the Qur’an, who lived in the early days of Islam. When this is studied it is realized that Darwin, who gets the credit for the idea of natural selection and evidence for evolution, was one thousand years late in the discovery.

The Muslim scientists ibn Kathir, ibn Khauldun, ibn Arabi, ibn Sina, among other scientists, such as the Ikhwan school of thought, arrived at the same conclusions as Darwin with a convincing amount of evidence. Every Muslim school and mosque used to teach evolution up until a few hundred years ago. Some westerners, including Darwin’s contemporary, Sir William Draper, called it the Mohammedan Theory of Evolution. Draper admitted that the Muslim version was more advanced than Darwin’s, because in the Muslim version, the evolution starts out with minerals.

http://exmypar.wordpress.com/2007/10/07/islamic-theory-of-evolution/

[Maripat]

My story is on the general islam forum. you can read it and find out.
Saw it.

[dr.ati]

What is this tautology? You keep mentioning it but it would help if you stated what this tautology is supposed to be.


Tautology is making a claim which says nothing and makes no prediction at all. The statements of which the claim is comprised reinforce each other in a way that the statement becomes a meaningless circular argument. For example if a person claim that i predict that it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain. One can see that both the statements "It will rain" or "it will will not rain" are just reinforcing each other and the claim is making no prediction at all and the statement is basically meaningless though it is necessarily true.This is a simple example of tautology.

The main mechanism of the Darwinian evolution is natural selection. natural selection is the driving force of the flow of evolution and in simple words it states that the nature selects the fittest. Those species who have a better compatibility with nature so that they can get enough food for their survival will survive and the others will perish gradually. For example if we have two animals A and B and they have different morphology and physiology and they are competing for survival in the "harsh" world of nature. Which of them will survive? The one that is fit will survive but wait ,which one is fit? The one that survives is fit. This tautology of natural selection can be summarized as below.

1. The one that is the fittest survives
2. Which one is the fittest?
3.The one which survives is the fittest

Natural selection is nothing more than a tautology as it makes no prediction and its a tautology is its core. As no testable predictions are being made , therefor the claim is unfalsifiable and as it is unfalsifiable it can not be taken as a scientific theory.

[StopS]

Tautology is making a claim which says nothing and makes no prediction at all. The statements of which the claim is comprised reinforce each other in a way that the statement becomes a meaningless circular argument. For example if a person claim that i predict that it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain. One can see that both the statements "It will rain" or "it will will not rain" are just reinforcing each other and the claim is making no prediction at all and the statement is basically meaningless though it is necessarily true.This is a simple example of tautology.

The main mechanism of the Darwinian evolution is natural selection. natural selection is the driving force of the flow of evolution and in simple words it states that the nature selects the fittest. Those species who have a better compatibility with nature so that they can get enough food for their survival will survive and the others will perish gradually. For example if we have two animals A and B and they have different morphology and physiology and they are competing for survival in the "harsh" world of nature. Which of them will survive? The one that is fit will survive but wait ,which one is fit? The one that survives is fit. This tautology of natural selection can be summarized as below.

1. The one that is the fittest survives
2. Which one is the fittest?
3.The one which survives is the fittest

Natural selection is nothing more than a tautology as it makes no prediction and its a tautology is its core. As no testable predictions are being made , therefor the claim is unfalsifiable and as it is unfalsifiable it can not be taken as a scientific theory.

Do you want to check and verify your understanding of the theory of evolution and delete this post or do you insist keeping it like this?

[dr.ati]

Do you want to check and verify your understanding of the theory of evolution and delete this post or do you insist keeping it like this?

What ? You have all the instincts which are necessarily present in a pseudo atheist troll. It is the very human nature which makes him to live in a narrative. You have for yourself invented the narrative of science in which you keep on casting your doubts and wishes. I would only respond to you know when you start making some sense. Take that post of my mine to the den and have a second bit at it.

[Maripat]

Do you want to check and verify your understanding of the theory of evolution and delete this post or do you insist keeping it like this?
This was ad hoc answer.
Discussion can not be continued if that attitude filters into it.
I'll not be surprised if this is what lead to your banning.
If you get another chance, I hope the ban is temporary, then please try to make the best of the opportunity to sort out some problems. Wise-one-lines, ad hoc arguments and ad hominems are the things that no one conscious of the utility of his time would like to indulge in.

[mh16388]

Tautology is making a claim which says nothing and makes no prediction at all. The statements of which the claim is comprised reinforce each other in a way that the statement becomes a meaningless circular argument. For example if a person claim that i predict that it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain. One can see that both the statements "It will rain" or "it will will not rain" are just reinforcing each other and the claim is making no prediction at all and the statement is basically meaningless though it is necessarily true.This is a simple example of tautology.

The main mechanism of the Darwinian evolution is natural selection. natural selection is the driving force of the flow of evolution and in simple words it states that the nature selects the fittest. Those species who have a better compatibility with nature so that they can get enough food for their survival will survive and the others will perish gradually. For example if we have two animals A and B and they have different morphology and physiology and they are competing for survival in the "harsh" world of nature. Which of them will survive? The one that is fit will survive but wait ,which one is fit? The one that survives is fit. This tautology of natural selection can be summarized as below.

1. The one that is the fittest survives
2. Which one is the fittest?
3.The one which survives is the fittest

Natural selection is nothing more than a tautology as it makes no prediction and its a tautology is its core. As no testable predictions are being made , therefor the claim is unfalsifiable and as it is unfalsifiable it can not be taken as a scientific theory.

that was good.

[dr.ati]

Mathematics has a strange relation with scientific theories. No scientific theory can produce a solid conviction in the mind of a human until it has passed the mathematical tests. Whenever a theory or a scientist stops dealing in numbers , he immerses himself into a deep and unattractive miasma where faith must come into the service of science to grant a pseudo validity to the theory. Many of the famous mathematicians have been at loggerheads with the theory of evolution as the theory has never passed any mathematical test. It even does not make any such prediction which can be mathematically verified. The main tenets of theory stand in a tautological relation to each other and are connected by imaginative extrapolations.

The legendary mathematician and logician of the last century , Kurt Godel said "I don’t think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanism can’t yield the brain. I think the basic elements of the universe are simple. Life force is a primitive element of the universe and it obeys certain laws of action. These laws are not simple, and they are not mechanical"

[Rahmaniyyah]

:salam:

The Theory of Biological Evolution and Islam by Zameelur Rahman (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?99887-The-Theory-of-Biological-Evolution-and-Islam-by-Zameelur-Rahman)

[Biggs]

Can you explain what you mean? There are mathematical theories that have no reality as far as we know - for example, string theory - that is no mathematical theory is valid until its predictions have been verified - this therefore seems the opposite of what you said