Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Qur'anic studies today
Today at 08:33 PM

Kashmir endgame
Today at 02:03 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Today at 01:37 PM

hindus in India beat A M...
Today at 01:23 PM

The Battle for British Is...
Yesterday at 05:00 PM

What music are you listen...
August 15, 2019, 09:05 PM

Human Rights and Wrongs
August 14, 2019, 04:47 PM

New PM incoming
August 13, 2019, 07:27 PM

Eid Al-Adha
August 13, 2019, 01:00 PM

Happy-clappy reformers
August 13, 2019, 11:58 AM

Dutch burka ban
August 10, 2019, 10:17 PM

ماذا يحدث هذه الايام؟؟؟.
by akay
August 10, 2019, 10:38 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran

 (Read 41643 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 ... 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #60 - January 15, 2015, 11:36 PM

    My background is in cartooning, illustration, publishing, animation.  Science and comparative religion are among my personal interests and hobbies.

    Thanks. May I ask where you get your information in regards to biology? Do you use google? Do you have any commentators on the field whose works you prefer? Do you read any textbooks?
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #61 - January 15, 2015, 11:50 PM

    What is your opinion on cartoons of Muhammad? Do you think they should be banned?


    I think, because of mankind's penchant for devolving into paganism and worshiping such things eventually, that we probably shouldn't create images of the prophets.  Personally I don't care for disbelievers creating offensive images of figures from my sacred belief system. 

    I don't think they should be banned though.

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #62 - January 15, 2015, 11:50 PM

    Thanks. May I ask where you get your information in regards to biology? Do you use google? Do you have any commentators on the field whose works you prefer? Do you read any textbooks?


    All of the above.

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #63 - January 15, 2015, 11:58 PM

    And, again, my apologies, because I'm not about to go through your 70-something page thread in its entirety, so I undoubtedly missed this, but is it your position that evolution is not true? And if so, you've found nothing in your sources to indicate that it would be?
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #64 - January 16, 2015, 12:04 AM

    I believe in a smaller scale form of evolution... behavioral evolution, emotional evolution, an evolution in maturity development from child to adult.  Societal.  Technological even. But there's no evidence for Evolutionary Theory as being the catalyst for the origin of species as those proponents claim.  In fact, their literature is peppered with blind faith statements of what they someday hope to find, completely at odds with the "overwhelming evidence" laymen true believers like Dawkins like to falsely proclaim.   

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #65 - January 16, 2015, 12:11 AM

    Lua, at this point, I don't even remember what was in that old intro thread.

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #66 - January 16, 2015, 12:13 AM

    Debating evolution is so 2010.
    Most apologists learned to avoid the subject altogether, only reluctantly wheeling out a rehearsed response about 'the limitations of science' when pushed.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #67 - January 16, 2015, 12:17 AM

    That's actually one of the truths about the field that my own research has found. 

    A curious factoid considering scientists in every other field have zero problem debating their findings.  Evolutionary theorists hide in the closet, allowing the ignorant lay folk to proselytize for them based on the “overwhelming evidence” they BELIEVE is available.  smh

    There's another component to the evolution scientists' behavior that's even worst, and even more telling:  they cheat.

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #68 - January 16, 2015, 12:24 AM

    I believe in a smaller scale form of evolution... behavioral evolution, emotional evolution, an evolution in maturity development from child to adult.  Societal.  Technological even. But there's no evidence for Evolutionary Theory as being the catalyst for the origin of species as those proponents claim

    Ah, so you believe in stairs but not a staircase. I see.

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #69 - January 16, 2015, 12:27 AM

    Interesting. And it's also interesting, to be honest, that you call hypotheses based off of a model blind faith. Using a best-fit model to make assumptions of what we expect to one day find is what drives scientific discovery and is crucial to the scientific method. I would even suggest that the occasional biologist who speaks out against evolution is attempting to employ some form of the scientific method, or else I'm certain you wouldn't put much stock in their opinions.

    I do sometimes regret that we're so hasty to "prove" evolution as an unshakable fact rather than to discuss what it is and what function it serves as a theory, as a template and as a model to our understanding of life sciences, and I think it forces proponents, particularly in religious debates, to defend any ostensible outliers or gaps in our knowledge of evolution and for creationists to scramble to find these gaps and outliers.

    The reason we use evolution, particularly in cell biology as of late, or at least keep it in the back of our minds, is because the model tends to fit and it tends help us form hypotheses that eventually can become demonstrably true. I wonder if you and perhaps even those who support it are dwelling too much on whether or not evolution is an actual fact of the world that can never be modified or replaced, and less about what it is that makes it a theory rather than a law: that it is currently the best fit model when we take to experimentation or when we analyze genomes and other such problems that we currently have no better answer to.

    You don't quite dethrone evolution by pointing out that there's still refinements to be made in the system or that there are unanswered questions or what appears to be problems in anecdotal cases. You do it by, if not modifying the idea of evolution to satisfy those issues and then proceeding to test it further, replacing it with something better that we can design experiments off of.

    If it's your belief that you do have a better working model to understand biology on a macro and micro scale,  I and many others would like to hear it, and, more importantly, there are many significant monetary rewards being offered for someone who can demonstrate this, both by scientists and by creationists. Unfortunately, they haven't been claimed yet. But maybe someday.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #70 - January 16, 2015, 12:28 AM

    Lua, at this point, I don't even remember what was in that old intro thread.


    I actually tried to read it once, because it was the longest one I'd seen on here, and I think I got to page 10 or something and had to stop. It got crazy fast.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #71 - January 16, 2015, 12:35 AM

    That's actually one of the truths about the field that my own research has found.  

    A curious factoid considering scientists in every other field have zero problem debating their findings.  


    the debate is over. you guys lost. You gotta learn to move on. To continue the debate would just be rubbing it in.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #72 - January 16, 2015, 12:40 AM

    Who are "you guys?"

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #73 - January 16, 2015, 12:43 AM

    whoever thinks there is some kind of scientific conspiracy against creationism.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #74 - January 16, 2015, 12:50 AM

    And, again, my apologies, because I'm not about to go through your 70-something page thread in its entirety


    Shame, because its comedy gold.

    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #75 - January 16, 2015, 12:54 AM

    whoever thinks there is some kind of scientific conspiracy against creationism.


    I wouldn't consider it a scientific conspiracy against creationism, but a scientific conspiracy to uphold evolutionism.

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #76 - January 16, 2015, 01:03 AM

    I wouldn't consider it a scientific conspiracy against creationism, but a scientific conspiracy to uphold evolutionism.


    Oh yeah. That makes it better!
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #77 - January 16, 2015, 01:23 AM

    Interesting. And it's also interesting, to be honest, that you call hypotheses based off of a model blind faith.


    In having numerous discussions with atheists over the years, one of their primary contentions is their disdain over religion's “lack of facts” and its proponents’ penchant for “blind faith.”  They also tend to uphold evolution as their god of life on earth.  To discover that they don’t have any facts that they need to pull their own system out of the blind faith section is interesting to me also.

    Using a best-fit model to make assumptions of what we expect to one day find is what drives scientific discovery and is crucial to the scientific method.


    That’s where the “cheating” I mentioned comes in at.  It isn’t a best fit model, Lua, it’s only what they want to be true.  And now they have a billion dollar industry built up around the concept, so now they NEED it to be true.  There’s no actual science here, there’s only deception in the guise of science.

    I would even suggest that the occasional biologist who speaks out against evolution is attempting to employ some form of the scientific method, or else I'm certain you wouldn't put much stock in their opinions.


    They actually aren’t “speaking out against it,” really.  They are just casually mentioning what’s actually available to their peers who are in the know.  For someone like myself, who is often attacked for his belief in a “faith-based system with no facts to support it,” admissions like that tend to stand out like a blaring noise when coming from scientist proponents of a system that is supposed to replace God and His sacred scripture.

    I do sometimes regret that we're so hasty to "prove" evolution as an unshakable fact rather than to discuss what it is and what function it serves as a theory, as a template and as a model to our understanding of life sciences, and I think it forces proponents, particularly in religious debates, to defend any ostensible outliers or gaps in our knowledge of evolution and for creationists to scramble to find these gaps and outliers.


    At this point, I think it’s just in the way.  It’s distracting the scientific community from getting to the true heart of the origin of species in the record, because they are more concerned over protecting the integrity of the theory than they are finding out the truth in nature.  Again that’s NOT science.

    The reason we use evolution, particularly in cell biology as of late, or at least keep it in the back of our minds, is because the model tends to fit…


    A lack of facts to support the theory proves that not to be true.  You know what you sound like?  Like a Christian attempting to clumsily explain how the trinity doctrine is actually monotheism.

    …and it tends help us form hypotheses that eventually can become demonstrably true.


    lol Lua, please.   You’re only confirming my point that this is more religion than science, from the same vein that atheists deride in theists.  They are forming false hypotheses, based on a false theory unsupported by any facts, in the hopes that maybe kinda perhaps a fact might emerge someday if they pray really, Really, REALLY hard, or at least often enough that Darwin himself might grant their wish.  Maybe. 

    I wonder if you and perhaps even those who support it are dwelling too much on whether or not evolution is an actual fact of the world that can never be modified or replaced, and less about what it is that makes it a theory rather than a law:


    I would imagine that at least a single supporting fact would be needed to upgrade it from blind faith paganism to just the basic hypothesis level.  I’m sure they will let us know should such a thing decide to manifest based on the power of pagan prayer (I wouldn’t hold my breath though).   

    …that it is currently the best fit model when we take to experimentation or when we analyze genomes and other such problems that we currently have no better answer to.


    lol No.   That’s what both wishing and wasting money sound like in turns.

    You don't quite dethrone evolution…


    Evolution sits on no thrones.  It is a fiction. 

    …by pointing out that there's still refinements to be made in the system…


    A single fact that would support any aspect of it wouldn’t be a “refinement,” Lua, it would be a major validation for all of the funding, grants, etc.

    …or that there are unanswered questions or what appears to be problems in anecdotal cases.


    ALL of evolutionary theory’s questions are unanswered.   All.


    You do it by, if not modifying the idea of evolution to satisfy those issues and then proceeding to test it further, replacing it with something better that we can design experiments off of.


    I wholeheartedly agree with this.  Throw evolutionary theory in the garbage, never to mention it again except in shame, and develop a whole new model based on the actual data in the record.  No more hiding, cheating, and supporting foolishness.  Uncover the facts within the natural world and build hypotheses that conform around those facts, altering and adjusting as new facts come to light. 

    If it's your belief that you do have a better working model to understand biology on a macro and micro scale,  I and many others would like to hear it…


    I would start with bearing witness that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger.  That would cut down significantly on embarrassing foolishness such as what the science world is currently dealing with.

    and, more importantly, there are many significant monetary rewards being offered for someone who can demonstrate this, both by scientists and by creationists. Unfortunately, they haven't been claimed yet. But maybe someday.


    As long as all funds and resources are being directed into the evolutionary black hole of nonsense, this will probably never happen.  All legitimate efforts to produce new, far more worthy theories around the facts are immediately ostracized by this billion dollar paganism bureaucratic institution. 

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #78 - January 16, 2015, 01:25 AM

    Oh yeah. That makes it better!


    Evolutionism is the one that needs all the artificial help.

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #79 - January 16, 2015, 01:42 AM

    The best example of what now?  Dogs are one species.  A 'breed' is not a separate species.  All the dog breeds are capable of mating with one another and producing fertile offspring.  Your claim that "speciation has been observed" is not a scientific fact, but a demonstration of a true believer bearing witness based on his blind faith.


    Nope it has been observed into two species in a short amount of time and in dog over a long period.


    Quote
    The book is no less than a compilation of numerous scientific anomalies found in nature that do not fit the evolutionary theory model.  The authors did not create them, as seems to be your odd belief, but only compiled into a single published source items that were already observed and documented by scientists in the field, only to be put away with disturbed confusion by those same scientists.


    Which used data from the 19th centuries. The authors are not aware of dating contamination. This happens in burials with fire and water which erode markers in the bodies replacing these marks with the ground material. Hence why the dating is so far off, he is dating the ground ignorant of the contamination. This happens when one is not qualified in the field they write about. Heck we have dated modern can to thousands to millions of years old due to contamination. The book was never peer-reviewed so never confirmed. Given how poorly research it is I am not surprised. Also the fact that 19th and 20th centuries were comprised of rich amateurs rather than trained profession these mistakes are common.  Much of this early work has been refuted and corrected by modern professionals. Although well written it is not well researched.


    Quote
    1.) God said it was He who taught mankind that which he knew not.
    2.) Researchers from respected institutions (Boston University and Harvard Medical School no less) have found evidence for there being an actual language structure within our basic building block cells.  Your inability to think outside of your narrow-minded atheist box prevents you from seeing the significance of these two points.


    Post hoc rationalization. There is a lot man kind did not know. We did not know about flight, we did not know about other solar systems. You take a vague verse and retrofit in to match your faith, nothing more. The fact that you rely on insults is sad. I am not obligated to accept people's wishful thinking just because one is enamoured with their own confirmation bias. Link the study. Unsubstantiated opinion is meaningless.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #80 - January 16, 2015, 01:44 AM

    Amusing  amount of non-arguments you have presented. The only thing you have been doing is useless banter as dodge
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #81 - January 16, 2015, 02:02 AM

    Nope it has been observed into two species in a short amount of time and in dog over a long period.


    Is a "short amount of time" now considered "evolution?"  Because that sounds suspiciously of the opposite of that.

    Which used data from the 19th centuries.


    So?  And what century was Darwin's nonsense published in? 

    The authors are not aware of dating contamination. This happens in burials with fire and water which erode markers in the bodies replacing these marks with the ground material. Hence why the dating is so far off, he is dating the ground ignorant of the contamination. This happens when one is not qualified in the field they write about.


    I thought you said there were no peer reviews?  So how do you know what their data was doing or not doing?  You are typing nonsense until you line-by-line review the material they presented as either supporting or not supporting evolutionary theory.  Outside of that your opinion is only meaningless babbling.

    Heck we have dated modern can to thousands to millions of years old due to contamination.


    Where?

    The book was never peer-reviewed so never confirmed.


    Then why are you pretending to know what's real in it?

    Given how poorly research it is I am not surprised.


    That's exactly how I feel about your precious evolution theory.  Forbidden Archaeology is merely a compilation of science anomalies found in nature by reputable science.  Your criticism doesn't even make sense outside of shining a spotlight on the butthurt you radiate.

    Also the fact that 19th and 20th centuries were comprised of rich amateurs rather than trained profession these mistakes are common.


    Obviously you have decided to make fun of Darwin and his supporters.  My, how quickly they turn, eh?

    Much of this early work has been refuted and corrected by modern professionals.


    Where?

    Although well written it is not well researched.


    You seem to know an awful lot about the scientific conscientious around a book that was never peer reviewed.  Curious. 

    Post hoc rationalization.


    Whatever you wish to call it.  There's still an undeniable potency to the findings that conflict with a mundane/secular model of the universe.

    There is a lot man kind did not know. We did not know about flight, we did not know about other solar systems.


    Did you know that Francis Crick had a [spiritual] vision of the DNA double helix before it's discovery?  Fascinating, innit?  Wink

    You take a vague verse and retrofit in to match your faith, nothing more.


    That's what the narrow-minded always say.  I expect no less than what they are capable.  That double helix comment means absolutely nothing to you in context of the Sura 96 verse, am I right? 

    The fact that you rely on insults is sad.


    So you don't consider any of those comments you made towards me to be insults on the other page, bogart?  I guess atheists don't believe in integrity either then.  Somehow I am not surprised.

    I am not obligated to accept people's wishful thinking just because one is enamoured with their own confirmation bias. Link the study. Unsubstantiated opinion is meaningless.


    Atheism and all that it upholds over the truth of the One God are meaningless.   Get yourself together while ye yet have life to do so.

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #82 - January 16, 2015, 02:14 AM

    In having numerous discussions with atheists over the years, one of their primary contentions is their disdain over religion's “lack of facts” and its proponents’ penchant for “blind faith.”  They also tend to uphold evolution as their god of life on earth.  To discover that they don’t have any facts that they need to pull their own system out of the blind faith section is interesting to me also.


    I think the distinction that perhaps you're not appreciating here is that, when someone remarks on religion being a "blind faith" ordeal, it's actually just that, and theists are often very proud of it. Faith, after all, is virtuous in religions and is in fact kind of the cornerstone of at least Christianity and Islam--after all, how much more of the Quran would become problematic to explain if faith were not required? Then what's the point? Isn't this life a test full of deception and distractions to see if you come out holding firmly to faith regardless of what the natural world seems to suggest?

    When we mean religion is faith, we really mean it, and religion doesn't aspire to be anything other than this. Of course, the reason you are here, and the reason why creationism vs. evolution is ever an issue to begin with, is because you're now in the position, as someone who very much wants to preserve a belief system dear to you, where you may feel compelled to fight against any evidence that your faith is at odds with the natural world. This is the only reason religion and science collides. No one is designing experiments to demonstrate the existence of Allah or Vishnu or the Holy Spirit. It's a game based on faith, and a lot of theists like it this way.

    Try not to make the mistake, however, of equating scientific hypotheses with faith. They are guesses, yes, but not faith. They have no merit to the scientific community until they are demonstrated. Unlike in matters of religious faith, we endeavor to prove them, while religious claims are substantiated only by their own assertions, and, unfortunately, all of them claim to be correct, so what're you going to do?

    That’s where the “cheating” I mentioned comes in at.  It isn’t a best fit model, Lua, it’s only what they want to be true.  And now they have a billion dollar industry built up around the concept, so now they NEED it to be true.  There’s no actual science here, there’s only deception in the guise of science.


    It has actually served me quite well in cell biology and microbiology. Do you have qualms with these, or are you more of a no macroevolution kind of guy?

    I have to ask more details about this conspiracy. You mention a billion dollar industry. What is the product of this industry? Who are the consumers? Who is paying into it, and who is getting paid? How is evolution, and uniquely evolution, required for this industry to function? Before I agree that this devious conspiracy is taking place, I need to see some evidence. Give me some figures, names, details, anything. Explain how this works, and then we can discuss it. But this vague cloak-and-dagger stuff is difficult, you surely understand, to have a purposeful discussion about. So I eagerly await your clarification.

    They actually aren’t “speaking out against it,” really.  They are just casually mentioning what’s actually available to their peers who are in the know.  For someone like myself, who is often attacked for his belief in a “faith-based system with no facts to support it,” admissions like that tend to stand out like a blaring noise.


    I can sympathize with this, actually. When I was a Muslim, I felt like I was standing between the two worlds, and trying to justify scientific discoveries to Muslims, and trying to justify Islam and faith to my coworkers. I resented this way of attacking and dismissing religion when I was a part of it, and tried very hard to keep in mind that faith is a virtue and my religious beliefs could exist separately from the inner workings of the natural world, that the standard for religion and the standards for science are so completely different that they ought not to be compared. Indeed, they are impossible to compare. Grasping for ways to flip the accusations onto my accusers, however, not only reveal me as petty or insecure with my faith at best, but uneducated and ill-informed about my field at worst.

    because they are more concerned over protecting the integrity of the theory than they are finding out the truth in nature.  Again that’s NOT science.


    Although I cannot agree with the conspiracy still as, like I said, I'm personally fond of applying it and have found no discrepancies during my work, and because I still need to hear more about this global conspiracy, I completely agree with the quoted part above. Our personal feelings of what we wish to be true and our biases absolutely get in the way of scientific discovery. It's been a huge problem. May god bless Galileo's poor dead heart.

    A lack of facts to support the theory proves that not to be true.


    Sorry, but this is not correct. A lack of facts to support a theory does not prove that it is not true. If that were the case, a lack of facts to support Islam as the true religion would prove that Islam is not true. But, of course, you will not want to say that, and nor would I.

    It's difficult to prove a negative. It's usually impossible. Although I, again, disagree that there's no evidence to support evolution for now, even if we were to accept that there wasn't, it does not prove that it is not true. Substantial and significant experiments or evidence to the contrary would suggest it unlikely, as would our ability to replace it with a better model.

    lol Lua, please.   You’re are only confirming my point that this is more religion than science, from the same vein that atheists deride in theists.  They are forming false hypotheses, based on a false theory unsupported by any facts, in the hopes that maybe kinda perhaps a fact might emerge someday if they pray really, Really, REALLY hard, or at least often enough that Darwin himself might grant their wish.  Maybe.


    Again, if you wish to make these claims, you'll have to provide me something to work with. I know many scientists. I'd like to consider myself one on a good day. I'm familiar with many studies and have conducted several, myself. I've seen no one praying to Darwin and only the occasional grad student who really didn't want to modify or scrap their prized research idea who was unable to accept that their results are not supported by their data.

    So for me to agree with you, you need to give me some examples, some evidence, something to show that what you're claiming is true. Asking for you to provide this is very scientific, wouldn't you agree?

    Evolution sits on no thrones.  It is a fiction.  

    I extend my congratulations for your clever but shallow response to the word I chose. It was good fun. But you know what I mean. Let's not get petty here, that wouldn't be enjoyable for either of us.


    A single fact that would support any aspect of it wouldn’t be a “refinement,” Lua, it would be a major validation.

    Either you misunderstood what I wrote, or I need you to rephrase this. Sorry in either case.


    I wholeheartedly agree with this.  Throw evolutionary theory in the garbage, never to mention it again except in shame, and develop a whole new model based on the actual data in the record.  No more hiding, cheating, and supporting foolishness.  Uncover the facts within the natural world and build hypotheses that conform around those facts, altering and adjusting as new facts come to life.


    Well, no, you do have to replace it first. Whether we wish to disagree on evolution, I am certain you have faith in other scientific discoveries which you and I both happily benefit from on a regular basis. These were not achieved by burning every model and starting from scratch.

    Pardon my wording, but proper theories undergo a process of evolution, some more dramatic than others, and rarely in recent scientific history has an idea been completely scrapped and a new one formed. Sure, it happens sometimes, but if it happened every time it would be such an extraordinary waste, as the correct answer often emerges as a reincarnation of a prior one. More often, they are modified and reshaped, perhaps hundreds or thousands of times, in order to carve out the truth. Stripping down evolution and leaving us with no model at all isn't going to be very useful.

    I would start with bearing witness that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger.  That would cut down significantly on embarrassing foolishness such as what the science world is currently dealing with.


    There are many creationists offering that prize money for the person who replaces the theory of evolution. I'm afraid if you wrote that on a scrap of paper and submitted it you'd be no wealthier for it, though.

    As long as all funds and resources are being directed into the evolutionary black hole of nonsense, this will probably never happen.  All legitimate efforts to produce new, far more worthy theories around the facts are immediately ostracized by this billion dollar paganism bureaucratic institution.  


    Again, I await a comprehensive explanation of this conspiracy.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #83 - January 16, 2015, 03:19 AM

    I think the distinction that perhaps you're not appreciating here is that…


    lua, I have no problem at all with ‘faith’ being the activating component of Al-Islam.  The issue isn’t with me, it is with the hypocrisy oft demonstrated in my ideological enemy.   With enthusiastic glee I mock and abuse him for it.  I’m currently waiting on an opponent less respectful than yourself to heap this upon, since you’ve really proven not to deserve the full force of it, though bogart seems to have deserted me.  A pity. 

    Try not to make the mistake, however, of equating scientific hypotheses with faith. They are guesses, yes, but not faith. They have no merit to the scientific community until they are demonstrated.


    Scientists have faith that the facts to support their theories are out there to find.   In the case of evolutionary theory, with decades of research, billions in grants & funding, and yet not a single fact to support it, it has now quite obviously a doctrinal belief system and not of science at all.  This is what all of that research has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to all but the most earnest true believers.

    Unlike in matters of religious faith, we endeavor to prove them, while religious claims are substantiated only by their own assertions, and, unfortunately, all of them claim to be correct, so what're you going to do?


    There are two aspects to religion:

    1.)   Belief in the unseen
    2.)   The scholarship around the actual scientifically measurable physical pages of text, the cultural knowledge of the events of history, and the relics of the belief system.

    With the latter, there is actually quite a bit we can do, prove, and substantiate.  Let me assure you the Qur’an is exactly what it claims to be: revealed scripture sent down to you as a mercy and a guide from the Supreme Creator of reality. 

    It has actually served me quite well in cell biology and microbiology. Do you have qualms with these, or are you more of a no macroevolution kind of guy?


    I would like to think that a major part of your work actually involves creating experiments, identifying and documenting new facts as they come to light, and not in trying to somehow create a new species, or disprove God.    The former would certainly be activities that would “serve you well,” while the latter would only be a colossal waste of time.

    Grasping for ways to flip the accusations onto my accusers, however, not only reveal me as petty or insecure with my faith at best, but uneducated and ill-informed about my field at worst.

    lol No “grasping” is required since my opponents do an excellent job of proudly wearing their hypocrisies around their necks like bedazzled dog collars.  I merely have to push their nose into their filth then point & laugh.   I am quite secure in my faith and engage in public debate in my favorite topics as a pleasurable hobby only.  It’s more fun than chess, although similar in feel.     

    Sorry, but this is not correct. A lack of facts to support a theory does not prove that it is not true.


    By definition this is true.  If there are no facts to support the theory as true, then the level-headed need to stop calling it a theory and start work on something else.

    If that were the case, a lack of facts to support Islam as the true religion would prove that Islam is not true. But, of course, you will not want to say that, and nor would I.


    Well, I personally wouldn’t say it because I know that there are indeed facts to support Islam as being true.  Obviously your field of study is significantly more limited in scope.   

    It's difficult to prove a negative. It's usually impossible. Although I, again, disagree that there's no evidence to support evolution for now…


    Really?  You recognize this as your blind faith at work, yes?

    …even if we were to accept that there wasn't, it does not prove that it is not true. Substantial and significant experiments or evidence to the contrary would suggest it unlikely, as would our ability to replace it with a better model.


    Did you really type “substantial and significant” to describe decades of experiments that haven’t uncovered a single fact to support this theory?  Really?  Truly it’s comments just like that which add to the pot of the conspiracy you deny. 

    Honestly, how do you justify using “substantial and significant” to experiments that have proven exactly nothing? 

    I extend my congratulations for your clever but shallow response to the word I chose. It was good fun.


    Thanks, I have a bag full of them.


    Well, no, you do have to replace it first.


    Do you hear yourself?  Are you suggesting that we uphold a LIE until the truth comes along?  I would much prefer to scrap the lie and actively search for the truth.  My time would be much more well spent.


    Whether we wish to disagree on evolution, I am certain you have faith in other scientific discoveries which you and I both happily benefit from on a regular basis.


    The difference, which should be obvious, is that the scientific discoveries I benefit from are actually real and supported by facts, while evolution is a fiction that is supported by blind faith and wishes.  Please don’t force me to repeat that.  It’s starting to get embarrassing even to me.

    These were not achieved by burning every model and starting from scratch.


    What do you mean?  Like flight?  Of course flight was achieved by discarding failed models that came before.  Are you kidding? 


    Pardon my wording, but proper theories undergo a process of evolution, some more dramatic than others, and rarely in recent scientific history has an idea been completely scrapped and a new one formed. Sure, it happens sometimes, but if it happened every time it would be such an extraordinary waste, as the correct answer often emerges as a reincarnation of a prior one.


    You know why?  Because there were actually some facts that supported the parts of the theory worth salvaging.  Need I say more?  I really don’t have a problem kicking evolution theory while it is down…

    More often, they are modified and reshaped, perhaps hundreds or thousands of times, in order to carve out the truth. Stripping down evolution and leaving us with no model at all isn't going to be very useful.


    lol And where is the use in it NOW?  *kick!*

    There are many creationists offering that prize money for the person who replaces the theory of evolution. I'm afraid if you wrote that on a scrap of paper and submitted it you'd be no wealthier for it, though.


    Thanks, but I will be quite satisfied with the reward offered by my Lord for speaking His truth. 

    Again, I await a comprehensive explanation of this conspiracy.


    Well, for one, evolution is pushed in the mainstream as “not just a theory,” and any and everyone are publicly shamed if they speak against it as anything other than true.  In academia, people literally lose their jobs if they dare to question it.  Many scientific institutions refuse to conduct certain experiments if there is a real danger of word getting out that the theory isn’t what it is purported to be. 

    For example, dinosaur bone fossils often have soft material within them… red blood cells, collagen, veins… yet carbon dating centers will REFUSE to date them because of a hard stance against carbon dating dinosaur fossils because they are “too old.”  Obviously this would conflict with common sense, and yet, they refuse to carbon date anything except the layers of sediment surrounding where the fossil once lay.  In cases where the origins of the samples were deliberately hidden so that that they would be dated anyway, once the dates are shown to reflect data at odds with the evolutionary model of life on earth, an immediate smear campaign with character defamation, etc., are used to squash the findings to prevent them from becoming well known.  NONE of this is ‘science,’ and pretending these people are genuine truth seekers is an insult to both science & truth.   

  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #84 - January 16, 2015, 04:30 AM

    lua, I have no problem at all with ‘faith’ being the activating component of Al-Islam.  The issue isn’t with me, it is with the hypocrisy oft demonstrated in my ideological enemy.   With enthusiastic glee I mock and abuse him for it.  I’m currently waiting on an opponent less respectful than yourself to heap this upon, since you’ve really proven not to deserve the full force of it, though bogart seems to have vanished.  A pity. 


    Are you in the UK? Isn't it very late there? I don't know where bogart lives, but as many people are from the UK here, he may very well be sleeping.

    Scientists have faith that the facts to support their theories are out there to find.   In the case of evolutionary theory, with decades of research, billions in grants & funding, and yet not a single fact to support it, it has now quite obviously a doctrinal belief system and not of science at all.  This is what all of that research has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to all but the most earnest true believers.


    Responsible research does mean verifying your sources and examining their methodologies, and, when at all possible, attempting to reproduce their results by conducting the identical experiment. In fact, a great deal of graduate work comes down to this. I do agree that, unfortunately, some researchers may not be as thorough, which is why peer review is critical. I have realized that, perhaps, we are not talking about precisely the same thing.

    Let me know if this is any more illuminating as to the point I'm trying to make: a large part of what we do in my particular lab is compile DNA libraries. It's an unimpressive and mundane task, we usually do it over the summer when there's not a lot else to be done, but hey, someone has to do it. Right now, I'm working with prokaryotes, and my first love might have been microbiology, where you can observe significant changes to the population very easily, as they reproduce so quickly and you can monitor the changes over many generations. Sometimes, I'll be able to do this in less than a day, depending on the bacteria. My observations fall in line without issue with my understanding of evolution as a practical concept (random mutations, environmental pressures and good old fashioned reproduction altering a population over generations). I don't see a problem here. And, in fact, I see a lot of what, in my opinion, supports the idea that many of the bacteria that I've worked with arose from older ancestors, evidence very easy to obtain with simple blots and gels a great deal of the time. Similarly, for some of our more eukaryotic victims, we've been great fans of mtDNA.

    Since this is awfully easy to observe even in entry-level biology lab courses, and because who cares about germs, anyway, a lot of theists nowadays accept "microevolution" and evolution in molecular biology, but tend to abandon ship as it sails towards the conclusion of all life arising from a common ancestor, because that conflicts with the religious account.

    Now, regardless of whether or not you and I are going to stay on this ship the full way through, I hope you understand what I mean now when I say that I've found no contradictions or problems with conducting my research and interpreting our data with evolution in mind. In fact, a great deal of this is in keeping with the evolutionary model and what we would expect should evolution be true. So when I say that I've operated quite happily under this assumption, it's not to say that I've assumed archaeologists or whoever else has done the proper science and that it's all worked out for me, but that I have always gotten results consistent with my understanding of evolution. Until another model is offered to me to explain the results I'm getting, I have no qualms with this one.

    I'm pretty sure I at least speak for the scientists that I work with, because we've talked about this quite often: if we could figure out another model more appropriate than evolution, we would be elated. Also, we'd be rich. I'm not that good, though.

    There are two aspects to religion:

    1.)   Belief in the unseen
    2.)   The scholarship around the actual scientifically measurable physical pages of text and the relics of the belief system.

    With the latter, there is actually quite a bit we can do, prove, and substantiate.  Let me assure you the Qur’an is exactly what it claims to be: revealed scripture sent down to you as a mercy and a guide from the Supreme Creator of reality. 


    Well...unfortunately, I'm not assured, but I appreciate your convictions. Who knows, maybe you'll get a good laugh at me on the last day. Did you know that Dawahman is also going to fight the man who insulted his wife on the day of resurrection? It will surely be a day to remember if it occurs.

    I would like to think that a major part of your work actually involves creating experiments, identifying and documenting new facts as they come to light, and not in trying to somehow create a new species, or disprove God.    The former would certainly be activities that would “serve you well,” while the latter would only be a colossal waste of time.


    I do agree trying to disprove God is a huge waste of time.

    By definition this is true.  If there are no facts to support the theory as true, then the level-headed need to stop calling it a theory and start work on something else.

    Well...no. This is not true when using the word "theory" in the context of science, nor is it true just using the definition of theory. The ability for a theory or a framework to exist harmoniously with the phenomena you are examining absolutely allows for it to continue to be called a theory. In fact, it's the only qualifying factor, if you're using theory as it's defined. How useful a theory will be beyond that varies, but, regardless, a theory simply in line with the observations you have already collected is very much a valid one.

    Did you really type “substantial and significant” to describe decades of experiments that haven’t uncovered a single fact to support this theory?  Really?  Truly it’s comments just like that which add to the pot of the conspiracy you deny. 


    I wonder again if you misunderstood me. I said--or at least I thought I was saying--that in order to consider the theory "disproved," you would need to provide substantial and significant evidence to show that the theory is simply not compatible with reality.

    You seem to be mistaking not obtaining a result after any number of experiments (and let me remind you that I still do not agree that there is no evidence for evolution) for that result not being possible. This simply is not how we conduct scientific experiments. The absence of particular results may push the likelihood of an idea down the totem pole a bit, but this alone is not enough to obliterate it, and to suggest otherwise is to reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process and the scientific method.

    Do you hear yourself?  Are you suggesting that we uphold a LIE until the truth comes along?  I would much prefer to scrap the lie and actively search for the truth.  My time would be much more well spent.

    You'd actually be quite surprised with how many scientific theories were at the forefront of then-current thought and believed to be inviolate for a great deal of time, and then replaced by a better model. Since I mentioned Galileo last, I may as well point out heliocentrism as a good example of this. To have a model accepted by the majority of the scientific community as the best current model to explain physical observations is not a lie, no more than it was a lie for the greatest minds who were simply mistaken with the geocentric model to have been champions of geocentrism. Eventually, however, a great deal of evidence--not a lack of evidence for geocentrism, this is not the same thing--had to come along to demonstrate that this theory is simply not compatible with nature, and at this point the heliocentric model replaced it in the minds of (most) modern scientists.

    Edit: Asbie was kind enough to warn me that I had carelessly mixed the two up, which I swear has happened before. Cheesy

    If you are correct, and if there is a better model than evolution, it will need to undergo this same process. Just because evolution is such a highly politicized issue due to religious conflicts doesn't mean that it deserves to be obliterated in a way that no other such model with the capacity to exist alongside our observations ever was in scientific history. Again, to demand that it is is evidence of a severe misunderstanding of the scientific process. Barring this huge conspiracy to keep any whispers of viable competing theories silenced, trust that, if there is a better model, it will emerge, and if it ever does I hope we're both alive to see it!


    The difference, which should be obvious, is that the scientific discoveries I benefit from are actually real and supported by facts, while evolution is a fiction that is supported by blind faith and wishes.  Please don’t force me to repeat that.  It’s starting to get embarrassing even to me.

    Yes, I'm aware that this is your contention, and trust me, I am no more eager to hear you say it than you are to repeat it, but I will ask again that you provide some kind of actual argument with points that we can discuss. Vaguely accusing it of being a fiction is not something we can discuss. What precisely about the claims of evolution do you think are unsubstantiated? Besides, of course, your distrust of the scientists' reasons for not performing radiocarbon dating of dinosaur bones which I will ask you more questions about further along.

    What do you mean?  Like flight?  Of course flight was achieved by discarding failed models that came before.  Are you kidding? 


    ...Flight? Like the airplane? I'd consider that more in the realm of technology, and not exactly what I was thinking. I'm thinking cell theory, the atomic model, the shapes and structure of DNA, so on and so forth. The final answer was not obtained by going back to the drawing board each and every time, but by adding, modifying, reshaping the original theories until they got the working answer. Are you familiar with the history behind these discoveries that I just mentioned? They're interesting stories, are they not?

    You know why?  Because there were actually some facts that supported the parts of the theory worth salvaging.  Need I say more?  I really don’t have a problem kicking evolution theory while it is down…

    I am certain that, if you are sincere about having done your research on evolution, you are familiar with the claims that are presented as evidence for the theory. So if you wish to tell me that all of these pieces of evidence are not accurate, which is what you are claiming, it is on you to show me the opposing evidence for each and every claim that seems to support the theory of evolution in order for me to agree that the claims of evolutionists are fabricated. How much time do you have, my friend?
     
    Thanks, but I will be quite satisfied with the reward offered by my Lord for speaking His truth. 

    That's too bad, you would make out like a bandit.

    Well, for one, evolution is pushed in the mainstream as “not just a theory,” and any and everyone are publicly shamed is they speak against it as anything other than true.  In academia, people literally lose their jobs if they dare to question it.  Many scientific institutions refuse to conduct certain experiments if there is a real danger of word getting out that the theory isn’t what it is purported to be. 


    Can you show me some examples of this? Credible news stories? Anything?

    For example, dinosaur bone fossils often have soft material within them… red blood cells, collagen, veins… yet carbon dating centers will REFUSE to date them because of a hard stance against carbon dating dinosaur fossils because they are “too old.”  Obviously this would conflict with common sense, and yet, they refuse to carbon date anything except the layers of sediment surrounding where the fossil once lay.  In cases where the origins of the samples were deliberately hidden so that that they would be dated anyway, once the dates are shown to reflect data at odd with the evolutionary model of life on earth, an immediate smear campaign with character defamation, etc., are used to squash the findings.  NONE of this is ‘science,’ and pretending these people are genuine truth seekers is an insult to both science & truth.   


    Interesting. My understanding of evolution is largely in molecular biology and the biology to the extent of my research and experiments, so I will not pretend to be an expert in whatever is going on with dinosaur bones and radiocarbon dating. Since you are more familiar, would you mind showing me a credible resource from which you took your information? I tried searching for it just now, and I was unable to find any original source work not originating from creationist websites. Where did you find them?
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #85 - January 16, 2015, 05:05 AM

    WTF is this shit? The mods need to delete this thread as it's an insult to our levels of Scientific Literacy in 2015.

    are we in the 19th century? A Creationism Vs. Evolution Debate? then Theists wander why they get ridiculed.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #86 - January 16, 2015, 05:08 AM

    We've finally produced something you'd be okay with the mods censoring? Well, I've witnessed one miracle today. Cheesy
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #87 - January 16, 2015, 05:38 AM

    Nah If he wants to rant n make threads about creationism or even that the Biological Reproduction is false and that the Stork Baby Theory is true let him. But to set it up as a debate of Evolution Vs Creationism in a debate format is giving Creationism a level pegging it doesn't merit.

    Human Evolution is a very strong Scientific Theory with an abundance of evidence. Creationism was a God of the Gaps argument from Ignorance, which has now been filled with a Scientific Data. The Creationism myth has been so thoroughly debunked and falsified now (with Evolution informing us unequivocally and comprehensively that Humans had prior Hominid Species) that Creationism doesn't even reach the point of being wrong now.

    For anyone to still claim a Creationist position would be like a detective still investigating random people for a murder when the murderer has handed himself in and provided video footage of the murder.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #88 - January 16, 2015, 06:56 AM

    Is a "short amount of time" now considered "evolution?"  Because that sounds suspiciously of the opposite of that.


    No evolution is neither short nor long as it is based on the life span of different species. For species like fruit fly short life spans allow for quick changes in a short period of our time since multiple generation live and die within a human life span. Lifespan and rapid reproduction is where one tests evolution since whole generations can be born and die in weeks to hours. This is grade school biology...

    Quote
    So?  And what century was Darwin's nonsense published in?


    Quote
    I thought you said there were no peer reviews?  So how do you know what their data was doing or not doing?  You are typing nonsense until you line-by-line review the material they presented as either supporting or not supporting evolutionary theory.  Outside of that your opinion is only meaningless babbling.  


    Peer-review is done before publications and printing not after. The book cites external studies. These studies can be cross referenced to see if the statements are accurate and the book's conclusion correct. It also allow one to figure out if the data set is outdated and incorrect.

    p. 104 Cites coins found in the 18th century in a 1820's journal. A journal which even the organization no longer has. No matter I know of a copy. https://archive.org/stream/americanjournalo21820newh#page/146/mode/2up Now lets compare this article to a book by the man mentioned in the article, Comte de Bournon. Traité de minéralogie, Volume 2
     By Jacques Louis comte de Bournon pg 402-404

    Quote
    “During the years 1786, 87, and 88, they were occupied near Aix in Provence on the rebuilding of the Palace of Justice upon a vast plan, which plan was given by Mr. le Doux [Claude-Nicolas Ledoux], the King’s Architect. The cut stone which served this construction was taken from the quarry of St. Eutrope, located on a small hill about a mile from the town, and very near the Convent of the Trinity. The stone which formed this hill, where it was arranged in layers, was limestone of a deep grey, and of that kind which is tender when it comes out of the quarry, but hardens by exposure to the air. The strata were separated from one another by a bed of sand mixed with clay, more or less calcareous. The first which were wrought presented no appearance of any fossils, but, after the workmen had removed the ten first beds, they were astonished, when taking away the eleventh, to find its inferior surface, at the depth of 40 or 50 feet, covered with shells. The stone of this bed having been removed, as they were taking away a stratum of argillaceous sand, which separated the eleventh bed from the twelfth, they found stumps of columns and fragments of stones half wrought, and the stone was exactly similar to that of the layers to which they belonged: they found moreover wedges, handles of hammers, and other tools or fragments of wooden tools. But that which principally commanded their attention, was a board about one inch thick and seven or 7 or 8 feet long; it was broken into many pieces, of which none were missing, and it was possible to join them again one to another, and to restore to the board its original form, which was that of the boards of the same kind used by the masons and quarry men: it was worn in the same manner, rounded and waving upon the edges. Being then in Aix, I paid a visit to this quarry. The owner was kind enough to show me all of the pieces that had been found. The stones which were completely or partly wrought, had not at all changed in their nature, but the fragments of the board, and the instruments, and pieces of instruments of wood, had been changed into agate, which was very fine and agreeably colored. This discovery was made in the course of the year 1788, during the first uprisings, which began to manifest in Provence, halted the construction of the palace, and created an obstacle to continued observation.”

    I copied the note of this fact as it was given to me by Mr. Chevalier de Sades (sic), who gathered together the particulars, as much as his memory of 20 years ago was able to help him: It seemed to me to be too interesting to ignore. This is accompanied by good circumstances that attract curiosity and interest. This quite positively shows the traces of a work executed by the hand of man, placed at the depth of 50 feet, and covered with 11 beds of compact limestone: everything tended to prove that this work had been executed upon the spot where the traces existed. The presence of man had then preceded the formation of this stone, and that very considerably since he was already arrived at such a degree of civilization that the arts were known to him, and that he wrought the stone and formed columns out of it. On the other hand, Aix is in the center of a rather deep basin: the stone which formed near this city, the small elevation of St. Eutrope, seems to show no further trace of its existence in the area, even at a considerable distance from the town: it is therefore a local formation, isolated and specific, and is clearly also the product of different deposits, all of which were accompanied by a precipitation of sand and clay , which indicates the action of the current that at the same time had made the formation from this stone in a pool of water which necessarily occupied then the basin in which the city of Aix is today. However, this pool had to be dry at the time in which the stones were carved, just as it was when they were found. So a disaster must have introduced water into the basin, and the shells found on the underside of the single layer that covered the remains of human labor would seem to indicate that the sea had something to do with. This would not be surprising since Aix is only 6 or 7 leagues away (from the sea). The currents that later would be established in the higher elevations, heading toward the waters of the basin, would do the rest; and a new drying of the same basin would then return it to the state in which it appears in this time.

    I feel that this explanation, given from nearly 300 leagues away from where the observation of the facts in question was made, and by a man who knows it only secondhand, cannot provide a full accounting of all of the circumstances surrounding this incident, nor the general topography of the place where the material was found. It cannot be regarded as more than a probability, to be used only to direct some of the research that could be made on this place into the real cause of such an interesting fact, and it will disappear in the face of any more likely or satisfactory explanation that can be given. The study is very easy, from the place itself, and perhaps some mineralogists and geologists are already busy there; but I repeat, the site seems to me isolated from the grand formation of the rocky structure of our globe, and has no connection with it.


    The above shows that the cited journal is in error. The book's authors you cite did not look at the origin work but a copy of it which contained errors and omission of the full work on the topic. Can you spot the difference between the two reports? Can you see where your authors made a mistake and failed to challenge their confirmation bias? Also take a look at the journal especially the part on mermaids. Also read the chapter on the "Sea Serpent" The description are not of sea snakes but that of a monster. Sea snakes are not found in any waters around the Atlantic nor near Ireland, England and its waters. Snakes are found in water tropical waters on. The journal clears shows people's flights of fantasy, like your own, as credible. This undermines the journal's credibility itself. However this is to be expected in the 1820s.

    pg 797 cites this https://archive.org/stream/americanjournalo19183031newh#page/360/mode/2up

    Too bad the author's could not tell the difference between a report and a study. This is a report, a claim, about this object. However this object no longer exists. No one has it, no one can study it. Beside this fact marble is not some uniform stone which is perfectly solid. It has voids, imperfection, blemishes, etc. When marble is cut these type of imperfection are self-evident to anyone one with passing knowledge of stone work. Beside look at the claims around this rock. First people claim it is Hebrew. However Hebrew was not developed until after the middle bronze age 2 collapse. Later on it is Greek which again developed in the same period. The wide speculation is due to flights of fancy of the era in which Romans, Greek and/or Hebrews were believed to the the ancestors of people from the New World. The lost tribes of Israeli. This why Joseph Smith become popular since he told people wanted they wanted to hear. Yet modern genetics proves people in the New World are from eastern Asia not the Middle East. They were here before the Hebrews even existed.

    Your response is a faulty comparison which is a fallacy. We are talking about archaeology in this book not evolution. Your response is a non-starter due to faulty logic and fallacious reasoning. I would also point out that you are in fact talking to an archaeologist. I know how flawed early work was. I know how people can spin work out to confirm their bias when said people are not even qualified to make an opinion let alone express it. The book is nothing more than persuedo-archaeology in line with Ancient Aliens. In fact some of the people on this show support this book which further highlights the book is only credible to kooks and non-experts.


    The information you are missing is that Darwin's field of science was already formed and had been for centuries. Further developments confimed Darwin while developed in archaeology have been revised and correct. Archaeology was considered a hobby of the rich with few professions. In the 19th century still lack most of the basic methodologies used today. Seriation was not developed until the late 19th century.  Stratigraphic excavation likewise were not even started until the end of the 19th century. Grid excavation was not developed until the 1920.

    {quote]Where? [/quote]

    An example is above. This is how you should fact check what you read rather than accepting whatever someone says which confirms your bias. This is how research and peer-review is done in an academic setting. You failed a basic tenant of the scientific method, try to prove your conclusion wrong. All I am doing to work you should have done.

    Quote
    Then why are you pretending to know what's real in it?


    I read the book. The book uses actual data but does not confirm the data nor research modern studies to see if the studies from the early 20th and full 19th century are confirmed. It is called reading and fact checking. It is not hard to do, it just requires a little effort and the will to do so.


    Quote
    That's exactly how I feel about your precious evolution theory.  Forbidden Archaeology is merely a compilation of science anomalies found in nature by reputable science.  Your criticism doesn't even make sense outside of shining a spotlight on the butthurt you radiate.


    As per above I have already shown the studies were not reputable not was there such a thing as peer-review in the 19th century. Ad hominem fallacy. No hurt on my part. Just amusement at an uneducated, in the topic at hand, person, talking about a subject well beyond their depth. Which you admit yourself.

    Quote
    Obviously you have decided to make fun of Darwin and his supporters.  My, how quickly they turn, eh?


    Nope. Reading comprehension son. I was talking about archaeology. Read more carefully next time.

    Quote
    Where?


    See above. Look for criticism of the book by actual professionals in the fields which the book covers.

    Quote
    You seem to know an awful lot about the scientific conscientious around a book that was never peer reviewed.  Curious.  


    Yes it is called 6 years of studies in which I have a B/A in archaeology, history, philosophy and am working on my PhD in Biblical Archaeology. I can read, I can fact check, I can tell the difference between a report in the form of a letter and an actually study.

    [/quote]Whatever you wish to call it.  There's still an undeniable potency to the findings that conflict with a mundane/secular model of the universe. [/quote]

    Nope only fringe work by non-experts using flawed methodology while screaming about conspiracies in their books. It is great for the tin-foil hat crowd which know no better.

    Quote
    Did you know that Francis Crick had a [spiritual] vision of the DNA double helix before it's discovery?  Fascinating, innit?  Wink


    Actually it was an LSD induced episode. Also it wasn't a vision but used an aid when he developing ideas. If you read his biography he took LSD after the double helix was developed and confirmed not before. His work on DNA was started in the 50s and completed in 66. He did start his LSD trips until 67. Again this is an example of fact checking rather than accepting whatever you read on the internet.

    Quote
    That's what the narrow-minded always say.  I expect no less than what they are capable.  That double helix comment means absolutely nothing to you in context of the Sura 96 verse, am I right?  


    Nope. There is a point where being open minded about ideas which have no merit becomes wishful thinking, gullibility and ignorance. One can be so open minded the brain "falls out". No the verse means nothing since it a vague. Using Occam's Razor the most reasonable answer is that it is talking about the written language nothing more. All you are displaying is post hoc rationalization. Just because you have convinced yourself does not mean I am obligated to do the same. You have made no argument rather blank statements.

    Quote
    So you don't consider any of those comments you made towards me to be insults on the other page, bogart?  I guess atheists don't believe in integrity either then.  Somehow I am not surprised.


    Nope. Often when people are confronted while having their ignorance exposed they become emotional. They see their own faults pointed out as attacks rather then merely pointing out the fact they do not know what they are talking about. Neither author is an expert. You admitted you are not a biologist nor archaeologist. You take offense to me pointing out what you have claimed yourself. It is not an insult when you confirmed my views in your own words.

    Quote
    My background is in cartooning, illustration, publishing, animation.  Science and comparative religion are among my personal interests and hobbies.


    IE You are not educated in either topic being discussed. You mention no formal education in either field. Science is not a thing but a broad spectrum of fields. One could know physics but know nothing about archaeology. Likewise comparative religions is not a topic being discussed making you again a non-expert in this conversation.

    Quote
    Atheism and all that it upholds over the truth of the One God are meaningless.   Get yourself together while ye yet have life to do so.


    Red Herring. You do not provide a counter-argument but rather an ad hominem. Thus has stated nothing but your subjective emotional reactions.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #89 - January 16, 2015, 07:12 AM

    Quote
    lua, I have no problem at all with ‘faith’ being the activating component of Al-Islam.  The issue isn’t with me, it is with the hypocrisy oft demonstrated in my ideological enemy.   With enthusiastic glee I mock and abuse him for it.  I’m currently waiting on an opponent less respectful than yourself to heap this upon, since you’ve really proven not to deserve the full force of it, though bogart seems to have deserted me.  A pity. 


    You confuse confidence in my abilities and an education in archaeology which you used in support. I live in Canada so my time-zone is different. Also I am not obligated to rush to respond to you at a moments notice. We both have our own lives. I do not expect you to response to this comment within minutes after posting it nor hold the lack of an immediate response against you. I ask you to extend the courtesy in return.

    I make no excuses for being blunt and to the point. I hold no punches back especially when one enters an arena I know well while they do not. If you want a fair fight spend the next 6 years taking the course load I have. Then we will be on equal terms.
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 ... 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »