25 Nov 08
Originally posted by Bosse de Nageits actually very interesting, if you want to draw some conclusions from it then go ahead, be my guest, as beetle says it will be an education if nothing else.
I challenge you to read and refute Dobzhansky's "Nothing Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". You can get it from Wikipedia. We could go through it point by point if you like.
25 Nov 08
3 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI didn't have time to read the whole article, but I found out that the first page is completely about Sheakh abd Al Aziz Ibn Bazz, and what he said about the earth and sun: That is what is written in the Article:
I challenge you to read and refute Dostoevsky's "Nothing Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". You can get it from Wikipedia. We could go through it point by point if you like.
As Recently as 1966 Sheik Abd el Aziz bin Baz asked the king of Saudi Arabia to supress a heresy that was spreading in his land. Wrote the sheik:
"The Holy Koran, the Prophets's teachings, the majority of Islamic scientists, and the actual facts, all prove that the sun is running in its orbit, ... and that the earth is fixed and stable,spread out by GOD for his mankind, .... Anyone who professed otherwise would utter a charge of falsehood toward God, the Koran, and the Prophet"
This is exactly the opening paragraph of the article, and I was not surprised to find DOTS as usual whenever Islamic sources are quoted.
I don't know if Dobzhansky's actully read the original letter of Sheikh ibn Baz, or not, but I searched for this subject, and I found on Sheikh Ibn Baz Website a reply to this topic (unfortunately I didn't find the original letter, but I will do more search to find it), the Sheikh reply can be found at this link:
http://www.binbaz.org.sa/mat/8640
Of course this article in Arabic, so I will try to translate as much as I can. It is just important to sat that this reply was not directed to Dobzhansky's article, but it was a general reply to he topic:
The title of the article can be translated as: "A reply to those who say falsehood about Scholars"
The Sheikh Reply started with declaration "that there no one is infallible except Allah and his prophets, and a believer and be tested by falling into Mistakes or by people saying falsehood about him."
Then he talks about a magazine that published the following as it is said by Sheikh:
1- That he denied the man landing on the moon. And whoever believe so is not a believer. (Kafer)
2- That whoever say that the earth has a spherical shape , or that it moves, or orbits around itself or around the son, is not a believer. (Kafer)
And he said "whoever published that is lying, and that is far from the truth, and may be who published this did it by Mistake, and he didn't take a look at the original letter which is published and printed and every one can read it."
Then he explained what he said:
"My letter is published and printed and I replied to those who denied the man landing on the moon , and whoever said that is non-believer (Kafir), by saying that who ever have doubt about that should stop, don't accept or reject until he had enough information and knowledge to accept or reject"
So actually the Sheik was replying to those who denied man landing on the moon not rejecting it.
Then the Sheikh continued:
"An in my letter I agreed that the earth has a spherical shape, by referring to what Imam Ibn Al Kayen Said about this topic , what I denied was that the earth is running and orbiting, and I presented my proves but I never said it is a falsehood, and I never said who say that is a non-believer"
And here I know that the Sheikh was Mistaken, and he didn't reject that he might be mistaken. What makes me think so, is that he didn't say that who ever believed in this is a non-believer simply because there is nothing in Hadith or Quran that contradict this.
Then he continued:
"What I rejected and clearly declared to be falsehood , and who ever say so is a non believer, is the claim that the sun is fixed, and not running, because that clearly contradict Quran which states that the sun and moon are running".
So what the Sheikh clearly denies is that the sun is fixed. Comparing the Sheikh response to this point and the point of the running of earth, you will see a big difference. In the topic of the earth running he was not sure about it, and just presented his personal opinion, and for that reason he didn't call who adopt this opinion a non-believer, but in the second topic - the sun running - he was so sure about it because it is written in Quran : (Nobel-Translation)(Ya-Sin)(o 38 o)(38. And the sun runs -on its fixed course - for a term appointed. That is the Decree of the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing.) so he was so clear in this point.
So this tell me that Dostoevsky's was not accurate and most of the information he presented in the first page of his article was not correct, and so all the conclusions drawn from it (like saying that Science and Scriptures are two separate things), is not accurate.
And as I work in science (not biology) I know that accuracy is important and if I was to review this paper I would have rejected it because of the lack of accuracy.
--------------------------
I will continue reading the article because there is another important point I need to talk about.
EDIT: I know this is out of topic, but this is the first part of the article which is used to prepare the reader to accept what follows - by presenting religion people as ignorant. So I think it is better to make more clearer. Specially if the scripture actully doesn't by any way contradict it, on contrary, the fact that the sun is running was not known at the time of the prophet, and it is a sign from Allah that Quran is his word if you think about it.
25 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNow why would I be providing substantiating evidence for a claim I think is ridiculous? You are really loosing the plot here.
actually in view of your lack of substantiating evidence which amounts to.....hear that....another eerie silence..... then i must conclude that i have done something right,
I do not claim to be infallible and see nothing wrong with you making a mistake or two, I just find it interesting how nearly every one of your posts in this thread goes against your own claims or simply makes no logical sense.
25 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…how very interesting Mr Hamilton, you were pressed for evidence and have come up with, wait for it .........hear that......its an eerie silence......
how very interesting Mr Hamilton, you were pressed for evidence and have come up with, wait for it .........hear that......its an eerie silence...... reminiscent of scientific literature on how molecular machines, the basis of life, developed.......an eerie and complete silence.
let us take a moment dear reader to bow our heads in silence and re ...[text shortened]... of the human kind that have occurred in the past as in the case of the ill fated ramapithecus?
There is a mountain of evidence but I didn’t bother to show you that because I assume you already know about that but chose to ignore it. Try:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
And
http://txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVcontents.html
Will you actually read these articles?
If you read them then I can show you more of them if you like (that is NOT sarcasm).
25 Nov 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonhow much more will we entertain that buffoon? i refuse to believe he is that stupid so the only explanation remaining is that he is making fun of us.
[b]…how very interesting Mr Hamilton, you were pressed for evidence and have come up with, wait for it .........hear that......its an eerie silence......
There is a mountain of evidence but I didn’t bother to show you that because I assume you already know about that but chose to ignore it. Try:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.ht ...[text shortened]... rticles?
If you read them then I can show you more of them if you like (that is NOT sarcasm).[/b]
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonyou have my dear sir demonstrated without a shadow of a doubt how scant the evidence is for evolution, i have ignored nothing!
[b]…how very interesting Mr Hamilton, you were pressed for evidence and have come up with, wait for it .........hear that......its an eerie silence......
There is a mountain of evidence but I didn’t bother to show you that because I assume you already know about that but chose to ignore it. Try:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve ...[text shortened]... rticles?
If you read them then I can show you more of them if you like (that is NOT sarcasm).[/b]
dear readers please notice that there have been no attempts to explain the transition from non living inanimate matter to living animate matter that eerie silence, there have been no attempts to explain the principle of irreducible complexity in either cells or in blood clotting, there has been no attempt to explain why evolution should be regarded as a science when it is clearly unable to be subject to the scientific model (so what do evolutionists do, they change the goal posts to suit the theory), there has been no attempt to explain why there are no records of gradual transition in the fossil record from one species to another something that astounded even Darwin (the subject of my next post once i get better, for i have flu), there has been no attempt to explain why mutations either at a molecular level or as a result of environmental factors or otherwise are essentially destructive, there has been no attempt to explain why there are huge gaps between different species fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals and humans, (quite clearly there is variation within a species but not a migration) nothing, a bif fat zero, the best you got is that there is a similarity between living things, a diversity of species and a peppered moth, it is well and truly bereft.
dear reader just to demonstrate the desperate lengths that evolutionists will go to to try to grasp at any straws in support of their postulations, let us indeed consider the peppered moth, what are we referring to and why is it such a big deal for evolutionists, consider some references, for example the international wildlife encyclopedia which states with regard to the peppered moth, 'this is the most striking evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by man,'
yep its a big deal for dem bad ol putty cats, however after observing that Darwin was plagued by his inability to demonstrate the evolution of even one species,(mmm..i wonderr why?) Jastrow no less in his book red giants and white dwarfs, states rather amusingly, ' had he known it, an example was at hand which would have provided him with the proof he needed. The case was an exceedingly rare one', what was ol Jastrow talking about, dada! the peppered moth.
so then what happened to the peppered moth? At first, the lighter form of this moth was more common than the darker form. This lighter type blended well into the lighter colored trunks of trees and so was more protected from birds. But then, because of years of pollution from industrial areas, tree trunks became darkened. Now the moths lighter color worked against them, as birds could pick them out faster and eat them. Consequently the darker variety of peppered moth, which is said to be a mutant, survived better because it was difficult for birds to see them against the soot darkened trees. The darker variety rapidly became the dominant type.
let us pause for a moment for reflection dear reader, and ask ourselves was the peppered moth evolving into some other type of insect? No, it was still exactly the same peppered moth, merely having a different coloration. Hence, an English medical journal 'on call' referred to using this example to try to prove evolution as 'notorious'. It declared ' this is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution.'
pluck pluck pluckety pluck at straw straw straw da de straw, not even one species, not even a single measly little insect could be found that is able to form a new species, and please dear reader do not be amazed, this is actually the best they got!
you know how far this fallacy has got, (even I had to feel my bum to make sure i wasnt dreaming), i was watching a program on tv about whale hunting around Newfoundland in Canada and the marine biologist was going out in his little boat to get some data from a whale. he shoots it with a little harpoon and takes a little sample, anyhow as he was sailing out he states, with complete confidence and i quote, 'yes about fifty million years ago (i love the precision of this 'science'😉, whales evolved in the sea, went on to dry land and then returned back to the sea! and you know the worst part, he said it with a straight face!
look guys if you want to believe this type of thing then thats fine, but i got some real hangups with it, for it has its roots in assumption and as a consequence is full of postulation and dogma,
im surprised no one has mentioned the 'RNA world theory', oh well perhaps another time another post.
26 Nov 08
it is important to understand that science is confined to studying that which can be detected via the 5 senses.
The only way that an "intelligent designer" could be incorporated into any theory of evolution would be if the workings of this designer could be clearly detected by the senses. We could then look at the fossils, DNA etc, and tell what was the result of the designer's work and what was the result of chance alone. Over time, science would be able to develop more and more detailed knowledge about the nature of this designer, and when, where, & why it was most likely to act.
But the whole idea that scientists could conduct experiments to measure God and predict God's actions would strike most religious people as being offensive. God is regarded as being infinite, and definitely beyond the realm of the 5 senses - that one believes due to having "faith" that there is something beyond the physical realm. Even if science was able to observe a "design process", it would merely be seen as a new kind of force or energy. I doubt that science or religion would see it as "God".
I believe it is very likely that there are levels of reality that are beyond our ability to detect - and it is possible that a design agent might be somehow wired into the evolutionary process. But there is no way for science to study these realms or make any theories about them. There is no way for science to ever prove (or disprove) the existence of a God. Belief in God will always be a matter of faith.
26 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOnce again, (since you appear to have missed the point the last few times I pointed it out) the only person in this thread who believes that blood clotting or cells are irreducibly complex is you, and so if you were expecting attempts to explain it from anyone else then be prepared for eerie silence. Your conclusion that you are right based on the observation that nobody wants to back you up is simply illogical and ridiculous.
... there have been no attempts to explain the principle of irreducible complexity in either cells or in blood clotting, ...
26 Nov 08
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadone day your adjectives may even reflect reality! and as you have nothing, not a single little measly word of refutation, nor a single little measly piece of evidence to the contrary other than vain and futile attempts at defamation of character, in fact old mother Hubbard has more chance of finding something than you do to refute the eminent professors claims or any of the other issues that were brought to your attention, what must one conclude other than your whole belief system is based on assumptions and postulations and dogma and has resulted in more ignorance than the meanest medieval monastery ever could! but despite that i still like all of you and wish you well in the forthcoming debate with regard to the fossil record, but i have flu and don't feel so well and need to rest - regards Robbie.
Once again, (since you appear to have missed the point the last few times I pointed it out) the only person in this thread who believes that blood clotting or cells are irreducibly complex is you, and so if you were expecting attempts to explain it from anyone else then be prepared for eerie silence. Your conclusion that you are right based on the observation that nobody wants to back you up is simply illogical and ridiculous.
castles made of sand, fall in the sea, eventually!
26 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have plenty of words of refutation, but that is not what you were claiming before. The post I was replying to was you commenting on the eerie silence when it came to backing up your claims. If your post was in error then why don't you simply admit it and post a correction? If you cannot see the error, then say so. Resorting to avoidance tactics merely speaks of dishonesty on your part.
one day your adjectives may even reflect reality! and as you have nothing, not a single little measly word of refutation, nor a single little measly piece of evidence to the contrary other than vain and futile attempts at defamation
Now for the refutation.
Behe argued that the mousetrap can be used as an analogy for living systems. You tell us that he claims "Each component on its own platform, spring, holding bar, trap hammer, catch is not a mousetrap and cannot function as such. All the parts are needed simultaneously and have to be assembled for there to be a working trap"
There are a number of problems with both his claims about the mouse trap.
1. There are different mousetrap designs in existence and not all include the parts listed by Behe.
2. All of the parts listed existed before the existence of mousetraps. Unless I am mistaken Irreducible Complexity claims that the parts could not arise independently - that is quite obviously false in this case - springs exist quite independently from mousetraps.
3. The concept is faulty in that it assumes a specific purpose for a mousetrap whereas biological systems do not necessarily have a specific purpose, but may serve multiple or varied purposes.
For example the entire mechanism of a mousetrap exists in guns yet has an entirely different purpose. The mechanism was not designed specifically for catching mice but was rather adapted from previous purposes.
4. The whole claim of irreducible complexity rests on a claim of ignorance ie he claims that he does not know of a mechanism by which a biological system might have arisen. He does not prove that no such mechanism exists, he merely claims ignorance of such a mechanism. Since he has previously given examples which have been shown to be reducibly complex he should show skepticism regarding further examples as it is clear that ignorance of the mechanism does not imply the non-existence of such a mechanism.
So, robbie, now that you have a refutation, what will you resort to next to avoid discussing the actual issues?
Do you realize that by so dishonest in your discussions you are acting in an unChristian manner?
26 Nov 08
Originally posted by ahosyneyEDIT:
I didn't have time to read the whole article, but I found out that the first page is completely about Sheakh abd Al Aziz Ibn Bazz, and what he said about the earth and sun: That is what is written in the Article:
[b]As Recently as 1966 Sheik Abd el Aziz bin Baz asked the king of Saudi Arabia to supress a heresy that was spreading in his land. Wrote the s ...[text shortened]... it is a sign from Allah that Quran is his word if you think about it.
"...the fact that the sun is running was not known at the time of the prophet, and it is a sign from Allah that Quran is his word if you think about it."
This is wrong. The geocentric system was widely accepted until Copernicus. People firmly believed that the Earth was the "centre of the Universe" and that "the sun is rotating around the Earth".
Therefore it was known, even at the time of the prophet, that "the sun was running".
Of course there was some opposition too: for example, Herakleides Pontius (4th century BC), a smart mathematician, astronomer and philosopher and famous student of Plato's Academy, he found out that the cornering distance of Hermes and Venus from the Sun is always lesser than a specific limit, and due to this fact he assumed that these two planets are orbiting around the Sun and not around the Earth, whilst he was accepting that the Sun and the rest of the planets are orbiting around the Earth. Furthermore, in order to explain the daily motions of the planets and of the stars, Herakleides claimed that the Earth rotates around its axis;
26 Nov 08
4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…dear readers please notice that there have been no attempts to explain the transition from non living inanimate matter to living animate matter that eerie silence,..…
you have my dear sir demonstrated without a shadow of a doubt how scant the evidence is for evolution, i have ignored nothing!
dear readers please notice that there have been no attempts to explain the transition from non living inanimate matter to living animate matter that eerie silence, there have been no attempts to explain the principle of ir has mentioned the 'RNA world theory', oh well perhaps another time another post.
Firstly, what has this got to do with evolution? -answer -nothing!
Evolution is not a theory of how the first life started but rather IS a theory of how life diversified into many forms.
Secondly, the fact that we do no yet know the details of how life got started doesn’t mean that a “god” was involved or even that a “god” was ‘probably’ involved!
Let me use an analogy to demonstrate this point:
If the ashes in the aftermath of a forest fire on an inhabited island is made to be analogously represent the current evidence for evolution then precisely which trees burned first and in which order can be analogous to how living things evolved and precisely how the first flame of the fire started can be analogous to how the first life got started.
We didn’t observe the fire itself nor did we observe it start so that we can only guess from the clues left behind in the smouldering ashes the details of these two things -but the fire surely got started! And the fire must have burned the trees in some kind or order with some catching on fire before others even if we can only guess from the clues left behind what that order was!
We can also make the hypothesis that the first flame of the fire was started by accident by some yet unknown heat source that wasn’t itself “fire“ (such as a lighting strike or volcanic larva etc) analogous to the hypothesis that the first life was created by accident from non living matter.
Now, using this analogy, if I see the aftermath of a forest fire, should I conclude from the fact that I didn’t see it start that a “god” started it? -or should I conclude that the fire probably started from a yet unknown heat source that was not itself “fire” but was probably something material like lightning or larva etc?
Perhaps I can put this much more simply;
we can observe waves lapping at a beach -but we don’t know how the first wave in existence on the first ocean to exist got started -was the first ripple started by a gust of wind? or a rock falling into it? -we can only speculate what is the most likely way it happened -but why should we conclude from the fact that non of use saw the first wave start that a “god” probably started it?
26 Nov 08
2 edits
Originally posted by ahosyneyThanks for your response. Unfortunately it's a little difficult for me to follow. For the sake of clarity, precisely what heresy did Bin Baaz speak out against in 1966? Alternatively: did he say that the earth 'is fixed and stable' or not?
EDIT: I know this is out of topic, but this is the first part of the article which is used to prepare the reader to accept what follows - by presenting religion people as ignorant. So I think it is better to make more clearer. Specially if the scripture actully doesn't by any way contradict it, on contrary, the fact that the sun is running was not known a ...[text shortened]... time of the prophet, and it is a sign from Allah that Quran is his word if you think about it.
I'd also like to know whether the following (concerning whether the earth rotates or not) is accurate:
"The Saudi Sheikh spoke as follows: “Anyone who thinks otherwise would be considered to have gone astray and be called on to repent. If he does repent, so much the better, if not, he will be declared to have uttered a blasphemy and be put to death, his estate being forfeited by the treasury of the Muslim State. If the earth rotated as they asserted, lands, mountains, trees, rivers and seas would turn into an absolute chaos. The Western lands would have changed directions and shifted to the East. And the Eastern lands would shift to the West changing the direction of the Kýbla Mecca), henceforth impossible to determine. As none of these happenings are observed, the assertion that the world is in motion is a false statement for many reasons.”
http://www.quranmiracles.com/articles.asp?id=42
But I think you are missing Dobzhansky's main initial point: the Bible and the Koran do not contradict Copernicus, and Copernicus does not contradict them. He is not saying, therefore, that the Koran is 'unscientific'. He also says that these books deal with things 'more important' than science: the relationship of humanity to God. (Dobzhansky believed in God himself.)
It's possible that Dobzhansky did not fully comprehend what Bin Baaz was trying to say (chances are D. didn't read Arabic) and was therefore unfair to Bin Baaz -- but that doesn't detract from the validity of his argument, since the Bin Baaz that appears in his paper is used typologically -- as a figure representing the class of people who deny any scientific claims that appear to contradict, and therefore undermine the validity of, the founding texts of their respective faiths.
(Sadik Jalal Al-'Azm discusses the scientific views of Khomeini and Ibn Baz, and their broader implications, in a recent interview here:
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD191308. He confirms that Ibn Baz adhered to a pre-Copernican view of earth and sun.)