I watched the first three parts of seven. His picture of the universe, spheres rotating within spheres, was known at least by the 2nd century BCE, for example, by Hipparchus. But it was abandoned at the beginning of the 17th century, due to the very evidence he cites, observations by telescope.
He claims that atoms and molecules are spheres, made visible by the invention of the optical microscope. They are not spheres, they are not visible through the optical microscope. He then attacks the origin of species through evolution, one of the bedrocks of science.
One would think that if he meant to prove the validity of Islam through science, he would first learn a little science, then refrain from attacking the subject.
His blinding ignorance is simply breathtaking, but typical of these benighted preachers who are spammed about the internet.
I have worked with and been friends with educated and intelligent Muslims. Why don't they spam their views of religion all over the internet? Are they too polite to proselytize?
The most effective advocates of Christianity whom I have known never brought up the subject. They simply impressed people by the examples of their lives.
> I watched the first three parts of seven. His picture of the universe, spheres rotating within spheres, was known at least by the 2nd century BCE, for example, by Hipparchus. But it was abandoned at the beginning of the 17th century, due to the very evidence he cites, observations by telescope.
> He claims that atoms and molecules are spheres, made visible by the invention of the optical microscope. They are not spheres, they are not visible through the optical microscope. He then attacks the origin of species through evolution, one of the bedrocks of science.
> One would think that if he meant to prove the validity of Islam through science, he would first learn a little science, then refrain from attacking the subject.
> His blinding ignorance is simply breathtaking, but typical of these benighted preachers who are spammed about the internet.
> I have worked with and been friends with educated and intelligent Muslims. Why don't they spam their views of religion all over the internet? Are they too polite to proselytize?
> The most effective advocates of Christianity whom I have known never brought up the subject. They simply impressed people by the examples of their lives.
> RNJ
RNJ, really? Evolution is one of the bedrocks of science, I thought
it was a theory that takes a great leap of faith. I mean if evolution
was a rocket ship heading to the moon, it couldn't leave earth orbit.
Science is like a religion these days, to believe in half the crap
they come up with you must believe.
On Nov 13, 4:13 am, Benoit Meulle-Stef <b...@bmsguitars.com> wrote:
> I never understand why fundamentalist Muslims are not friend with Americans creationists... They have the same disregard for science like evolution...
> Benoit
Benoit, I've debated you on science, you just start calling everyone
names after about three posts. To you, name calling is science 101.
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:37:38 AM UTC-5, Richard Jernigan wrote:
> On Monday, November 12, 2012 10:29:32 PM UTC-6, Abd AlWahab Abd Allah wrote:
> > hi,
> > Yusuf Estes - Science proves Quran is from Allah
> I watched the first three parts of seven. His picture of the universe, spheres rotating within spheres, was known at least by the 2nd century BCE, for example, by Hipparchus. But it was abandoned at the beginning of the 17th century, due to the very evidence he cites, observations by telescope.
> He claims that atoms and molecules are spheres, made visible by the invention of the optical microscope. They are not spheres, they are not visible through the optical microscope. He then attacks the origin of species through evolution, one of the bedrocks of science.
> One would think that if he meant to prove the validity of Islam through science, he would first learn a little science, then refrain from attacking the subject.
> His blinding ignorance is simply breathtaking, but typical of these benighted preachers who are spammed about the internet.
> I have worked with and been friends with educated and intelligent Muslims. Why don't they spam their views of religion all over the internet? Are they too polite to proselytize?
> The most effective advocates of Christianity whom I have known never brought up the subject. They simply impressed people by the examples of their lives.
> RNJ
I'm not sure, but I think this may be a prophet deal.
On Nov 13, 8:28 am, Slogoin <la...@deack.net> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 7:07 am, Guitarzan <dewachen1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Science is like a religion these days,
> > to believe in half the crap
> >they come up with you must believe.
> Only to those who can't do the math.
Einstein's theories, as well as Quantum Mechanics, have produced
tangible and real results in the world. Larry do the math, and tell
me what the theory of evolution has produced that's real.
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:08:51 -0800, Guitarzan wrote:
> On Nov 13, 8:28 am, Slogoin <la...@deack.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 13, 7:07 am, Guitarzan <dewachen1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Science is like a religion these days, to believe in half the crap
>> >they come up with you must believe.
>> Only to those who can't do the math.
> My scientist friend said...... "science is only useful in technology the
> rest of it is pretty much useless."
No, he is useless. Science is good "methods of investigation",
and it is useful for everything. The word is new in the modern
sense, but the concept is not.
On Nov 13, 12:22 pm, Guitarzan <dewachen1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 8:28 am, Slogoin <la...@deack.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 7:07 am, Guitarzan <dewachen1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Science is like a religion these days,
> > > to believe in half the crap
> > >they come up with you must believe.
> > Only to those who can't do the math.
> Einstein's theories, as well as Quantum Mechanics, have produced
> tangible and real results in the world. Larry do the math, and tell
> me what the theory of evolution has produced that's real.
The first entry on a google search:
Evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of
biology. It explains similarities and differences between organisms,
fossils, biogeography, drug resistance, extreme features such as the
peacock's tail, relative virulence of parasites, and much more
besides. Without the theory of evolution, it would still be possible
to know much about biology, but not to understand it.
This explanatory framework is useful in a practical sense. First,
a unified theory is easier to learn, because the facts connect
together rather than being so many isolated bits of trivia. Second,
having a theory makes it possible to see gaps in the theory,
suggesting productive areas for new research.
Evolutionary theory has been put to practical use in several areas
(Futuyma 1995; Bull and Wichman 2001). For example:
Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists
largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with
modification is one of its most basic assumptions.
Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and
pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the
field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull
and Wichman 2001).
Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater
yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it
has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait
locus mapping.
Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human
populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).
Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to
predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would
produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of
extinction (Sutherland 2002).
Evolutionary theory is being applied to and has potential
applications in may other areas, from evaluating the threats of
genetically modified crops to human psychology. Additional
applications are sure to come.
Phylogenetic analysis, which uses the evolutionary principle of
common descent, has proven its usefulness:
Tracing genes of known function and comparing how they are
related to unknown genes helps one to predict unknown gene function,
which is foundational for drug discovery (Branca 2002; Eisen and Wu
2002; Searls 2003).
Phylogenetic analysis is a standard part of epidemiology,
since it allows the identification of disease reservoirs and sometimes
the tracking of step-by-step transmission of disease. For example,
phylogenetic analysis confirmed that a Florida dentist was infecting
his patients with HIV, that HIV-1 and HIV-2 were transmitted to humans
from chimpanzees and mangabey monkeys in the twentieth century, and,
when polio was being eradicated from the Americas, that new cases were
not coming from hidden reservoirs (Bull and Wichman 2001). It was used
in 2002 to help convict a man of intentionally infecting someone with
HIV (Vogel 1998). The same principle can be used to trace the source
of bioweapons (Cummings and Relman 2002).
Phylogenetic analysis to track the diversity of a pathogen can
be used to select an appropriate vaccine for a particular region
(Gaschen et al. 2002).
Ribotyping is a technique for identifying an organism or at
least finding its closest known relative by mapping its ribosomal RNA
onto the tree of life. It can be used even when the organisms cannot
be cultured or recognized by other methods. Ribotyping and other
genotyping methods have been used to find previously unknown
infectious agents of human disease (Bull and Wichman 2001; Relman
1999).
Phylogenetic analysis helps in determining protein folds,
since proteins diverging from a common ancestor tend to conserve their
folds (Benner 2001).
Directed evolution allows the "breeding" of molecules or molecular
pathways to create or enhance products, including:
enzymes (Arnold 2001)
pigments (Arnold 2001)
antibiotics
flavors
biopolymers
bacterial strains to decompose hazardous materials.
Directed evolution can also be used to study the folding and
function of natural enzymes (Taylor et al. 2001).
The evolutionary principles of natural selection, variation, and
recombination are the basis for genetic algorithms, an engineering
technique that has many practical applications, including aerospace
engineering, architecture, astrophysics, data mining, drug discovery
and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials
engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics,
scheduling, and systems engineering (Marczyk 2004).
Tools developed for evolutionary science have been put to other
uses. For example:
Many statistical techniques, including analysis of variance
and linear regression, were developed by evolutionary biologists,
especially Ronald Fisher and Karl Pearson. These statistical
techniques have much wider application today.
The same techniques of phylogenetic analysis developed for
biology can also trace the history of multiple copies of a manuscript
(Barbrook et al. 1998; Howe et al. 2001) and the history of languages
(Dunn et al. 2005).
Good science need not have any application beyond satisfying
curiosity. Much of astronomy, geology, paleontology, natural history,
and other sciences have no practical application. For many people,
knowledge is a worthy end in itself.
Science with little or no application now may find application in
the future, especially as the field matures and our knowledge of it
becomes more complete. Practical applications are often built upon
ideas that did not look applicable originally. Furthermore, advances
in one area of science can help illuminate other areas. Evolution
provides a framework for biology, a framework which can support other
useful biological advances.
Anti-evolutionary ideas have been around for millennia and have
not yet contributed anything with any practical application.
On Nov 13, 10:40 am, Dick Cheney <andrewrobinson...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 12:22 pm, Guitarzan <dewachen1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Einstein's theories, as well as Quantum Mechanics, have produced
> > tangible and real results in the world. Larry do the math, and tell
> > me what the theory of evolution has produced that's real.
> The first entry on a google search:
> Evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of biology.
MT doesn't believe in biology nor does he think maths has anything
to do with it.
He is unfortunately all too typical in this culture where everybody
thinks they can find a shortcut and avoid the hard work needed to
learn fundamental skills like music theory and maths. The sad part is
that once ego is no longer driving it does not take many years to
learn the fundamentals and create a foundation that is not built on
sand.
On Nov 13, 1:33 pm, Dick Cheney <andrewrobinson...@gmail.com> wrote:
> but Mike, you know less than Abd AlWahab Abd Allah about the subject.,
Unfortunately innumeracy is the norm in this culture. We see the
results played out in RMCG all the time with threads that go on and on
just because some poor poster can't grasp some basic scientific
concept, often something that is counterintuitive.
Le mardi 13 novembre 2012 16:10:18 UTC+1, Guitarzan a écrit :
> On Nov 13, 4:13 am, Benoit Meulle-Stef <b...@bmsguitars.com> wrote:
> > I never understand why fundamentalist Muslims are not friend with Americans creationists... They have the same disregard for science like evolution...
> > Benoit
> Benoit, I've debated you on science, you just start calling everyone
> names after about three posts. To you, name calling is science 101.
Michael,
Remembering all the wrong stuff you posted on facebook about science and deny of evolution and basic science, I don't thing you have something to teach to anyone and no "Every scientist lies, the truth is hided somewhere in museums by the big conspiracy, but I have 0 evidence to prove it" is not a satisfactory answer... Neater insulting friends of mine who have 7 years of archeology studies...
Dick:
Have you noticed? When someone tries to show the basic explanation of evolution he finds about 1.000.000 well documented texts and when he finds some to disprove it the 2 arguments are:
"It's not what the Bible said!"
or
"I can't understand it so it must be bogus!"
On Nov 13, 11:40 am, Dick Cheney <andrewrobinson...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 12:22 pm, Guitarzan <dewachen1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Without the theory of evolution, it would still be possible
>to know much about biology, but not to understand it.
> On Nov 13, 10:40 am, Dick Cheney <andrewrobinson...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 12:22 pm, Guitarzan <dewachen1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Einstein's theories, as well as Quantum Mechanics, have produced
> > > tangible and real results in the world. Larry do the math, and tell
> > > me what the theory of evolution has produced that's real.
> > The first entry on a google search:
> > Evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of biology.
> MT doesn't believe in biology nor does he think maths has anything
> to do with it.
> He is unfortunately all too typical in this culture where everybody
> thinks they can find a shortcut and avoid the hard work needed to
> learn fundamental skills like music theory and maths. The sad part is
> that once ego is no longer driving it does not take many years to
> learn the fundamentals and create a foundation that is not built on
> sand.
Blah blah blah.....What kind of dumb ass statement have you said once
again? MT doesn't believe in biology? Really Larry?
I'm disappointed that in your hiatus form the RMCG, you've not done
more work on yourself, all this time on a dessert island and your
still propagating the same old formula.
> On Nov 13, 2:16 pm, dewachen1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:40:13 AM UTC-7, Dick Cheney wrote:
> > > On Nov 13, 12:22 pm, Guitarzan <dewachen1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 13, 8:28 am, Slogoin <la...@deack.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 13, 7:07 am, Guitarzan <dewachen1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Science is like a religion these days,
> > > > > > to believe in half the crap
> > > > > >they come up with you must believe.
> > > > > Only to those who can't do the math.
> > > > Einstein's theories, as well as Quantum Mechanics, have produced
> > > > tangible and real results in the world. Larry do the math, and tell
> > > > me what the theory of evolution has produced that's real.
> > > The first entry on a google search:
> > > Evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of
> > > biology. It explains similarities and differences between organisms,
> > > fossils, biogeography, drug resistance, extreme features such as the
> > > peacock's tail, relative virulence of parasites, and much more
> > > besides. Without the theory of evolution, it would still be possible
> > > to know much about biology, but not to understand it.
> > > This explanatory framework is useful in a practical sense. First,
> > > a unified theory is easier to learn, because the facts connect
> > > together rather than being so many isolated bits of trivia. Second,
> > > having a theory makes it possible to see gaps in the theory,
> > > suggesting productive areas for new research.
> > > Evolutionary theory has been put to practical use in several areas
> > > (Futuyma 1995; Bull and Wichman 2001). For example:
> > > Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists
> > > largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with
> > > modification is one of its most basic assumptions.
> > > Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and
> > > pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the
> > > field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull
> > > and Wichman 2001).
> > > Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater
> > > yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
> > > Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it
> > > has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait
> > > locus mapping.
> > > Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human
> > > populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).
> > > Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to
> > > predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would
> > > produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of
> > > extinction (Sutherland 2002).
> > > Evolutionary theory is being applied to and has potential
> > > applications in may other areas, from evaluating the threats of
> > > genetically modified crops to human psychology. Additional
> > > applications are sure to come.
> > > Phylogenetic analysis, which uses the evolutionary principle of
> > > common descent, has proven its usefulness:
> > > Tracing genes of known function and comparing how they are
> > > related to unknown genes helps one to predict unknown gene function,
> > > which is foundational for drug discovery (Branca 2002; Eisen and Wu
> > > 2002; Searls 2003).
> > > Phylogenetic analysis is a standard part of epidemiology,
> > > since it allows the identification of disease reservoirs and sometimes
> > > the tracking of step-by-step transmission of disease. For example,
> > > phylogenetic analysis confirmed that a Florida dentist was infecting
> > > his patients with HIV, that HIV-1 and HIV-2 were transmitted to humans
> > > from chimpanzees and mangabey monkeys in the twentieth century, and,
> > > when polio was being eradicated from the Americas, that new cases were
> > > not coming from hidden reservoirs (Bull and Wichman 2001). It was used
> > > in 2002 to help convict a man of intentionally infecting someone with
> > > HIV (Vogel 1998). The same principle can be used to trace the source
> > > of bioweapons (Cummings and Relman 2002).
> > > Phylogenetic analysis to track the diversity of a pathogen can
> > > be used to select an appropriate vaccine for a particular region
> > > (Gaschen et al. 2002).
> > > Ribotyping is a technique for identifying an organism or at
> > > least finding its closest known relative by mapping its ribosomal RNA
> > > onto the tree of life. It can be used even when the organisms cannot
> > > be cultured or recognized by other methods. Ribotyping and other
> > > genotyping methods have been used to find previously unknown
> > > infectious agents of human disease (Bull and Wichman 2001; Relman
> > > 1999).
> > > Phylogenetic analysis helps in determining protein folds,
> > > since proteins diverging from a common ancestor tend to conserve their
> > > folds (Benner 2001).
> > > Directed evolution allows the "breeding" of molecules or molecular
> > > pathways to create or enhance products, including:
> > > enzymes (Arnold 2001)
> > > pigments (Arnold 2001)
> > > antibiotics
> > > flavors
> > > biopolymers
> > > bacterial strains to decompose hazardous materials.
> > > Directed evolution can also be used to study the folding and
> > > function of natural enzymes (Taylor et al. 2001).
> > > The evolutionary principles of natural selection, variation, and
> > > recombination are the basis for genetic algorithms, an engineering
> > > technique that has many practical applications, including aerospace
> > > engineering, architecture, astrophysics, data mining, drug discovery
> > > and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials
> > > engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics,
> > > scheduling, and systems engineering (Marczyk 2004).
> > > Tools developed for evolutionary science have been put to other
> > > uses. For example:
> > > Many statistical techniques, including analysis of variance
> > > and linear regression, were developed by evolutionary biologists,
> > > especially Ronald Fisher and Karl Pearson. These statistical
> > > techniques have much wider application today.
> > > The same techniques of phylogenetic analysis developed for
> > > biology can also trace the history of multiple copies of a manuscript
> > > (Barbrook et al. 1998; Howe et al. 2001) and the history of languages
> > > (Dunn et al. 2005).
> > > Good science need not have any application beyond satisfying
> > > curiosity. Much of astronomy, geology, paleontology, natural history,
> > > and other sciences have no practical application. For many people,
> > > knowledge is a worthy end in itself.
> > > Science with little or no application now may find application in
> > > the future, especially as the field matures and our knowledge of it
> > > becomes more complete. Practical applications are often built upon
> > > ideas that did not look applicable originally. Furthermore, advances
> > > in one area of science can help illuminate other areas. Evolution
> > > provides a framework for biology, a framework which can support other
> > > useful biological advances.
> > > Anti-evolutionary ideas have been around for millennia and have
> > > not yet contributed anything with any practical application.
> > Right Wolli, all this is made possible by the the theory of evolution. Like I said somethings take a great leap of faith.
> but Mike, you know less than Abd AlWahab Abd Allah about the subject.,
> So you really can't say, can you?
And you know that how? Did you just assume this, wish for it to be
true, or perhaps if you heard yourself repeat it a number of times you
might begin to believe it's true. Isn't this how you base your
conclusions on most things Wolli, click your heels three times and
poof!
> Le mardi 13 novembre 2012 16:10:18 UTC+1, Guitarzan a écrit :
> > On Nov 13, 4:13 am, Benoit Meulle-Stef <b...@bmsguitars.com> wrote:
> > > I never understand why fundamentalist Muslims are not friend with Americans creationists... They have the same disregard for science like evolution...
> > > Benoit
> > Benoit, I've debated you on science, you just start calling everyone
> > names after about three posts. To you, name calling is science 101.
> Michael,
> Remembering all the wrong stuff you posted on facebook about science and deny of evolution and basic science, I don't thing you have something to teach to anyone and no "Every scientist lies, the truth is hided somewhere in museums by the big conspiracy, but I have 0 evidence to prove it" is not a satisfactory answer... Neater insulting friends of mine who have 7 years of archeology studies...
> Benoit
Ah um, what wrong stuff did I post on facebook, be specific please.
On Nov 14, 2:30 am, Benoit Meulle-Stef <b...@bmsguitars.com> wrote:
> > Unfortunately innumeracy is the norm in this culture. We see the
> > results played out in RMCG all the time with threads that go on and on
> > just because some poor poster can't grasp some basic scientific
> > concept, often something that is counterintuitive.
> You mean Abd or Michael? Because there views on science is amazingly close...
> Benoit
There is science then there is pseudo science. I have no problem
understanding science, and I have no problem with it, I fully embrace
it. It's the pseudo science, like archeology, evolution, Egyptology,
psychology, and so on and so forth, I don't accept as definitive.
When you have some aspects of a theory that don't hold water and yet
you propagate the theory as rock solid their lies a problem.
