Yusuf Estes - Science proves Quran is from Allah

[Abd AlWahab Abd Allah]

hi,

Yusuf Estes - Science proves Quran is from Allah

watching on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_u5bkXHuJE

more :

http://www.facebook.com/pages/What-Is-Islam/294565653907238

thanks for you visit.

[Richard Jernigan]

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

[Benoit Meulle-Stef]

I never understand why fundamentalist Muslims are not friend with Americans creationists... They have the same disregard for science like evolution...

Benoit

[Guitarzan]

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.

[Guitarzan]

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.

[Slogoin]

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.

[Guitarzan]

My scientist friend said...... "science is only useful in technology
the rest of it is pretty much useless."

[Jonathan]

I'm not sure, but I think this may be a prophet deal.

[Guitarzan]

On Nov 13, 8:28 am, Slogoin <la...@deack.net> 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.

[David Raleigh Arnold]

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.

--
Guitar teaching materials and original music for all styles and levels.
Site: http://www.openguitar.com (()) eMail: d.raleig...@gmail.com
Contact: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html"

[Dick Cheney]

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.

[dewach...@gmail.com]

Right Wolli, all this is made possible by the the theory of evolution. Like I said somethings take a great leap of faith.

[dewach...@gmail.com]

Science beyond technology is in the realm of philosophy, nothin wrong with philosophy, just understand it for what it is, that's all.

[Slogoin]

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.

[Slogoin]

On Nov 13, 12:16 pm, dewachen1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Right Wolli, all this is made possible by the the theory of evolution.
> Like I said somethings take a great leap of faith.

No, just enough maths to follow the logic. Without the maths it
would take a leap of faith and would not be science.

[Dick Cheney]

but Mike, you know less than Abd AlWahab Abd Allah about the subject.,
So you really can't say, can you?

[Slogoin]

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.

[Benoit Meulle-Stef]

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

[Benoit Meulle-Stef]

> 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

[Benoit Meulle-Stef]

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!"

;-)
Benoit

[Guitarzan]

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.

Yea, that sounds like crap to me!

[Guitarzan]

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.

[Guitarzan]

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!

[Guitarzan]

Ah um, what wrong stuff did I post on facebook, be specific please.

[Guitarzan]

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.

[Guitarzan]

I believe from my studies, in adaption within species but not one
species turning into another species. So called scienists will claim
such and such bone discoverd in an ankle of a monkey is a missing
link. However if your understanding is fixed by ones absolute
unchanging view that evolution is the only answer, then of course you
will find the answer within the framework of your limited
understanding, because yes, the alternative is mind boggling isn't it.

In our previous discussions on facebook it centered on pyramids etc.
Dr. Robert Schoch and John Anthony West have proven without doubt, the
Sphinix is much older than conventional Egyptology has suggested. In
a interview with the curator of the Boston museum, he states if we
accept the premiss the Sphinx is older than previously thought we
would then have to accept the reality of antediluvian civilazation,
and that would be unacceptable. So, one can quite easily see blind
faith in ones theories to the exclusion of others is not science it's
propaganda.

This presents a huge problem for Egyptology as well as archeology.
However, academics because of the many texts books written by them, on
various subject in the field of archeology would suddenly find their
theories outdated and useless, they fight tooth and nail to keep the
old paradigm in tact, such is the sad state of so called science these
days.

[Slogoin]

On Nov 14, 1:30 am, Benoit Meulle-Stef <b...@bmsguitars.com> wrote:
> >
> You mean Abd or Michael? Because there views on science is amazingly close...

Both, and others here too. There is no use trying to reason with
them because we do not see innumeracy in this culture in the same way
we see illiteracy, something required for any person to call
themselves educated.

[Richard Jernigan]

People the world over, regardless of culture, classify plants and animals into species-like groups. Most cultures see these groups as constant in time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_biology

It is mostly invisible critters like bacteria and viruses which reproduce at a high enough rate to change significantly during a human lifetime.

In non-scientific cultures, like Victorian England and at least half of the USA, religions have made up stories to account for the existence of species via creation myths, just as pre-Newtonian Europe imagined God pushing the "celestial spheres" around on a daily basis.

The universality of folk biology suggests that there is an adaptive advantage to it. Furthermore, most people are extremely reluctant to give up religious beliefs. Thus a strong resistance to evolution is to be expected in unscientific cultures.

Relativity and quantum mechanics are more counter-intuitive as evolution. Relativity tells us that Bob can see event A happening before event B, and Carol can see event B happening before event A, and both of them are right! Quantum mechanics tells us we can't determine both the speed and position of an object at the same time, beyond a fixed limit of uncertainty. On the other hand, we see the development of new breeds of cattle and dogs during a human lifetime, so it is a relatively small jump to believe that eventually, over immense spans of time, isolated populations might accumulate enough mutations to diverge into different species. But quantum mechanics and relativity can be demonstrated by straightforward experiments. Thus their names tend to be accepted, even by people who have very little idea what they are about.

Divergence of readily visible species, on the other hand, takes place slowly enough to escape observation by most people. To arrive at a scientific acceptance of evolution, the individual must read widely and think critically. It helps to study under and converse with experts on biology. Few people have the time for this, so many stick with their intuitive ideas of folk biology. Religious people may refuse to abandon the "just so" stories made up in antiquity.

Compared to evolution, relativity and quantum mechanics are simple. They are vastly counter-intuitive, but their intellectual basis is compact and specific. Attempts to refute them can be swiftly dealt with. "Evolution", on the other hand, is not as compactly and specifically defined as theories of physics. Attempts to refute it arise in profusion. It takes time to deal with them. But, bit by bit people do deal with them. For example, creationists point out that there are few examples of multicellular life compared to the vast number of single cell organisms now living. How then, did multicellular life arise out of random mutations? Some scientists took some time to look into this:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/01/researchers-evolve-a-multicellular-yeast-in-the-lab-in-2-months/

Just as you are free to be a Republican or a Democrat, you may choose to accept evolution as a scientifically valid theory, or you may reject it upon whatever grounds you choose.

RNJ

[Guitarzan]

This makes absolutely no sense. Try again Mopey Larry.

[Guitarzan]

> http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/01/researchers-evolve-a-multicell...

>
> Just as you are free to be a Republican or a Democrat, you may choose to accept evolution as a scientifically valid theory, or you may reject it upon whatever grounds you choose.
>
> RNJ

Thank you, the most sane, and rational post so far.

[Dick Cheney]

Silly Michael, you haven't studied evolution. I know this by the
uninformed comments you've made in the past.
If species can evolve adaptations why is there this imaginary wall
that prevents them from developing adaptations to the point that
prevents them from interbreeding? for example: why can't your crotch
crickets interbreed with your head lice? They have a common ancestor,
just as we do with chimps an bonobos.

[Benoit Meulle-Stef]

>
> 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.

You always batch them but have 0 evidence against just big words and some insults... Archeology, Evolution, Egyptology and psychology ARE science...

Benoit

[Benoit Meulle-Stef]

Dick:
Dont waist your time, on the subject of evolution the biggest prove MT gave me was that a human skeleton don't look like a monkey skeleton... I was speechless of so little understanding on evolution and taxonomy (Yes taxonomy another science that MT probably denies)

Benoit

[Dick Cheney]

Oh, he's said way,way more ridiculous things than that.
For instance, we are devolved from space men that first inhabited the
earth 4 billion years ago.

[Richard Jernigan]

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:03:17 PM UTC-6, Guitarzan wrote:
> On Nov 14, 10:07 am, Richard Jernigan <rnjerni...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<big snip>

> > Just as you are free to be a Republican or a Democrat, you may choose to accept evolution as a scientifically valid theory, or you may reject it upon whatever grounds you choose.
>
> >
>
> > RNJ
>
>
>
> Thank you, the most sane, and rational post so far.

...but unlike the conflicting views of time sequence in relativity, people who accept evolution as a scientifically valid theory and those who reject it, can't both be right.

RNJ

[Guitarzan]

> ...
>
> read more »

What's a bonboon?

[Guitarzan]

Maybe they can, they just need to compromise a bit.

[Guitarzan]

> ...
>
> read more »

You need to start managing yer posts, there too damn long!

[Dick Cheney]

On Nov 14, 2:12 pm, Guitarzan <dewachen1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What's a bonboon?

bonobo

[Benoit Meulle-Stef]

> Oh, he's said way,way more ridiculous things than that.
>
> For instance, we are devolved from space men that first inhabited the
>
> earth 4 billion years ago.

What prove of that? Funny when people denies evolution but wants you to believe in something completely impossible BUT this time with 0 evidence...

Benoit

[Slogoin]

On Nov 14, 12:02 pm, Richard Jernigan <rnjerni...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ...but unlike the conflicting views of time sequence in relativity,
> people who accept evolution as a scientifically valid theory and
> those who reject it, can't both be right.

I doubt you will find even one numerate RMCG poster who rejects
evolution. In fact, I have yet to run into any engineer or scientist
who rejects evolution.

[Guitarzan]

The chances that we evolved from ameba are like a wind blowing through
a junkyard and creating a fully functioning Boeing 747, from the
scrape metal.

[Dick Cheney]

what are amebas and scrape metals?

[Guitarzan]

Yes, it called the information filter. Those same "numerate" ( those
who understand the Maths) people as you call them, deny the existence
of UFO's, believe human civilization is 6000 years old, and the Great
Pyramids were tombs. That despite the undeniable architectural and
cultural links appearing suddenly out of no where, people decided to
build pyramids on every continent on earth, yet without any cultural
exchange.

They are finding sunken cities all over the world when the oceans rose
300 to 400 feet in a cataclysmic event 12,500 years ago. Something
these experts refuse to take into account, when dating human
civilization. If you were at all "numerate" larry you could to the
Maths...... it's easy!

[Dick Cheney]

BTW:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy

[Guitarzan]

Ha ha ha!

[Dick Cheney]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSJElZwEI8o

[Steven Bornfeld]

On 11/13/2012 1:22 PM, 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.
>
> 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.
>

You must be joking. Really?

S.

[Benoit Meulle-Stef]

>
> You must be joking. Really?
>
>
>
> S.

No he is not... He has absolutly no understanding of the priciples and just repeats the nonsense of creationists about evolution and all the clichés...


Benoit

[Slogoin]

On Nov 15, 9:46 am, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>
> You must be joking.  Really?

Not sure what MT really believes other than that trolling in RMCG
is fun for him. But if he isn't joking it's not like he's the only one
who is so ignorant that they can actually make a statement like that,
and really mean it. How's that for scary?

What's worse is that there are many teachers who are equally
ignorant. I worked at one school where the principal told students how
much she hated maths, many times, and thought that she was somehow
helping the kids.

[Steven Bornfeld]

Ugh--I almost wish I COULD be ignorant of this, but--I have a kid, so I
see it all the time.

S.

[dewach...@gmail.com]

http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa334/MichaelThames/ehkrsgfi.jpg

[dewach...@gmail.com]

I'm not joking, tell me what the origin of species has produced besides a bunch of academic tenured professors.

[dewach...@gmail.com]

Isn't the term troll rather outdated.... if I'm a troll then yer a troll, were all trolls.

Ya know how I can tell Larry......... by the number of times you used the word ignorant, and thought you were actually cleaver.

[Benoit Meulle-Stef]

> I'm not joking, tell me what the origin of species has produced besides a bunch of academic tenured professors.

You mean apart of a much better understanding of the animal world, verified predictions in near future for species, correlation between taxonomy, genetics and evolution. Understanding of our origins... Stuff like that...

Benoit

[dewach...@gmail.com]

Understanding our origins, really that's science and that's helpful? Sorry I as well as most people on this planet don't buy this.

Predictions for species? Really?

Taxonomy are you kidding me?

Genetics dosen't have to include evolution, but I see you've included it.

Fail!

[dewach...@gmail.com]

On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:57:55 AM UTC-7, Benoit Meulle-Stef wrote:

I prefer to start with actual tangible things. Lets start with the basic assumption of the time line of humans. Since this is the basis of the theory of human evolution.

Academic archeology propagates the view of human civilization as going back 4000 bc to Sumeria. They ignore ancient writings and oral traditions from every corner of the planet that says civilization goes back much much further, from the Greeks, to the Hindus and the Hopi, Mayan, just to name a few. They refuse to look at the sea level rise of 300 to 400 feet that swallowed up many cities and destroyed prime real estate.

The recent findings of Gobeckli Tepe push to time line much further back, as do the updated new dating of the Sphinx. However academics refuse to acknowledge any of this.

Its way too costly to look under water for evidence of antiquity, so they base ALL of their science on above ground research. This is the same as physicists saying they understand everything based on the 4% of what they know about the universe. That's not a safe bet in my opinion, t may satisfy you and your ilk, but I'm not buying it, based on only evidence they have found digging in a few places.

If this nonsense is propagated as definitive scientific knowledge then what else flaunts itself as science?

[Slogoin]

On Nov 15, 4:19 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>
> Ugh--I almost wish I COULD be ignorant of this, but--I have a kid, so I
> see it all the time.

I work with it all the time. I have pretty much given up on most
adults and from this thread you can see why. The ignorance is really
stunning but worse to me is the defensiveness when their ignorance is
exposed. It's one thing to be ignorant but the arrogant attitude in
the face of their own stunning ignorance makes it almost impossible to
get through to them.

[Guitarzan]

Ignorant, arrogant, ignorant arrogant, blah blah blah........ all this
talk about ignorant, and arrogant, reminds me of the old dictum "in
the hose of a hanged man, one never mentions the word rope"

You and MO have a very bad habit of calling anyone who doesn't agree
you Ignorant, try changing your tactics.

[David Raleigh Arnold]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:19:17 -0800, dewachen1000 wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:23:25 AM UTC-7, daveA wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Guitar teaching materials and original music for all styles and levels.
>>
>> Site: http://www.openguitar.com (()) eMail: d.raleig...@gmail.com
>>
>> Contact: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html"
>
> Science beyond technology is in the realm of philosophy, nothin wrong
> with philosophy, just understand it for what it is, that's all.

Philosophy is inextricably bound to Western concepts of God.
Such silly nonsense as "free will" only can be discussed
in relation to God, because otherwise the whole debate
dissolves into nothing when you ask, "Freer than what?"

The "enduring questions" were answered by the Buddha. There
is something wrong with philosophy. Some adopted concepts
were brought to Greece by Buddhist missionaries, for example
the four elements: earth, water, air and fire. These correspond
to three states of matter, plus energy, because they describe how we
perceive phenomena. They never were chemistry or philosophy.

"Good methods of investigation" is science, not philosophy.

What is called "Buddhist philosophy" is nothing like philosophy.
It is a record of the experience of meditators two thousand
years ago. It is how they saw things, and consequently it
cannot develop or change much. Abhidhamma relates to practice in
all cases, not to a belief system or anything like a
belief system. Regards, daveA

--
Guitar teaching materials and original music for all styles and levels.
Site: http://www.openguitar.com (()) eMail: d.raleig...@gmail.com
Contact: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html"

[Benoit Meulle-Stef]

>
> Genetics dosen't have to include evolution, but I see you've included it.
>
>
>
> Fail!

I'm amaze by how little you know on the subject... Did you had to search for taxonomy on a book??? Look at those videos so maybe you will understand a little of what we are trying to tell you:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC&feature=plcp

Benoit

[dewach...@gmail.com]

I've told you a million times I'm not a creationist. Why don't you start at the end then we can work our way back, how old is civilization, lets start there, how old is the Sphinx, what are the implications of a Sphinx that is 12,500 years old...... we will get to stuffing animals later.

[Benoit Meulle-Stef]

I know you are not, but this video is one of the best explanation for dummies of evolution and the misunderstandings... So perfect for you!

Benoit

[Richard Jernigan]

On Friday, November 16, 2012 7:45:49 AM UTC-6, dewach...@gmail.com wrote:

>This is the same as physicists saying they understand everything based on the 4% of what they know >about the universe.
>

Anyone who claims to "understand everything" is certainly not a physicist.

What is dark matter?

Why is the expansion of the universe accelerating?

How can gravity and particle physics be reconciled?

Can string theory be tested empirically?

Are the "elementary particles" of the Standard Model composed of still smaller parts?

The list goes on...

Physicists earn their living trying to answer questions like these, or by pointing out new unsolved problems.

RNJ

[Richard Jernigan]

On Friday, November 16, 2012 7:45:49 AM UTC-6, dewach...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:57:55 AM UTC-7, Benoit Meulle-Stef wrote:

> Its way too costly to look under water for evidence of antiquity, so they base ALL of their science on above ground research.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Ancient-Cities-Lost-to-the-Seas.html?c=y&page=2

"Around the world, other sunken settlements have been explored or are the subject of current work:

* Kekova, Turkey: The partially submerged ruins of the ancient city of Simena are easy to see through the clear turquoise waters off Turkey’s southern coast. A massive earthquake buried much of Simena in the 2nd century AD. Tourists can swim near the ruins or see them from glass-bottomed tour boats.

* Port Royal, Jamaica: On June 7, 1692, an earthquake wiped out this Caribbean port, once known as “the wickedest city on Earth.” Two thousand people were killed instantly, and many others perished later. Nautical archaeologists have found eight buildings so far.

* Alexandria, Egypt: Divers have found remnants of Alexandria’s famous lighthouse in the bay, as well as Cleopatra’s palace. UNESCO is looking into whether the world’s first underwater museum could be built here.

* Mahabalipuram, India: Several manmade structures believed to be temples built in the 7th or 8th century surfaced off India’s southeast coast after the 2004 tsunami. Some believe they are pagodas that were part of this pilgrimage city, which is now a World Heritage site.

* Tybrind Vig, Denmark: During the late Mesolithic period (5600 to 4000 BC), people hunted, fished, wove fabric, and were buried in this new submerged settlement close to the west coast of the island of Fyn.



Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Ancient-Cities-Lost-to-the-Seas.html#ixzz2CPRx0UGC"

This is from the magazine "The Smithsonian", published by the Smithsonian Institution, about as "establishment' as you can get.

RNJ

[Benoit Meulle-Stef]

Richard:
You don't get it? MT will tell you that museums are liars and they hides the Real truth from us! (With dramatic Z movie music and lightings behind me)

Seriously, eveytime you face him with hard prove he just denies it with a simple "It's fake"... BUT if you have a bad quality photo of a strange alien fond in "Iwanttobelieve.nutcases that's hardcore prove for him!!!

Benoit

[Richard Jernigan]

Thanks for the advice, Benoit, but I have conversed with Michael Thames for several years now. I can't tell what he actually believes and when he's just trolling. He has, upon occasion, said he was "just playing Devil's advocate." I don't expect to alter his tactics, strategy, beliefs or trolling. It's nothing to get worked up about.

RNJ