Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Papples

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Papples

  1. Miller is refuting an argument that uses a bad example. Behe's example has been scientifically demonstration to be irreducibly complex. You need to address Behe's example directly. Why don't you give the specific example that Miller uses and quote it here?

    Behe has always denied what you just said about him. Your's is a straw man argument too. You need to really address irreducible complexity and not a misunderstanding of it.

    Behe has not scientifically demonstrated anything.

    Irreducible complexity is just another argument from ignorance. The concept does not lead to new knowledge. On the contrary, the concept promotes giving up and just saying "God did it". You never learn anything doing that.

    We are talking about multiple improbable mutations. Meaning that each mutation is improbable on its own and then we need many of them to happen at the same time. You are right that there are mutations which do benefit organisms but they are not really improbable ones and they do not really add much information to the genome (they may even cause a loss of functioning in certain areas of the organism) and they cannot lead to the evolution of irreducibly complex structures. An example is the mutations that bacteria undergo when they show resistance to antibiotics. The binding sites do change due to the mutation but that is not the same as the creation of an irreducibly complex feature.

    I wonder what he thinks about the Cambrian explosion.

    Improbable events happen all the time. In fact, every event in the universe is improbable. Everyone's lives is just a sequence of incredibly improbable events.

  2. Well the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy even has it's own page for Darwinism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/darwinism/ So they don't agree with you.

    You need to accept the fact that there are different models of evolution.

    And some people call Islam Mohammedanism.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Mohammedanism

    That does not mean that the name is accurate. No, in both cases the name is used to demean that which they symbolize. Theists WANT to call the theory of evolution Darwinism as part of a disingenuous game to portray the theory of evolution as a religion. That's called propaganda.

  3. So Adam is the first human who evolved from chimp?? And Eve evolved from another chimp in the same time? Moreover, they mutants were conveniently able to have children? :!!!: Dont commit blasphemy.

    I like what Richard Dawkins says about blasphemy...it's a victimless crime.

    Perhaps the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, a metaphor, or a parable. Have you ever considered that?

    Humans did not evolve from chimps. They share a common ancestor from approximately 5-7 million years ago. Also, individuals do not evolve, populations evolve. You lack of understanding (willful ignorance, you don't want to understand) is astounding, but not uncommon. Many people don't want to understand things that might upset their world view.

  4. A tax is compulsion. It's not the same degree of compulsion as a death threat, but it is still compulsion.

    I'd like to see verses from the Qu'ran that relate to the treatment of atheists, if they exist. And if they do not exist, I'd like to see some documentation regarding the current understanding(s) of how to treat atheists.

  5. What would happen to atheists if Muslims were able to establish a worldwide caliphate?

    Some people have told me that Muslims would kill all atheists, others have told me that Muslims would do nothing. Obviously, both of these cannot be true at the same time. What would happen to people like me if Muslims were to eclipse the West in political, military, and economic power? I'd like scriptural references if possible, not just random peoples' opinions.

  6. None of mutation has become evolution. This so-called theory is just an SF scenario. Charles Darwin he one of the biggest liars in human history. :shaytan:

    This statement is not only libel, it also demonstrates your profound ignorance.

    Just because reality does not conform to your ideology does not make it untrue. Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution explains how it works, to the best of our current knowledge. The theory will be improved over time, as we gain more knowledge.

    Isn't the self-correcting nature of science wonderful? Without science you wouldn't have clean water to drink, air conditioning in your home, a computer to make anti-science internet posts, or any of the other amenities you take for granted.

  7. Ok so, i personally believe our natural evolutionary lineage has built within us, traits of empathy and emotion, along with things like our moral concepts of right and wrong. things we consider morally good being those which could be suggested to ultimately support community based life and the passing of our genetic kin, while morally bad things being that which could be suggested to ultimately hurt community based life or the spreading of our kin.

    For those who believe things like morals and divine good and bad, why do you believe that these divine morals come from beyond our own judgment? Is there any way that you could disprove yourself? And are there any examples that you have that i couldnt associate subjectively to my personal interpretation of good or bad morals?

    Theists (Muslims, Christians, Mormons, etc) believe morality is divine because they cannot explain the origin of morality. That's how it works with everything that theists cannot explain...God did it.

  8. Looks like they took gullible out of the dictionary....

    I dont think someone who threw away a 20 Billion Dollar inheritance to fight on the front line, eat stale bread and drink afghan mountain water for 25 years was not extremely fervent/zelouse about his belief, both internally and exterenally.

    So even when all the facts we know about Binladen, all th personal accounts we have of him from westerns and non westerners a like, and everything we have seen unfold in his drama (which all point to this allegation being false) people are still willing to believe it. Not to mention the sole and only source of this information is the US which happens to be Osama's worst enemy.

    And wiki leaks has shown us that the US never fabricates information. Always truthful.

    So when all the facts that we have point to this claim being ABSURD and NOT TRUE, we have people, especially 'Muslims' still willing to believe it. We actually have Ayat of the Qur'an and many hadith targeted specifically to this issue, but i'll let those individuals who believe this stuff pick up there Qur'an or hadith books to try to find it. Hopefully they'll learn something on the way.

    God, I wish people, ESPECIALLY MUSLIMS put as much faith in the Qur'an and Sunnah as they put into the US/CNN/FoX....if that happened this Ummah would NOT be in the situation that is is.

    It could be fabricated, but I don't think it was because it wouldn't be out of character for a religious icon. Martin Luther King Jr was a philanderer, as was Ghandi. And that's just two I've named off the top of my head. I'm sure we could make a list pages long.

    It is not any easier for men to thwart their desire for sex than it is to thwart their desire for food.

  9. This one above does not know that if colonialism had not happened, islamic civilization would have reached the moon 100 years before the west.

    Incorrect. Islam tossed true scientific exploration aside nearly 1000 years ago, long before there was any European colonization. You can thank al-Ghazali for the fall of Islamic empire. His influence on philosophy, and how it relates to science, was the beginning of the end of Islamic superiority. Blame yourselves.

    The West dealt with this too, of course. The Catholic church was often a hindrance to scientific advancement. But the difference between the West and the Middle East is that the West woke up. The Middle East is still in a daze.

  10. Since its s successful movement, the Western media can hardly admit that its being driven by Islam. Because the pro-democracy movement is clearly good, and they do not want to equate "good" with "Islam". So even though the protestors are chanting "Allahu Akbar" and rallying in mosques, they will look the other way and insist that women are sleeping along with strange men in tents. It makes me laugh.

    However, it does not matter a damn what the West thinks. They can do nothing. Their time is over, after barely 21 years ('90-'11). They will have to leave the MIddle East now, its only a matter of time before the House of Saud falls. Just like the AK party in Turkey, similar parties will arise in democratic Muslim countries like Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc. In autocratic Muslim countries the regime will be swept away. In the end, in 10-15 years, the whole Islamic world will be democratic and ruled by "moderate" Islamist parties. After that, it will only be a matter of time before The Unification.

    Is The Unification where they reestablish the old boundaries of the empire? Will they conquer Spain?

  11. At least South Ossetia is a nation that actually physically borders Russia! What on earth does the imperialist Amerikkkan Empire have to do with a country thousands of miles away from it across the Atlantic ocean (other than issues of oil and who is going to rule an important North African nation, a situation that should be left to the people of Libya and North Africa)?!

    This post does not refute the previous posters argument that Russian intelligence is not reliable.

    Your position seems to be loaded with confirmation bias.

  12. The imperialist US government killed over 1 million Iraqi civilians (all for something they knew was based on lies to start with), do you really think they care about human life?! As for your statement about Libya and Gaddafi, yes he said he was going to have "no mercy", etc. on the rebels this is hardly surprising and such statements are fairly common in warfare. The US government always talks about crushing and hunting down "al-Qaeda" (aka al-CIA-duh); does this mean "al-Qaeda" needs to defend itself from an Amerikkkan genocide?!

    False equivalence. The Libyan people are not a terrorist organization. Also, what is happening in Libya was not originally a war. The protests were originally peaceful and there was no violence until Gaddafi tried to use force to stop the them. Gaddafi is the source of the violence, not the protesters.

    The rebels are heavily armed by the West (with tanks, artillery, and planes) and many of them appear to be backed by British SAS commando advisers. No such "genocide" would happen only a violent civil war between Gaddafi's army and the armed rebels.

    This statement does not even make sense. Violent civil wars ALWAYS result in genocide.

    Oil is the huge factor, as nobody gave a second thought about Rwanda in 1994 when infinitely more people were killed in the civil war there. Why was that?! Well clearly because Rwanda is a very poor African nation that had (and has) no large supplies of any important natural resources, like say oil, which drives the imperialist Western economies! Thus whatever was going to happen in Rwanda (and what happened in 1994 was about 800,000 Rwandans died), it had next to no affect on the world economy; this is not the case in Libya which is one of the world's largest oil nations and has the largest oil reserves in Africa.

    I don't agree that oil is a huge factor. Media coverage is the primary factor. And the reason Libya was covered is not because they have oil, but because Gaddafi is nuts and he makes for good television (higher ratings equals more profit).

  13. There is so much propaganda out there, it's impossible to know what is true. I am skeptical of anyone who claims they "know what's really going on". I will say that the more complex the conspiracy theory is, the less likely it is to be true.

    My opinion is that this has little to do with oil. Westerners still remember how detente allowed Hitler to massacre millions of people. Gaddafi has basically said that he will kill all of the rebels, which means that if he wins it is possible that he would kill hundreds of thousands of people. At first, Westerners were hoping that the rebels would force Gaddafi out of power, but as it has become more clear that Gaddafi will win, pressure to intervene has mounted.

    There are certainly other factors involved, but in the US, the people are really tired of war and we're trying to balance our budget. Even the war hawks are ambivalent about this intervention.

    I have a question...is it normal for Libyan rebels to find stacks of US hundred dollar bills in Gaddafi loyalists' pockets???

    Just because these people have US currency does not mean that Americans put that money in their pockets. The US dollar is the world's reserve currency (certainly more valuable than the Libyan dinar). I'm sure Gaddafi has billions of US dollars from all of the oil he has sold, so he's using that to pay his mercenaries. This really isn't a difficult concept to understand.

  14. Don't be obtuse - that was not my point. I was simply echoing baradar Jackson's point that the signifigance of the place where a religion originates isn't necessarily reflected by the behavior of the regime which governs that particular territory (nor is it necessarily reflective of the greater civilization which was spawned there.

    If that wasn't your point, then you should not have used that example.

    Religion and culture are perpetually intertwined. They mirror each other.

  15. Papples, you are really going off on a tnagent here. Palestine was where Christianity began, is the fact that the bulk of the Christians of Palestine were ethnically cleansed by the Zionists some sort of reflection on Christianity?

    Have the bulk of Muslims been ethnically cleansed from Saudi Arabia?

  16. Makkeh's significance dates back to far before "Saudi Arabia" came into existence.

    Or, to draw an analogy: Karbala is in Iraq. Iraq was, for a long time, governed by Bathists. I suppose that means we were all muqalids of Saddam Hussein during that time?

    What you're saying makes no sense. Makkeh does not have significance in the same way that New York has significance. New York is the financial center of the US because the economic power of the country is concentrated there. Makkeh is not the center of the Muslim world because of Saudi Arabia's political/economic/cultural significance but because of the kaaba; because of it being the birthplace of tawhid.

    Perhaps calling it the "center of the Muslim world" was not the best way to phrase it. It is symbolic. The nation where Mecca is located does not allow women to drive or vote.

    Are the people currently living in Saudi Arabia descended from the people who lived in the region 1300 years ago?

  17. The only nation (not "nations") I know of where women can't drive is Saudi Arabia.

    And I don't think anybody is allowed to vote in Saudi Arabia. There are no elections, to the best of my knowledge.

    And remember that Saudi is not even a religious country, it's a country of a'raab that happened to get rich.

    Only males over the age of 21 are allowed to vote. Saudi Arabia had elections in 2005.

    Saudi Arabia is where Mecca is located. It's the center of the Muslim world.

  18. The youngster said:

    "It is not Iran who is asking for guarantees from next Egyptian government to have an Islamic government."

    No one has even intimated it but Iran regarding an Islamic regime in Egypt. I am sure my young friend will agree with me that Iran made several statements praising the demonstrators. Today Iranians demonstrated in support of the Egyptians as well. The IRI supports the demonstrators in Egypt and tens of thousands of Iranians showed their support. So why did the regime in Iran greet their own supporters of Egypt with riot police it doesn't make sense, Lets keep in mind that the Iranians didn't start any fires until the riot police went after them.

    Iran is a theocratic police state. Iran is not a democracy.

  19. Does anybody else get annoyed when the media always tries to paint every example of female participation in the politics of Islamic countries as "unprecedented?" :rolleyes:

    BTW this isn't a knock on you personally satyaban (although I do think you're retarded). It's just a general point. During the "green wave" in Iran, Western media (and the Iranian traitors they invited to speak) portrayed the women's involvement in the demonstrations and riots as "unprecedented." Even though, to be honest, looking at the pictures and videos of those times, most of the greens appeared to be men. And, moreover, how can it be unprecedented, considering the level of women's involvement in the Islamic Revolution 32 years ago?

    Western media just can't break out of this caricature they have made of Islamic society, and one of these caricatures is the caricature of the subjugated woman. That's why they are so surprised when they see these things. Whereas we are not surprised at all.

    When there are Islamic nations where women aren't allowed to vote or drive, Muslims are making a caricature of themselves.

  20. It sounds like people have more of a problem with imperialism than nationalism or capitalism.

    Regarding the practice of capitalism in the US, the country has lost its way somewhat. The principles Adam Smith put forth in The Wealth of Nations are considered to be the foundation of the American economic system, but most people are unaware of the moral component. Adam Smith believed that the Invisible Hand (self interest) would only properly direct an economy as long as people were moral. Basically, if you have a bunch of thieves running the show, they're going to screw people over left and right, and that doesn't benefit society as a whole. The system needs morality to function properly. Now, this worked in his time (18th century) when most business was conducted face-to-face with people you knew. There was a social cost to being immoral. That doesn't really exist any more, and it's not because people are less moral, it's because business, itself, has changed. Most business is not conducted face-to-face anymore, at least not in the US. This removes a lot of the accountability. It's easier (no social consequences, you don't feel guilty) to screw over someone you never meet.

    This is a huge problem, in my opinion, and its one that isn't being addressed in the US. I don't think most Americans have even considered this...they're too busy watching reality TV, unfortunately.

  21. Why everyone in the west is so afraid of a free election in Egypt? Let the Christians, Islamists, Secular parties to decide for themselves. They'll choose the type of government they want, give them a chance, allow them for FREE election.

    Not everyone is afraid. In the US, rednecks and neocons are afraid. Most Americans are really happy for Egypt and hope they succeed in establishing a free society.

    You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between the US government, media, and people.

    It is not Iran who is asking for guarantees from next Egyptian government to have an Islamic government. it is Israel and Obama who give themselves the right to ask an independent country that might be reborn soon to have guarantees for recognizing all treaties with Israel and become another puppet for Israeli agendas in the region.

    I wish the US government would just wish Egypt well and shut up. The more Obama talks, the more it looks like he's trying to influence Egypt. I doubt the Egyptian people really care what Obama says though, so good for them.

×
×
  • Create New...