Jump to content
Islamic Forum

QED

Member
  • Content count

    486
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

QED last won the day on April 23 2014

QED had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

13 Good

About QED

  • Rank
    Full Member

Previous Fields

  • Marital Status
    Married
  • Religion
    Atheism

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. 911 Another Point Of View

    Here, the author of the actual report (Dr M Wood) explains that the author of the article you linked misrepresented and misunderstood his work. http://conspiracypsychology.com/2013/07/13/setting-the-record-straight-on-wood-douglas-2013/ The truth is out there...
  2. Comparison Of The Reactions

    I'm pleased to hear that you don't subscribe to the "Ummah v Kafir" division. What term would you suggest to describe terrorist groups whose recognisable quality, usually self proclaimed, is Islam? "Protestant" and "Catholic" descriptions served perfectly well in N. Ireland. "Anarchist", "Marxist" and "Maoist" have be usefully applied to terrorist organisations in both Europe and South America. I'm sure that the majority of Basques didn't complain about ETA being labelled "Basque Terrorists", whether they supported of opposed their actions. Others who share that identification may disagree with their actions but the label remains appropriate. Hearty and unequivocal condemnation of acts against non-combatants is the only acceptable response. To be fair, if a terror group describes itself as "Islamic" and as engaging in "Jihad" as well as quoting the Quran to justify specific actions what, in all seriousness, are we supposed to call them?
  3. Comparison Of The Reactions

    I wish people would stop referring to political, economic, military, etc, extremists as "The West". They are not western. They may live in the west but what they do has nothing to do with Western ideals. It is just lazy stereotyping.
  4. Do You Trust Science?

    A systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. 1. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. (This is repeated so often by the religious opponents of evolution. It is simply wrong!) 2. Piltdown man was not "the missed link" it was a small part of the puzzle which turned out to be a deliberate hoax. Evolution did not then and noes not now, rely on the Piltdown Man as proof. The fossil evidence of transitional forms went way beyond one specemin. 3. Yes, one very small part of science was fooled by a deliberate hoax. Others were not. And science ultimately proved it to be wrong. Rejecting evolution because of the Piltdown Man is like rejecting Islam because of Boko Haram. I will ask you a version of the question posed to Andalusi. Does the Piltdown Man story mean that you distrust the science behind aviation, telecoms, medicine, computers, etc. Will you refuse to take a medicine or use a computer because you have not seen the the experimental research yourself?
  5. Do You Trust Science?

    Again, how do you respond to this?
  6. Do You Trust Science?

    You need to come up with another argument than personal incredulity.
  7. Do You Trust Science?

    How do you respond to this?
  8. Do You Trust Science?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex.html A "living fossil" is not an "evolution hoax". Evolution does not state that all species must always change. If it inhabits a well suited ecological nich, with little or no competition, then change will be slower or may stop. Darwin dealt with these in "Origin of Species". He even coined the term "living fossil". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil This is only because you do not understand the science involved. Every objection you raise has been addressed in depth by experts in that field. If you really want to know, then study the science as well as the apologetics. Personal incredulity does not mean that something can't happen.
  9. Do You Trust Science?

    A scientific "theory" is an explanation that best describes a process. It is not immutable "fact" (science does not work like that) but it is close. For over a hundred years, scientists have tried to disprove it or come up with better explanations and failed. Evolution explains what we see and explains it very well, and does not need to invoke any supernatural power. Many times. That is how science works. It builds and improves. It also eliminates mistakes when found. The theory of evolution is far more complete and accurate than it was when Darwin first wrote it. Please try to understand what evolution is and how it works. Organisms do not create new organs for themselves. It is nothing like a mother giving birth to herself at all. The analogy makes no sense. I'll give you an analogy that works. Your descriptions of evolution is like me insisting that Islam was founded by Muhammed when he was given the Quran on some golden tablets while travelling in Germany, and it is like Hinduism without the waterslides.
  10. Do You Trust Science?

    So, to bring us back to the title of this thread, you trust your own incredulity over millions of hours of research, thousands of peer reviewed papers and hundreds of testable predictions. They are all wrong and you (with no specialist training in the relevant fields, I take it) are right? As a matter of interest, are you equally distrusting of science when it comes to transport, telecoms, aviation, computers, medicine, etc? Or is it just where science contradicts scripture?
  11. Do You Trust Science?

    We have been through this issue at length before. Natural selection drives Evolution. Evolution does not involve creating new organs, it is about gradual change. Every "new organ" is an existing organ that has undergone this gradual change. Every organ in every species will trace back do a different organ in an earlier species, eg. inner ear evolved from gills. http://www.livescience.com/558-human-ears-evolved-ancient-fish-gills.html Also, the common ancestor of humans and chimps would have had the same organs as both although they are different species. Yes it does. The ones that are better hidden are less likely to be eaten, so they are more likely to pass on their genes for "leaf shape". This carries on over hundreds of generations. This example shows how in actually observed species, and that was over only 200 years! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution You are raising questions that have already been answered.
  12. Boko Haram In Africa

    Of course it is bad. There are few things which could be worse. Unfortunately, the people doing this will point to sura and hadith that they believe justify their actions. This is the problem with deriving morals from scripture rather than from empathy and the Golden Rule (one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself).
  13. Do You Trust Science?

    "Fittest" in "survival of the fittest" does not mean "strongest". It means those best suited to a purpose (eg. "you are not fit to tie his shoes") How do you see evolution not happening by the process of natural selection?
  14. Do You Trust Science?

    What part of the scientific method do you find unsatisfactory?
×