Jump to content
Islamic Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by QED

  1. Do you trust the findings of the scientific community to be accurate and reliable? If not, why not?
  2. 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...
  3. 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?
  4. 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.
  5. 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?
  6. Do You Trust Science?

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

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

    How do you respond to this?
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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).
  14. 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?
  15. Do You Trust Science?

    What part of the scientific method do you find unsatisfactory?
  16. Do You Trust Science?

    Correct. Evolution does not describe how life came about. It only describes how variety in life occurred, and it does this very well. Science does not have an accepted theory for abiogenesis although they are developing more sophisticated models and they have shown that all the complex amino acids needed for life can be produced from simple, inorganic chemicals. I take it from your post that you are happy with evolution but assume that because science has not shown how abiogenesis works, that god did that bit?
  17. Do You Trust Science?

    While I don't want this thread to turn into a discussion on evolution, I will say that there is far more to it than "fossils and guessing". There is evidence from such fields as paleontology, genetics, comparative anatomy, biogeography, observation, speciation, artificial selection and mathematical computation. Most opposition comes from a lack of understanding of the science, not from challenges to the science itself. A "theory" is the best explanation for how a process works. Evolution explains how we arrived at the abundance of life we have now and does it very well, without the need for any unsupported assumptions. Do you have a better explanation that fits all the evidence and makes no unsupported assumptions? Not a long post please, just yes or no. If you do, start another thread and we can discuss it at length there.
  18. Do You Trust Science?

    That is a sensible approach. Do you have doubts over the science behind evolution?
  19. Islamic View On The Bill Of Rights

    As I said above, our knowledge of the world is constantly evolving and changing. It is meaningless to highlight one piece of work and say "look, this means...". There have been more pieces of research that have since been superseded or disproved than you have space to list here. It makes no difference because they have been improved on. We do not base out knowledge of human evolution on the Piltdown Man. We do not base our knowledge of genetic influence of sexual behaviour on Hamer's paper. We do not base our knowledge of immunisation on Wakefield's research. Religions must base their worldview on only one paper and that one piece of research must not be challenged. If others point out errors in the research, they are ignored, or worse. Which of those two approaches is the most reasonable for finding out how the universe works? This statement is self contradictory. It is not my opinion, it is a demonstrable, scientific fact. ie, it can be tested. It is not based on anti-religion beliefs. My anti-religion beliefs are based on science. That is how it should work. You look at the evidence - facts that can be tested and repeated- and construct a worldview that fits to those facts. Not, as religion tries to do in this case, by trying to make the facts fit the belief. Yes, it is totally logic based. How else would you suggest that we approach the field of determining how the world works? An education based on logic, reason and science (as well as the arts) is the only education worthy of that name. Indoctrination into bronze-age cultural mythology is NOT education. The evolution of man is not "weak evidence-less theory". It is one of the most robustly supported theories in science, with a huge wealth of evidence from thousands of papers covering many fields from paleontology to genetics, and that evidence is constantly being expanded upon. Some of the technical details change as methods improve, but none of those changes have ever called the overall process into question. Evolution is so well established that to question it is almost like questioning whether Egyptian civilisation existed. That is not to say that people cannot question it, but it does mean that you need to come up with some pretty spectacular evidence if you want anyone to take it seriously. The only reason that the religious question evolution is because it conflicts with their holy scriptures, not because the science does not work. I invite you (on the new thread) to show some research that shows that evolution did not happen.
  20. Islamic View On The Bill Of Rights

    First, science and the truth has absolutely nothing to do with popularity. I do not understand what you mean about a survey being "the real measure of the effect of such 'Scientific hoax'". The only real effect of the PM hoax on today's science is to make science more rigorous in its examination of new discoveries. The PM hoax made science better! The paper you quote there was written before PM was officially exposed as a hoax. It was wrong. The mistake you seem to be making is the assumption that science is somehow fixed and static, like religion. It is not. It is fluid, it advances. New research and new findings are constantly changing the sum total of knowledge. To point at a moment in time and a specific incident and say "Look, they got that wrong. Science cannot be trusted" is completely wrong. The fact that advances in science revealed the mistake shows why science is to be trusted. This is really off topic and needs a thread of its own, which I will start. See you there! Let's keep to the "freedom of speech" discussion here.
  21. I have not discussed this with you. You are either confused or making it up. (My money's on both) I am happy to admit that I have been mocking you for some time (albeit not openly). There seemed little point in doing otherwise.
  22. So you concede that you believe in unproven, untestable hypotheses and that my positions are based on evidence and reason? You will notice that I said "There really is nothing more to say", not "I've got nothing more to say". A subtle but important difference but one that was obviously lost on you. Also, I did not make any posts after that so your statement so you again show a lack of both observation and logic. I have not attempted to sell or promote any backs, or did you mean backpedalling? Either way, it's just another assertion with no support. Your speciality. Unless you can construct a reasoned argument to support what you say (which seems more & more unlikely) just give up. No one else is interested and you're just making yourself look more and more foolish to me. Your arguments are more reminiscent of a child's "I know you are, but what am I" that your claimed advanced years. I'm not even sure if you are convincing yourself!
  23. Islamic View On The Bill Of Rights

    Some biologists and paleontologists did not accept the findings at the time. Some did. The hoax was exposed by scientists testing the evidence. Rather than being an indictment of science, the Piltdown Man is an example of how it works and why it is viable. A finding was made. Let us assume that everyone accepted it (they did not). Under a religious style revelatory system, that would be it. Piltdown Man is real and we do not question it. However, under an evidence-based, scientific system research continues. New findings raise questions about Piltdown Man. New testing shows it to be untrue and it is discarded and we move onwards and upwards. The religious system would be ignoring the new evidence, even forbidding research into new possibilities. Which one is more reasonable? The "gay gene" is a misrepresentation by homophobes. Research suggests that there may be a genetic factor, there is no "fakery". What we have are many studies researching into the viability of various hypotheses. Some turn out positive, others not so. Every study is open to examination and will be exposed if they don't stand up. Again, this is how science works. Compare this to the religious system that states that what someone said at some point in history is all we need to know and must not be challenged. Any new evidence can only be examined on the condition that if it contradicts scripture, it must be wrong! This is nonsense. If a scientist makes a statement in the media that is untrue, it is picked up on. Also, could you give a reference to a "media scientific fake" that has not been challenged by other scientists. Also, who are these "low education people" that you are talking about? This actually describes exactly what happens in developing countries and communities. A good example of how Islam attempt to change the facts to fit the opinion. The girls in the video say "salty water and fresh water don't mix in the sea". They say this because they are taught this because that is what it says in the Quran. The scientific truth is that salty water and fresh water DO mix in the sea. There is no argument about that. The video then goes on to show an example of a very rare halocline as proof of the Quran, whilst ignoring that fact that in 99.9% of occasions where salt and fresh water meet, they mix and that the two waters DO mix at a halocline, just more slowly. There is NO situation where the do not mix at all. Dawkins was not lying, faking of misrepresenting the position of either the girls of the Quran. They are both wrong on the subject of salt and fresh water mixing. They ALWAYS do, in EVERY situation. We know why the Quran is wrong about this. If you were in boat on a large river and had a drink from over the side, the water would be fresh. Once you sailed out into the sea, the water would be salty. To medieval man, it would seem like there was a barrier keeping the two apart but if he had had the equipment to test the salinity of the water he would have seen that it gradually became more salty as the two waters mixed. It is merely an error borne of lack of information. We know better now and have moved on. Those who refuse to accept that a 1400 year old book could be wrong cannot move on and it is a great pity. Especially as it leads to children having their education corrupted as seen in the video. People are free to believe what ever nonsense they like but don't insist on teaching it to your children. They deserve better. If your particular religion is so true and self-evident, why not leave it til they are older. What have you got to lose? Which theory? "Almost from the outset, Woodward's reconstruction of the Piltdown fragments was strongly challenged." "As early as 1913, David Waterston of King's College London published in Nature his conclusion that the sample consisted of an ape mandible and human skull.[6] Likewise, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the same thing in 1915. A third opinion from American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded Piltdown's jaw came from a fossil ape. In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth.[7]" - Wikipedia I am not sure why you are so obsessed with Piltdown Man. It was a hoax which some scientists fell for and others did not but is an irrelevance to today's model of human evolution. As I said above, it is a good example of how science works. Even though established opinion accepted it as real, scientific research and questioning proved it to be false. So what exactly are you saying? That people should not say things if they think that some other party may be offended by it, regardless of whether it is true, reasonable or pertinent to the subject at hand? That is a completely unworkable proposition as no one would be allowed to say anything as offense is in the eye of the beholder.
  24. Islamic View On The Bill Of Rights

    And you have every right to do that. I also see them as bad (but not all as bad as each other). However, I see them as bad because of the effect they have on individuals and society, rather than because someone has told me that they are bad. This is an interesting question as it raises a couple of points which are often misunderstood by the religious. First, there is no such thing as a "secular" person. As I said before, it is a function of the governmental process. You will have both religious people and atheists living under a secular system. Second, being an atheist has very little impact on practical life. It has no effect on your political, economic or national views. Atheists can be socialists, capitalists or communists. They can be liberal or racist. They can be gay or straight. They can be xenophobes or xenophiles. They can be ANYTHING except religious! Look at it this way. You do not believe in leprachauns. How does this affect your practical life. No. It was certain sections of gov't, int & military that deceived the decision making process. That is clear (eg, the WMD dossier). Some of them would have been religious and others not. The point I was making was that religion had more to do with the process than atheism or secularism.