facebook Twitter RSS Feed YouTube StumbleUpon

Home | Forum | Chat | Tours | Articles | Pictures | News | Tools | History | Tourism | Search

 
 


Go Back   BanglaCricket Forum > Miscellaneous > Forget Cricket

Forget Cricket Talk about anything [within Board Rules, of course :) ]

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #176  
Old March 30, 2005, 11:34 PM
Orpheus's Avatar
Orpheus Orpheus is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: July 25, 2002
Favorite Player: Tamim, Riyad, Ashraful
Posts: 5,836

Quote:
just see it as our own 'selfish' need to cling on to our loved ones regardless of what they are suffering. Despite them being barely alive and/or in severe pain, we are content with this because WE can still interact with them. That is the selfish aspect of not letting 'go'.
hmmm! I don't know but i don't think anyone wants to "cling on to a loved one" if it's ochol. Life is cruel. So they are not really benefiting - more like carrying a burden. So...........

And I think the patient chooses.

Quote:
If the person is going to die soon anyway, why prolong their pain? Do you sit and watch insects dying slowly or do you kill them quickly?
Tough question. I did both.

anyways.... who cares!! Dr. Z's axiom sucks anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old March 30, 2005, 11:39 PM
fab fab is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: June 30, 2003
Posts: 1,476

Quote:
Originally posted by al Furqaan
i don't think we understand evolution in the correct way. think about it, billions of years later, single celled, organims, eventually became us? to me it doesn't make sense.
I think you need to do a bit more reading on evolution Here is an example of "contemporary evolution":

"Snakes in Australia have evolved to counter the threat of invasive, poisonous cane toads, scientists have found."

"The way the two species of snake have adapted to cope with this challenge has been described as a classic example of "contemporary evolution".
...
"The red-bellied black snake (Pseudechis porphyriacus) and the green tree snake (Dendrelaphis punctulatus) are highly susceptible to toad toxins.

And the presence of Bufo marinus has imposed an immense selection pressure on their populations.

"One of the ways the snakes seem to be fighting back is by changing their body shape. Basically, their heads have got smaller relative to their bodies (or their bodies have got bigger relative to their heads; whichever way you want to think about it)," said Dr Phillips. "
...
" What seems remarkable is that this adaptation has occurred in just 70 years. "

rest of the article
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old March 31, 2005, 12:05 AM
al Furqaan's Avatar
al Furqaan al Furqaan is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Location: New York City
Favorite Player: Mominul, Nasir, Taskin
Posts: 20,458

Quote:
Originally posted by Arnab
Did you just repeat your entire last post again?

Quote:
our bodies have millions of types of differentiated cells no doubt. the average adult human, if i recall correctly, has approximately 10 trillion cells (this is the total aggregate number, much higher than the number of TYPES of cells).
So, you concede that the human body doesn't have trillions of KINDS of cells?

If not, then how many unique kinds of cells are there in human body? Cite authoritative sources.

Edited on, March 31, 2005, 12:43 AM GMT, by Arnab.
[edit] man, how did you get trillions of kinds of cells? where did i say that?

yeah basically i did repeat my last post. i say something, then you say "huh?", then i repeat. then you clown on me for repeating. hmmmm...

btw, this post is NOT a repeat of my last one. this post is NOT a repeat of my last one. should i repeat one more time?

Edited on, March 31, 2005, 5:30 PM GMT, by chinaman.
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old March 31, 2005, 12:11 AM
Orpheus's Avatar
Orpheus Orpheus is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: July 25, 2002
Favorite Player: Tamim, Riyad, Ashraful
Posts: 5,836

oh no!!
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old March 31, 2005, 12:11 AM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Ok, let's do this slowly, for my sake. I am dumb.

Your calculation about "trillions of cells" in a human body assumes that evolution is sort of like a designer or constructor process that adds cells to some structure one by one like bricks (even if hundreds of thousands of cells could be essentially the same kind of cells), am I right?
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old March 31, 2005, 12:16 AM
al Furqaan's Avatar
al Furqaan al Furqaan is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Location: New York City
Favorite Player: Mominul, Nasir, Taskin
Posts: 20,458

perhaps.

but you are proposing them being added on a million at a time?

Edited on, March 31, 2005, 5:17 AM GMT, by al Furqaan.
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old March 31, 2005, 12:20 AM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

First of all, what is the basis of yoru assumption about evolution adding cells one cell at a time - the assumption I talked about in my last post?

Second, I am not proposing anything. These issues have been discussed by evolutionary biologists already.

So on to my next question: If that assumption of yours was wrong, do you think that evolution mainly concerns mutation resulting in new kinds of cells, not a million time replication of same kinds of cells?

Edited on, March 31, 2005, 5:21 AM GMT, by Arnab.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old March 31, 2005, 03:11 PM
nihi nihi is offline
ODI Cricketer
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 515

I will take the liberty of expressing some of my opinions about some issues in this thread.

I will start with the notion that Razab propounded about individuals' inherent tendency to stay theist or atheist. Let me extend this notion a little bit.

It is very much possible that the religious stance one is going to maintain through all over the rest of his/her life, may well be affected, to an extent, by the way an invidiual genetically is. An illustration may be of two individuals, one being of submissive kind and not very adventurous, while the other is self-assured and rather inquisitive. We know very well that the mind setup doesn't wholly depend upon the genetics, but also on how he was brought up. But here, we just consider the part that genetics play in here. Assuming that both of them have gone through intellectual excercise on theosophy at same extent (not very exhaustive of course, cause we don't have any idea about what an exhaustive philosophizing is. If we knew, there won't have been any confusion and conflict about all this. But we know that almost every people happen to excersize intellectually, to different extents), we may probably assume that the earlier one will have less propensity of going to the atheistic direction. Well, that is only a part of the whole picture.

Here is my extended hypothesis: An individual, when young, is fed with some information by its surround (learning, that is) about "truth". This information may well be of a one-dimensional nature (unadulterated religion, forthright atheism or just absence of either) or a concoction of both. Note that, this is a time, when one also undergoes the formation of one's personal character (let's call our relevant part of it as the mental orientation), essentially formed on top of, or overridding (partially of course, if at all) what one was bequeathed in one's genes. After a certain period of time, at a specific stage of intellectual growth (which may well vary for different individuals), being instigated by different stimulants (incurred by one's self, fellow arguers or preachers (of all kind) from different school of thoughts), one starts to rationalize with the intelligence and information at one's disposal, of course under the influence of the previously coined "mental orientation". Now here is the important part: this is now when someone shapes one's "inherent characteristics" mentioned by Razab. Once one shapes up it may really become unyielding and quite obdurate. Afterwards, usually, whatever arguments, debates or studies one goes through, is invested mainly in bolstering one's stand (or left to "check-out later" folder virtually forever).

Interestingly, as an theist, it is kind of risky for Razab to come to such notion. Because this precludes the idea of divine intervention, which, in turn, conflicts with some religious paradigm, e.g. Islam.

Let's analyze one nature of the ongoing debate. First of all, there are actually three sides of this debate. The main division is between the theists and atheists. Among theists, there are religious and non-religious theists. Let's call them RT (Religious Theist), NRT (Non-Religious Theist) and AT (Atheist) respectively.

The RTs need not bother about the distinction between NRTs and ATs. It is all the same for them. Becuase they only need to defend their religion. NRTs fight with the RTs by proving the incongruity of the specific religious systems that this RT is attached to.

The difference between NRTs and AT pertains to belief. the NRTs just happen to believe in a creator. So their fight is mainly about proving or disproving the 'by chance' theory of creation.

The fight between RTs and the others can really become interesting. Because there are plenty of text to chew on. But nevertheless, this debate is going to be perpetual anyway. Following is the reason.

Firstly, religious books are "supposed" to be recondite and multifaceted (though there are contrary verses to this very assumption, I will refer later). So, you can interpret many of the verses almost at will to satisfy the demands at hand. Which is one of the reasons why bringing up the science-quran bond is funny, as well as risky on the part of RTs. If one wants to justify quran/bible by science, what would have happened when science had different facts in its hand than now? There is an interesting pattern here. RTs have always been at conflict (often sanguinary) with science whenever a finding of science isn't accepted in unanimous fashion. And whenever some finding grounds firmer (theory to law blah blah), the divine books always have the maleability to reshuffle and re-organize the explanations so as to adapt with the new status quo. Whether the theory of evolution will be promoted to law or not is irrelevant. Because divine books will be re-explained to adapt with that.

Someone in this thread asked about factual errors in Quran. To begin with, a text cannot contain facts if it may spawn several meanings for a single statement. In other words, an apparent factual error may always be transcended to a profound metaphor. The problem with RTs is that, they cannot stay consistent about their approach to divine books. Also I have seen lots of RTs saying: "I see that this doesn't make any sense now, but I strongly believe that somewhere sometime I will find an explanation". In the meantime, they withheld taking any decision with what information and rationalization they have in there hand. In fact this way is so convenient that it lets one to maintain this state of mind very comfortably forever. Razab's notion explains the reason for that. I will present some "factual error" in quran anyway, if that doesn't break any of the the forum rules. Before doing that, let us look at this verses:
44.58: Verily, We have made this (Qur'an) easy, in thy tongue, in order that they may give heed.
54.17: And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?

Now let's look at the following verses:

18.86: "Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."
86.5-7:"Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted-Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:"
16.69: "...There cometh forth from their (bees) bellies a drink divers of hues, wherein is healing for mankind... "
16.15: "And He hath cast into the earth firm hills that it quake not with you, and streams and roads that ye may find a way. "

Sun doesn't set in a spring, neither sperm nor semen comes from between backbone and ribs and honey isn't formed in bee's belly. The one about the hills is more interesting. It has recently been discovered that the crust is thicker under the mountains than elsewhere. So, it is being interpreted that mountains should be considered as a stabiliser to the earth. This is an over-generalisation, since all the volcanoes are mountains, and volcanic eruptions generate stronger of the earthequakes. Also, hills or not to be found in everywhere so as to be beneficial to the whole mankind in general.

Anyway, these are some verses that bears positive factual errors. There are whole lot of verses, those are erroneously incomplete. But the ommissions of information was just too obvious for the state of knowledge at that time, which are now being claimed by islamic RTs to be profound. There are examples aplenty and doing some google will do. I will just mention a classic example (I have found it classic since when I was kid, not sure whether anyone else finds it classic, or not).

21.33: And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.

1400 hundred years ago, this verse didn't have any mystery in it, since the idea was that sun and moon both travels around the earth. It was so obvious that there was not even a mention of Earth. Later when it was discovered that rather Earth is the one that travels around the sun, things became kinda murky, some Islamic RTs even suggested to keep mum about it (whic is, btw, supposed to be the way to handle something when you don't know about it, according to some Islamic scholars). Later, when it was further discovered that the sun itself has an orbit centering the center of Milkyway, the verse regained life and the obvious ommissin of earth in the verse became intentional and thus profound.

Another related verse:

36.40: It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day: Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to Law).

This one made good sense with the contemporary state of knowledge at that time. But as for now, either it may be looked at as a jumbled up pieces of information, or a poetic verse, or a highly recondite metaphor.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old March 31, 2005, 03:40 PM
nihi nihi is offline
ODI Cricketer
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 515

Quote:
Originally posted by nayeem007


http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro10.html
Just read the write-up: "Can Evolution Produce an Eye? Not a Chance!" by David N. Menton. This is another good example of Razab's notion. This guy is a Ph.D. in Cell Biology and seems like have at least some basic knowledge in statistics (Though I personally think that he has taken several courses in statistics, to be able to add a Ph.D. after his name). Well, statistics is a tool, and familiarity with some tools may not give you the ability to visualize everything properly. Specially when you are under Razab's syndrome (no offence brother! It's becoming convenient to refer as so).

He has worked out the probability of coming up with a given phrase by chance. And then showed the improbability of getting the 500 amino acids by chance. Let me first give a different computational scenario of the "phrase" thing just to show the impact of a tuning on the speed of calculation. Here we will assume one thing: the phrases can be created in a lexical order. Now, whoever have heard about binary search will know what I am talking about. The probability by sheer chance of coming up with the phrase "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION" is (1/27 x 1/27 x ... x 1/27) = 1/(8.34e+32), which means it may take 8.34e_32 steps to get the phrase in the worst case. Simple math will show that it won't take more than 109 steps for binary search to get there. Searching in a binary fashion worked as a tuning the same way natural selection may well work for evolution.

The flaw in Menton's scenario is that, he is quietly putting some words in the evolutionists' mouth, that is all 500 amino acids just sprang up from nowhere by sheer chance. Obviously this was a gross blunder on his part. The very idea of evolution is about gradual change. Amino acids were not born as it is today in one fine morning. Here is one possible scenario for the evolutionists: "The inception was way simple. Then it gradually went through changes with the help of the tuning of natural selection along with a considerably long time that it had at its disposal." I am reluctant to go in detail about evolution as I am less than a layman in this field and my goal is not to take any side but just to show the flaw in Menton's rationalization (if you want to say so). But it needs no Ph.D. in cell biology (or in statistics, for that matter) to see the flaw in his reasoning. But Razab syndrome (again!) may explain why others may have conveniently skipped noticing it.
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old March 31, 2005, 04:19 PM
chinaman chinaman is offline
Retired BC Admin
 
Join Date: August 14, 2003
Location: pc near u
Posts: 8,021

Quote:
Originally posted by nihi
Anyway, these are some verses that bears positive factual errors.
Dear nihi

If I'm not mistaken, the verses were discussed back and forth for a while on the net quite a few years ago and last time I checked on those sites 6/7 months earlier, they were still there.

The accusations are there so as the answer. And those are just a google away.

If you like to add something to the existing info that has already been available to the seeker, please do so. Else there is no point to gain from a recorded match. Cheers.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old March 31, 2005, 04:39 PM
imtiaz82 imtiaz82 is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: March 14, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,744

Interesting news, it has nothing to do with the current debate on religion but it does relate to the subject of the thread "Power of mind"

Quote:
Brain chip reads man's thoughts

A paralysed man in the US has become the first person to benefit from a brain chip that reads his mind.
Matthew Nagle, 25, was left paralysed from the neck down and confined to a wheelchair after a knife attack in 2001.

The pioneering surgery at New England Sinai Hospital, Massachusetts, last summer means he can now control everyday objects by thought alone.

The brain chip reads his mind and sends the thoughts to a computer to decipher.

Mind over matter

He can think his TV on and off, change channels and alter the volume thanks to the technology and software linked to devices in his home.

Scientists have been working for some time to devise a way to enable paralysed people to control devices with the brain.

Studies have shown that monkeys can control a computer with electrodes implanted into their brain.

It's quite remarkable

Dr Richard Apps, neurophysiologist from Bristol University

Recently four people, two of them partly paralysed wheelchair users, were able to move a computer cursor while wearing a cap with 64 electrodes that pick up brain waves.

Mr Nagle's device, called BrainGate, consists of nearly 100 hair-thin electrodes implanted a millimetre deep into part of the motor cortex of his brain that controls movement.

Wires feed the information from the electrodes into a computer which analyses the brain signals.

The signals are interpreted and translated into cursor movements, offering the user an alternative way to control devices such as a computer with thought.

Motor control

Professor John Donoghue, an expert on neuroscience at Brown University, Rhode Island, is the scientist behind the device produced by Cyberkinetics.

He said: "The computer screen is basically a TV remote control panel, and in order to indicate a selection he merely has to pass the cursor over an icon, and that's equivalent to a click when he goes over that icon."

Mr Nagle has also been able to use thought to move a prosthetic hand and robotic arm to grab sweets from one person's hand and place them into another.

Professor Donoghue hopes that ultimately implants such as this will allow people with paralysis to regain the use of their limbs.

The long term aim is to design a package the size of a mobile phone that will run on batteries, and to electrically stimulate the patient's own muscles.

This will be difficult.

The simple movements we take for granted in fact involve complex electrical signals which will be hard to replicate, Dr Richard Apps, a neurophysiologist from Bristol University, the UK, told the BBC News website.

He said there were millions of neurones in the brain involved with movement. The brain chip taps into only a very small number of these.

But he said the work was extremely exciting.

"It's quite remarkable. They have taken research to the next stage to have a clear benefit for a patient that otherwise would not be able to move.

"It seems that they have cracked the crucial step and arguably the most challenging step to get hand movements.

"Just to be able to grasp an object is a major step forward."

He said it might be possible to hone this further to achieve finer movements of the hand.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4396387.stm

Edited on, March 31, 2005, 9:42 PM GMT, by nayeem007.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old March 31, 2005, 04:46 PM
nihi nihi is offline
ODI Cricketer
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 515

Quote:
Originally posted by chinaman
[
Dear nihi

If I'm not mistaken, the verses were discussed back and forth for a while on the net quite a few years ago and last time I checked on those sites 6/7 months earlier, they were still there.

The accusations are there so as the answer. And those are just a google away.

If you like to add something to the existing info that has already been available to the seeker, please do so. Else there is no point to gain from a recorded match. Cheers.
Dear Chinaman,

If you have gone through what I have said, you must have noticed that I am really not emphasizing on what "answers" might be there for the "accusations". I was rather trying to analyze the characteristics of this kind of discourse. But yeah, I have categorically mentioned some verses too (in answer to one specific member), so you have a point.

Honestly, haven't happened to visit the websites that you are talking about. I think it would be helpful for him (and me) if you would just let us have the links, if you won't mind.

Finally, wasn't trying to gain anything. Take it easy.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old March 31, 2005, 04:53 PM
Orpheus's Avatar
Orpheus Orpheus is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: July 25, 2002
Favorite Player: Tamim, Riyad, Ashraful
Posts: 5,836

I enjoyed your post nihi!

Nevertheless this thread got to be divided more than a cell is capable of.
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old March 31, 2005, 04:59 PM
imtiaz82 imtiaz82 is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: March 14, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,744

Quote:
Originally posted by nihi

Dear Chinaman,

Honestly, haven't happened to visit the websites that you are talking about. I think it would be helpful for him (and me) if you would just let us have the links, if you won't mind.

Finally, wasn't trying to gain anything. Take it easy.
You can find the replies to all the scientific "Errors" you noted down in the lecture by Dr. Zakir Nayek.

Here is the link:

http://www.aswatalislam.net/DisplayF...ame=Zakir_Naik

(The lectures that talk about this topic is "Quran and Modern Science-conflict or conciliation)

P.S I will try to post text version of these lectures if I can find it anywhere.

Edited on, March 31, 2005, 10:00 PM GMT, by nayeem007.
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old March 31, 2005, 05:14 PM
imtiaz82 imtiaz82 is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: March 14, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,744

Quote:
Originally posted by nihi
But it needs no Ph.D. in cell biology (or in statistics, for that matter) to see the flaw in his reasoning. But Razab syndrome (again!) may explain why others may have conveniently skipped noticing it.
The reason I posted that was to show that there are Biologists who go against certain aspect of "Theory of evloution". There might be flaws in some of his logic, but there are flaws in the logics of biologists who are for evolution too. The way some scientists described natural selection(including Darwin) has been disproved recently.(thats's one of the thing I have been telling from the beginning, theories are not absolute proof, they change with the advancement of science).

From what I got from all the posts here, it looks most scientists concur that some kind of evolution has happened. But there is immense debate regarding some aspect of it, that is how it happened, if there are any exceptions among species etc

You should read this article:

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm

It talks about parts of the current theory of evolution that is against Islamic view and parts of the theory that does not go against it.(An example: believing men have evolved from non-human species is kufr while Islamic belief does not go against the theory that states other animals have evolved.)


Edited on, March 31, 2005, 11:55 PM GMT, by nayeem007.
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old March 31, 2005, 06:23 PM
nihi nihi is offline
ODI Cricketer
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 515

Quote:
Originally posted by Orpheus
I enjoyed your post nihi!
Thanks!
Quote:
Originally posted by nayeem007
Here is the link:

http://www.aswatalislam.net/DisplayF...ame=Zakir_Naik
Thanks!. I will try to watch tonight.

Quote:
Originally posted by nayeem007
The reason I posted that was to show that there are Biologists who go against certain aspect of "Theory of evloution". There might be flaws in some of his logic, but there are flaws in the logics of biologists who are for evolution too. The way some scientists described natural selection(including Darwin) has been disproved recently.(thats's one of the thing I have been telling from the beginning, theories are not absolute proof, they change with the advancement of science).
See, I refered to the link as an example of how far people go to rationalize their stand. Well, I was too loud about people's fallibility to mal-reasoning. What you did is very understandable. It is very possible that an evolutionist may also refer to some write-up written in for of evolutionism without much scrutiny, which may turn out to be logically unsound too. As you see now, this one example about a non-conforming scientist of yours is moot. But that itself doesn't contribute in proving the invalidity of evolutionism. Anyway, there is a strategic weakness in being in the non-evolutionist front. That is, nobody is claimming evolutionism as an all-side-covering phenomenon, because it is still essentially a "hypothesis" by definition. On the other hand, the non-evolutionists, who are also clinging to a hypothesis (that evolutionism is invalid), but equating that hypothesis with law. Here is a cycle which shows why strategically evolutionists are in a better position:

1. Evolutionists are trying to connect dots.
2. Nons are trying to throw stones.
3. Some of the stones are going through the unconnected dots (evolutionists are sticking their tongues out).
4. Some stones are hitting some of the connections.
5. Nons are hurting their hands by throwing.
6. Evolutionists are squinting their eyes and repairing those connections in a better way.

(Disclaimer: This cycle was created conveniently in for of evolutionists).
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old March 31, 2005, 06:31 PM
imtiaz82 imtiaz82 is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: March 14, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,744

Nihi,

The fact is, theory of evolution has not been proved to certainity. So it doesn't matter if evolutionists are in better position or not.(I will repeat again, the reason I posted that was to show that there is debate among the scientists regarding evolution, I did not quote that article as a means to disprove evolution all together). Secondly, even if evolution happened, after reading the article

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm

It looks like only certain aspect of the current theory of evolution goes against Islam, not the whole theory of evolution itself.

P.S Actually I am not sure if David Menton's reasoning is misleading or not, since I don't know anything about "binary search" , which you used to find flaw in his theory. In actuality, there might be something wrong with ur logic too.



Edited on, March 31, 2005, 11:53 PM GMT, by nayeem007.
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old March 31, 2005, 06:45 PM
nihi nihi is offline
ODI Cricketer
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 515

Man, you so misread me. I was just telling that evolutionists are in a convenient position in the discourse, which doesn't say anything about theory itself. It doesn't hint a bit on the validity of the either front. Note, I was talking about the DISCOURSE, and not the matter of the DISCOURSE.
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old March 31, 2005, 06:55 PM
nihi nihi is offline
ODI Cricketer
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 515

Quote:
Originally posted by nayeem007

P.S Actually I am not sure if David Menton's reasoning is "mute" or not, since I don't know anything about "binary search" , which you used to find flaw in his theory. In actuality, there might be something wrong with ur logic too.

Edited on, March 31, 2005, 11:47 PM GMT, by nayeem007.
I am sorry, but it seems like you have again missed my point. I haven't proven any flaw by binary search. I just used binary search to show that there are other than linear way for a process to run, which may considerably change the speed of the process.

The flaw in Menton's reasoning is that he assumed that the 500 amino acids were born "by chance" at certain stage of time. That contradicts the evolutionism at the very ssetoff. After that, coming up with a humongously small probability doesn't carry any sense in the debate.
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old March 31, 2005, 07:00 PM
Orpheus's Avatar
Orpheus Orpheus is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: July 25, 2002
Favorite Player: Tamim, Riyad, Ashraful
Posts: 5,836

Quote:
Originally posted by nayeem007

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm

It talks about parts of the current theory of evolution that is against Islamic view and parts of the theory that does not go against it.(An example: believing men have evolved from non-human species is kufr while Islamic belief does not go against the theory that states other animals have evolved.)

Edited on, March 31, 2005, 10:17 PM GMT, by nayeem007.
eventhough I didn't read the article, its too long - but going by your summary - It seems like soon we will be pulling out verses that supports evolution. I already saw a few.

Anyways, I don't think the idea that only human was created and rests were evolved is any good. Either all were created or all were evolved. (that reminds me of a Quranic verse where it mentions other things were created for men).

This is the reasoning. Since all living things on this planet are basically made up of the same thing (ATGC ) - either everything was evolved or everything was created by a common designer. Atleast there aren't multiple Gods
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old March 31, 2005, 07:30 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Quote:
Originally posted by Orpheus
This is the reasoning. Since all living things on this planet are basically made up of the same thing (ATGC ) - either everything was evolved or everything was created by a common designer.
And which of these two explanations is supported by science?
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old March 31, 2005, 07:50 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

BTW, nihi, liked your meta-discourse.
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old March 31, 2005, 08:00 PM
RazabQ's Avatar
RazabQ RazabQ is offline
Moderator
BC Editorial Team
 
Join Date: February 25, 2004
Location: Fremont CA
Posts: 10,101
Default I know I said no more postings, but I have some time to kill :)

Hmm.. I have a syndrome named after me? Neat - I'm almost attaining Arnab type celebrity (or is it infamy)

It's interesting how this debate hs meandered. While I guess I am a RT, I also confess that I do like science most of the time. I guess my particular philosophy is that while science explains most things, and in the end _will_ probably explain EVERYthing, we are not there yet. And it is unlikely that we will get there in our life-time. So I, (emphasis - I 'm just talking bout my beliefs here) canNOT, in my own conscience presume that eventually science will prove GOD does NOTt exist. The outcome is binary and right now all we have are some probabilities. With my inherent genetic traits, that makes me more likely to accept the existence of God and religion, specifically to fill in areas where science is still sketchy.

Perhaps two examples will help illustrate what I mean. There was an Asimov story on the origin of jokes (actual title escapes me). Eventually, in the future, we have a computer so smart, it can answer everything. So when that computer is fed all the jokes and asked to deduce the origins, it comes out that humans are lab rats and jokes were some sort of test carried out by supreme alien beings. Who's to say, that a few 100 or even 1000 years from now, when all is explained, that we will NOT come upon the existence of such a supreme being? Unlikely within current domain of knowledge? So it seems. Impossible? Perhaps NOT.

This 2nd e.g. will help illustrate further what I mean by the "Perhaps NOT". If you were to discuss religion with a scientifically inclined atheist in the 18th century, odds are that person too would have wowed you with his certitude on science, and how that certitude in science could lead to the non-necessiry of faith and religion (those are two separate things for me). However, if you were to explore the foundations of that certitude from the domain of present, you would probably find a lot of the underlying assumptions were off. Yet you could not fault that atheist from a logical perception - he/she was working from the domain that was available to him/her at that point.

So to reiterate. Science is wonderful - I wish I could live long enough to see all the fruits of science. But science in its own is not a panacea for the soul or inner intellect to be religio-neutrl (at least to many of us) and it does NOT have all the answers - yet. Unless both conditions change in my lifetime - I will continue to believe

B'sides, my original beef wasn't with an Atheist position. It was to as Orphy put it so wondefully with his analogy, "having someone call my mom an ugly mutha..." I still got no beef with y'all ATs

Edited on, April 1, 2005, 1:05 AM GMT, by razabq.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old March 31, 2005, 08:11 PM
imtiaz82 imtiaz82 is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: March 14, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,744

Quote:
This is the reasoning. Since all living things on this planet are basically made up of the same thing (ATGC ) - either everything was evolved or everything was created by a common designer. Atleast there aren't multiple Gods
I think you should read the article more carefully. According to the author, God can create the whole universe over time. It never says in Quran that he created every living being in one instant and just placed them on earth. Life can evolve under the supervision or guidance of the Supreme Being. However,the author said theory of evolution cannot be ascribed to human being, since quran specifically mentions how Adam(pbuh) was created in heaven.

In short, it says that the organisms(other than human) present in earth may have evolved over time under the direction of God except human beings who come from Adam(pbuh) , who according to Quran was created in Jannah and was placed on earth because of his action.(So he couldn't have been part of the evolution that was going on earth).

The other aspect of "Evolution Theory" the author goes against is, believing evolution as a random happening due to chance. According to him, the whole process is carefully orchestrated by the creator.(i.e evolution is just part of the process of creation)

This is his take on the matter, but I am still in doubt whether evolution actually happened for any organisms or not.(There are various things against the evolution theory, missing fossil link is just one of them).

Edited on, April 1, 2005, 1:12 AM GMT, by nayeem007.
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old March 31, 2005, 08:13 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Quote:
It was to as Orphy put it so wondefully with his analogy, "having someone call my mom an ugly mutha..."
I understand Orpheus's take on this and subsequently yours. Personally, I view this kind of "reasoning" behind "feeling offended" the last vestige of irrational stranglehold religion (or any other "belief-system" based on imaginary axioms made up in human mind) can hold on a man.

Patriotism holds a similar stranglehold. And interestingly, patriotism is nothing but a different kind of religion itself, the religion of "nation-state". Imaginary axioms about one's mother country are set up by able mass manipulators and the belief system grows as it perpetually feeds on itself.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
BanglaCricket.com
 

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Partner Sites | Useful Links | Banners |

© BanglaCricket