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
  #201  
Old March 31, 2005, 08:30 PM
RazabQ's Avatar
RazabQ RazabQ is offline
Moderator
BC Editorial Team
 
Join Date: February 25, 2004
Location: Fremont CA
Posts: 10,049

you get pissed at Rediff for slights against Bangladesh don'tcha?
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old March 31, 2005, 08:36 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Quote:
Originally posted by razabq
you get pissed at Rediff for slights against Bangladesh don'tcha?
Actually, it's not because of Bangladesh.

Here is my logic behind getting pissed off at Rediff:

Rediff is publishing a Test rankings. And Bangladesh is a Test team.

Rediff ignored Bangladesh even though it is a Test team. I asked them why. They did not give me a satisfactory answer. I would have been 99% satisfied if they included a disclaimer that mentions WHY they left out Bangladesh. But they didn't. I find it thoroughly dishonest. That's why I am pissed with them. Not because of my love for Bangladesh. But because the actions by rediff seems dishonest, and unjust. Patriotism is probably the last thing on my mind. Ok maybe religion is the last thing. But patriotism is very close.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old March 31, 2005, 08:52 PM
RazabQ's Avatar
RazabQ RazabQ is offline
Moderator
BC Editorial Team
 
Join Date: February 25, 2004
Location: Fremont CA
Posts: 10,049

And so if Rediff had from the very onset - say when Bangladesh started playing tests - for whatever reason, decided to drop Zimabwe and put Bangladesh in its place, you would have been just as pissed on Zimbabwe's behalf? To the same degree? Be honest
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old March 31, 2005, 09:00 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Quote:
Originally posted by razabq
And so if Rediff had from the very onset - say when Bangladesh started playing tests - for whatever reason, decided to drop Zimabwe and put Bangladesh in its place, you would have been just as pissed on Zimbabwe's behalf? To the same degree? Be honest
How can I be "honest" about the "degree" of my feeling when I haven't experienced that hypothetical scenario in real life?

But yes, if the EXACT same situation came up with regards to Zimbabwe and I thought it was unjust and dishonest, I would have been disturbed in a similar fashion. I don't know about exact degree.

The keywords here are rationality, ethics, honesty and justice.
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old March 31, 2005, 09:50 PM
imtiaz82 imtiaz82 is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: March 14, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,735

I finally found the text version of his lecture:

You can download it from:
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/shams/shared/

The name of the files are:
"Quran and modern science"
"is quran god's word"

I think reading through the lectures will be much easier than watching his long lecture videos. The answer of the questions are in various parts of his lecture, so you will have look a bit to find it.

Let me know, what you think about his replies.

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.

Edited on, April 1, 2005, 3:15 AM GMT, by nayeem007.
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old March 31, 2005, 10:01 PM
imtiaz82 imtiaz82 is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: March 14, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,735

I found this question-answer from Dr.Zakir Nayek's(medical doctor and islamic scholar) website interesting.It pertains to some of the things we have been discussing earlier....


Q) My question is with regard to the evolution of Homo-sepians - You have Charles Darwin in Science, giving an explanation that… ‘It is because of the process of natural selection, that the human beings have evolved’. Now this it seems to be in contradiction with the Islamic belief that we have - we are the children of Adam AlaihSalam - Now how can this be reconciled ?

Ans (Dr.Zakir).This is a very important question. No lecture of mine on this topic of ‘Qur’an and Modern Science’, is complete without this question. I have given this talk in various places in Canada, in U.S.A, in U.K, in Saudi - Never is this topic complete - never is the Question and Answer session complete, without this important question of ‘Theory of Evolution’… Charles Darwin. Sister has posed the question - how can you reconcile the Qur’an, with Darwin’s ‘Theory of Evolution’? Sister, I have not come across any book which says… ‘Fact of Evolution’. All the books say ‘Theory of Evolution’ - there is no book I have come across saying fact of evolution. If you read the book by Charles Darwin ‘The Origin of Species’ - It says that… “Charles Darwin went on an island by the name of ‘Keletropist’ on a ship named as ‘HMS Beagel’ and there he found birds pecking at niches. Depending upon the Ecological niches they peck, the beaks kept on becoming long and short. This observation was made in the same species - not in different species”. Charles Darwin wrote a letter to his friend Thomas Thomtan, in 1861 saying ‘I do not believe in ‘Natural Selection’- the word that you use - I don’t believe in ‘Theory of Evolution’ because I haven’t got any proof. I only believe in it because it helps me in classification of Embryology, in Morphology, in rudimentary organs’. Charles Darwin himself said that , there were missing links. He did not agree with it - He himself said that there were missing links. Therefore , if I have to insult someone that if you were present at Darwin’s time this theory would been proved right, trying to insinuate that he looks like an Ape. It is a joke we make. The reason that this theory in most parts of the world - it is taught as good as fact - You know why? Even I was in school - I learnt about Darwin’s theory - and even today they are taught - You know what the reason is sister? The reason is because, that if you analyse, the Church… the Church was against Science previously - and you know the incidence that they sentenced Galileo to death. They sentenced Galileo to death - Why? Because he said certain statements in the Astronomy, etc., which went against the Bible - So they sentenced him to death , for which the Pope apologized now. So when Charles Darwin came up with a theory which goes against the Bible, they did not… they did not want any sufficient proof - An enemy of my enemy is my friend. So all the Scientists… most of them - they supported the theory, because it went against the Bible - not because it was true. They only supported it because it went against the Bible`.

All the stages you have mentioned sister… all the stages… ‘Lucy’ - there were four ‘Homonites’. Science tells us today that there were four ‘Homonites’ - first is ‘Lucy’ along with its guy ‘Dosnopytichest’, which died about 3 and a 1/2 million years - the Ice Age. Then next came the ‘Homosepians’, who died about 5 hundred thousand years ago. Then came the ‘Neanderthal Man’, who died hundred to forty thousand years ago. Then came the fourth stage, ‘the Cromagnon’. ‘There is no link at all between these stages’ - According to P. P. Grasse in 1971 who held the Chair of Evolutionary Studies in Paris, in Sojerion University. He said… ‘It is absurd - We cannot say who were our ancestors based on fossils’. I can give you a list of hundreds of scientists and Noble Prize winners who speak against Darwin’s theory… Hundreds. If you know of Sir Albert George who got the Noble prize for inventing… for inventing the Vitamin ‘C’ - He wrote the book ‘The Can’t Ape and Man’, against Darwin’s Theory. Again if you read, Sir Fred Hoyle’s work - he wrote several works against Darwin’s Theory. If you know about Ruperts Albert, this person wrote a new theory of evolution against Darwin’s Theory. Its unthinkable… you cannot think that we are created from the Apes. If you know of Sir Frank Salosbury… he was a biologist. He said… ‘It is illogical to believe in Darwin’s theory’. If you know about Whitmeat… Sir Whitemeat, he wrote a book against Darwin’s Theory - He was also a Biologist. Several ! you can give a list of hundreds. Today it is taught in the schools - Why? … I told you - Media is in their hands. Otherwise there is no proof at all.

There are certain proofs at lower level - an Ameba, at lower species level… Ameba can change to Paremishia. Qur’an does not say…‘Ameba cannot change to Paremishia’ - Qur’an does not say. If they have got proof… It cannot be possible… It is not against the Qur’an. But there is no proof at all. People talk about Molecular Biology Theory - they talk about Genetic coding. According to Henses Crake who is a authority in this field - he said… ‘It is unimaginable’. Again if you do that ratio, the probability of one DNA forming, ‘from Ape to Human being, is again Zero’. If I start calculating, I think you will get bored again - You know the calculation. I told you… for one Protein Molecule, it is some what similar from one DNA. It is not possible at all. You know there is theory recently… ‘that homosexuality is Genetic’. And when I read in the Times of India, I thought, surely the moment I attend the next lecture on Sunday at I.R.F, I will be asked this question. ‘If homosexuality is Genetic, how can Allah blame us? - Qur’an speaks against homosexuality’. And I said that see…‘This is a theory wait till it gets established…It is a theory - don’t comment on that .Within just matter of span of just few months it was proved to be illogical - and the person who propounded this theory that… ‘Homosexuality is Genetic’ - he himself was an Homosexual.

Therefore I said, I am going to give my talk on scientific facts - not on theories and assumption. Darwin’s theory has not been proven…‘We have not been created from Ape’. There are hundreds of Scientists who speak against that and Qur’an speaks against that also. Qur’an says the first man was Adam (Peace be upon him). InshaAllah they will discover it 100 years afterwards, or may be a 1000 years afterwards. Today there are researches showing, that human being have been created from one pair again - It is just a theory. It supports the Qur’anic verse that human beings have been created from one pair, male and female – It is just a theory, therefore I do not quote that in my talk. InshaAllah it will be established 50 years afterwards, or 100 years afterwards. Then we will know that Qur’an conciliates with this part - So far it is not conflicting – It is not conflicting with established Science, at all. Hope that answers the question


Edited on, April 1, 2005, 3:08 AM GMT, by nayeem007.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old March 31, 2005, 10:07 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Can I get some more credentials about this Dr Zakir Nayek?
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old March 31, 2005, 10:13 PM
imtiaz82 imtiaz82 is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: March 14, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,735

DR. ZAKIR NAIK - PRESIDENT, IRF

A medical doctor by professional training, Dr. Zakir Naik is renowed as a dynamic international orator on Islam and Comparative Religion. Dr. Zakir Naik clarifies Islamic viewpoints and clears misconceptions about Islam, using the Qur'an, authentic Hadith and other religious Scriptures as a basis, in conjunction with reason, logic and scientific facts.

EDUCATED AT
1. St. Peter's High School (I.C.S.E.), Mumbai
2. Kishinchand Chellaram College, Mumbai
3. Topiwala National Medical College, Nair Hospital, Mumbai
UNIVERSITY DEGREE
M.B.B.S. (Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery), University of Mumbai

http://www.irf.net/irf/drzakirnaik/index.htm

Quote:
Originally posted by Arnab
Can I get some more credentials about this Dr Zakir Nayek?
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old March 31, 2005, 10:24 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Well, I guess he is thoroughly disabusing his credentials. Because I can spot many cntradictions, half-truths and outright false statements in that transcript.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old March 31, 2005, 10:28 PM
imtiaz82 imtiaz82 is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: March 14, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,735

Please point out the mistakes and back it up with links to scientific journals or other trustworthy sites.

I don't know much on this issue, but as I said before I am willing to learn new things.
Thanks

Quote:
Originally posted by Arnab
Well, I guess he is thoroughly disabusing his credentials. Because I can spot many cntradictions, half-truths and outright false statements in that transcript.
Edited on, April 1, 2005, 3:30 AM GMT, by nayeem007.
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old March 31, 2005, 10:30 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

I don't know WHY I used the word "disabuse". It should be "abuse".
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old March 31, 2005, 10:40 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

I don't have instant access to scientific journals, if you want to know about evolution, go to talkorigins and there's ENDLESS material for you to learn.

Anyway, to give you an example, his argument against Darwinism includes an out-of-context quote from Darwin made in 1861! Things have changed VASTLY since then. And guess what? Mostly all of Darwin's hypotheses have been supported by further discoveries since by a massive amount of facts.

And scientists supported and still supports Darwinism because it went/goes against the bible? An enemy of my enemy is my friend: that's how scientists operate? And this guy is a doctor?

And he also mentions P.P. Grasse, the French scientist who died 30 years ago. We have covered PP Grasse somewhere earlier in this thread and proved that his quotes are taken out of context and that he believed that evolution is a fact.

I am not going to touch the other names he mentioned because I don't have time to do this. But you can already see the pattern here.

Edited on, April 1, 2005, 3:41 AM GMT, by Arnab.
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old March 31, 2005, 10:49 PM
imtiaz82 imtiaz82 is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: March 14, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,735

Quote:
Originally posted by Arnab

I am not going to touch the other names he mentioned because I don't have time to do this. But you can already see the pattern here.

Edited on, April 1, 2005, 3:41 AM GMT, by Arnab.
Well this is funny, you reply to every post within 5 seconds and you don't have time? LOL I thought you were hired by banglacricket to argue about religions and give inputs on various "thoughtful" issues.

Anyways, please give some link to scientific journal, I hope you have access to "google". If you are right, you must be able to find some backup info in no time.

Edited on, April 1, 2005, 3:55 AM GMT, by nayeem007.
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old March 31, 2005, 11:25 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

This is just funny. I have the burden of proof to disprove everything now? Tell me, exactly how many things in your posts have I proven incorrect in this thread?

Alright, I will give you a reply later. If I feel like it. I am not promising anything.
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old April 1, 2005, 12:51 AM
Orpheus's Avatar
Orpheus Orpheus is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: July 25, 2002
Favorite Player: Tamim, Riyad, Ashraful
Posts: 5,836

Quote:
You know there is theory recently… ‘that homosexuality is Genetic’. And when I read in the Times of India, I thought, surely the moment I attend the next lecture on Sunday at I.R.F, I will be asked this question. ‘If homosexuality is Genetic, how can Allah blame us? - Qur’an speaks against homosexuality’. And I said that see…‘This is a theory wait till it gets established…It is a theory - don’t comment on that .Within just matter of span of just few months it was proved to be illogical - and the person who propounded this theory that… ‘Homosexuality is Genetic’ - he himself was an Homosexual
Well we can not completely rule out genetic's role in homosexuality. It's true probably that most homos are the product of extragenetic info and there are no gay genes. But...

A genetically normal human being have XX for woman and XY for male. We know that Y chromosome determines whehter a child is a male or a female. But there are people (male) born with XXY who have a lot of feminine characteristics because of that extra X. So we shouldn't completely throw away the genetic factor. But these are rare cases. Faar less than the number of homos - that's for sure.
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old April 1, 2005, 01:00 AM
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 Arnab
And which of these two explanations is supported by science?
Obviously science will never give you an explanation of a common designer

But one thing for sure - there are certain things that I dont like. Forget about the probability but the way they relate one thing to another (homology) is kinda faulty in my opinion. Suppose you have two enzymes, how do you know whether they evolved from something similar or different? Well they usually see the matches in the DNA sequence. And the way they figure the similarity isn't that satisfactory. Anyways - such a thing isn't for discussion here.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old April 1, 2005, 01:08 AM
Orpheus's Avatar
Orpheus Orpheus is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: July 25, 2002
Favorite Player: Tamim, Riyad, Ashraful
Posts: 5,836

Quote:
I think you should read the article more carefully
I didn't read it at all but I was going by your summary. After your elaborate explanation, I still stand by my comment

Edited on, April 1, 2005, 6:09 AM GMT, by Orpheus.
Reason: how do you hold a comment??
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old April 1, 2005, 03:23 AM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Alright nayeem. here's the reply to "Dr." Zakir's "lecture":

Quote:
Dr. Zaik makes one mistake every 23 words!!!
by THHuxley on Wednesday, July 14, 2004

Oh, my. This is hilarious. Where does one start?

For those paying attention, Ailia has cut and pasted a verbatim script from one of Dr. Zaik’s lectures. How delightful. Let’s see how far we can get into it before breaking down in hilarilty and laughter.

I will capitalize Dr. Zaik’s words, so that you can tell Dr. Zaik’s words from the response. I will number his mistakes.

’THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES’ - IT SAYS THAT… “CHARLES DARWIN WENT ON AN ISLAND BY THE NAME OF ‘KELETROPIST’ ON A SHIP NAMED AS ‘HMS BEAGEL’ AND THERE HE FOUND BIRDS PECKING AT NICHES.

1) There is no such Island as “Keletropist.”

2) Birds do not “peck at niches.”

Darwin did spend several years sailing around the entire world as ship’s naturalist in the HMS Beagle. One of his stops were the Galapagos Islands, where he found a number of finches (birds) that LIVED (not “pecked”) in different ecological niches.

DEPENDING UPON THE ECOLOGICAL NICHES THEY PECK, THE BEAKS KEPT ON BECOMING LONG AND SHORT. THIS OBSERVATION WAS MADE IN THE SAME SPECIES - NOT IN DIFFERENT SPECIES”.

3) There are actually fourteen different species of Darwin’s finch. Not one.

4) The differences were more than just beak length. They included color, size, mating behavior, songs, and preferred food. In fact they were so different that Darwin did not even realize they were all finches until he brought his specimens back to England where they were classified by a professional ornithologist.

CHARLES DARWIN WROTE A LETTER TO HIS FRIEND THOMAS THOMTAN, IN 1861 SAYING ‘I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ‘NATURAL SELECTION’- THE WORD THAT YOU USE - I DON’T BELIEVE IN ‘THEORY OF EVOLUTION’ BECAUSE I HAVEN’T GOT ANY PROOF. I ONLY BELIEVE IN IT BECAUSE IT HELPS ME IN CLASSIFICATION OF EMBRYOLOGY, IN MORPHOLOGY, IN RUDIMENTARY ORGANS’.

5) There is no such person as “Thomas Thromtan,” so there is no way of checking if such a letter really was written or not.

6) The fact that he gives a date that is two years LATER than the publication of Darwin’s “Origin of Species” demonstrates beyond doubt that this is a lie.

CHARLES DARWIN HIMSELF SAID THAT , THERE WERE MISSING LINKS. HE DID NOT AGREE WITH IT - HE HIMSELF SAID THAT THERE WERE MISSING LINKS.

7) Darwin’s admission that there were “missing links” does NOT mean that he disagreed with it. In fact, he even predicted where the human “missing links” would be found (Africa) and he was right.

THE REASON IS BECAUSE, THAT IF YOU ANALYSE, THE CHURCH… THE CHURCH WAS AGAINST SCIENCE PREVIOUSLY - AND YOU KNOW THE INCIDENCE THAT THEY SENTENCED GALILEO TO DEATH.

8) Galileo was never sentenced to death.
THEY SENTENCED GALILEO TO DEATH - WHY? BECAUSE HE SAID CERTAIN STATEMENTS IN THE ASTRONOMY, ETC., WHICH WENT AGAINST THE BIBLE - SO THEY SENTENCED HIM TO DEATH , FOR WHICH THE POPE APOLOGIZED NOW. SO WHEN CHARLES DARWIN CAME UP WITH A THEORY WHICH GOES AGAINST THE BIBLE, THEY DID NOT… THEY DID NOT WANT ANY SUFFICIENT PROOF - AN ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY FRIEND. SO ALL THE SCIENTISTS… MOST OF THEM - THEY SUPPORTED THE THEORY, BECAUSE IT WENT AGAINST THE BIBLE - NOT BECAUSE IT WAS TRUE.

8) Most scientists did NOT support Darwin’s theory for many years after he published his book.

9) Most of these same scientists were religious people who did not consider the church “their enemy.”

10) Each of these scientists that eventually accepted evolution are on the record that they did so because it had much better evidence and explained more than the earlier creation ist theories did.

Basically, this account by Dr. Zaik is a total fabrication. There is not the tiniest shred of historical evidence that would lead anyone to believe that scientists accepted evolution because they were enemies of the church.

ALL THE STAGES … ‘LUCY’ - THERE WERE FOUR ‘HOMONITES’. SCIENCE TELLS US TODAY THAT THERE WERE FOUR ‘HOMONITES’ - FIRST IS ‘LUCY’ ALONG WITH ITS GUY ‘DOSNOPYTICHEST’, WHICH DIED ABOUT 3 AND A 1/2 MILLION YEARS - THE ICE AGE. THEN NEXT CAME THE ‘HOMOSEPIANS’, WHO DIED ABOUT 5 HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS AGO. THEN CAME THE ‘NEANDERTHAL MAN’, WHO DIED HUNDRED TO FORTY THOUSAND YEARS AGO. THEN CAME THE FOURTH STAGE, ‘THE CROMAGNON’. ‘

Everything Dr. Zaik says here is wrong.

11) There is no such word as “homonites.” I suspect he means “hominids,” but he is not competent enough to know the right words.

12) There are not a mere “four” hominids, there are at least eleven.

13) There is no such hominid as “dosnopytchest.” Lucy was an Australopithecus afarensis.

14) The ice age was NOT 3 1/3 million years ago. It was between 1.6 million years to 10,000 years before present.

15) Homo sapiens DID NOT die out 500 thousand years ago. WE are Homo sapiens, and we are still alive.

16) Neanderthal man was not on the direct line to modern man. He was an ice age offshoot.

17) Cro-Magnon man is the SAME thing as Homo Sapiens.

THERE IS NO LINK AT ALL BETWEEN THESE STAGES’

18) There are MANY links between these stages. Between Australopithecus afarensis and Homo sapiens there are at least three. Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, and Homo heidelbergensis.

ACCORDING TO P. P. GRASSE IN 1971 WHO HELD THE CHAIR OF EVOLUTIONARY STUDIES IN PARIS, IN SOJERION UNIVERSITY. HE SAID… ‘IT IS ABSURD - WE CANNOT SAY WHO WERE OUR ANCESTORS BASED ON FOSSILS’.

What P.P. Grasse wrote in 1971 (33 years ago) doesn’t matter much given the fact that most fossils of human ancestors have been found since then. Further more, Grasse never said that there was no evidence for evolution, and in fact his research supported evolution completely. He was simply commenting on the fossils that were known at that time.

It is dishonest of Zaik to use such old quotes when he knows that more recent quotes from the same scientist would contradict him.

SIR ALBERT GEORGE WHO GOT THE NOBLE PRIZE FOR INVENTING… FOR INVENTING THE VITAMIN ‘C’ - HE WROTE THE BOOK ‘THE CAN’T APE AND MAN’, AGAINST DARWIN’S THEORY.

19) Nobody named “Sir Albert George” ever won a Nobel Prize.

20) If he means Albert Szent-Gyorgyi von Nagyrapolt, he didn’t invent Vitamin C. Vitamin C is a naturally occurring substance that didn’t need to be invented.

21) There is no such book as “The Can’t Ape and Man.”

AGAIN , SIR FRED HOYLE’S WORK - HE WROTE SEVERAL WORKS AGAINST DARWIN’S THEORY.

Fred Hoyle was an astronomer, not a biologist. And his one great contribution to his own field, the steady state theory of the universe, turned out to be false.

RUPERTS ALBERT, THIS PERSON WROTE A NEW THEORY OF EVOLUTION AGAINST DARWIN’S THEORY.

Who is Ruperts Albert? I can find no trace of anybody with that name.

ITS UNTHINKABLE… YOU CANNOT THINK THAT WE ARE CREATED FROM THE APES.

22) The idea is not that “we are created from the apes.” It is that we share a common ancestor with the apes.

23) It is apparently VERY thinkable, because most competent scientists do think it.

IF YOU KNOW OF SIR FRANK SALOSBURY… HE WAS A BIOLOGIST. HE SAID… ‘IT IS ILLOGICAL TO BELIEVE IN DARWIN’S THEORY’.

Who is Sir Frank Salosbury? I can find no trace of anybody with that name.

SIR WHITEMEAT, HE WROTE A BOOK AGAINST DARWIN’S THEORY - HE WAS ALSO A BIOLOGIST.

Who is Sir Whitemeat? I can find no trace of anybody with that name.


AN AMEBA, AT LOWER SPECIES LEVEL… AMEBA CAN CHANGE TO PAREMISHIA. QUR’AN DOES NOT SAY…‘AMEBA CANNOT CHANGE TO PAREMISHIA’ - QUR’AN DOES NOT SAY.

24) There is no such thing as a “paremishia.” Perhaps he means paramecium.

IF THEY HAVE GOT PROOF… IT CANNOT BE POSSIBLE… IT IS NOT AGAINST THE QUR’AN. BUT THERE IS NO PROOF AT ALL.

25) There are vast amounts of direct evidence for evolution. It is “proven” to the same level of confidence that gravitation has been proven.

PEOPLE TALK ABOUT MOLECULAR BIOLOGY THEORY - THEY TALK ABOUT GENETIC CODING. ACCORDING TO HENSES CRAKE WHO IS A AUTHORITY IN THIS FIELD - HE SAID… ‘IT IS UNIMAGINABLE’. AGAIN IF YOU DO THAT RATIO, THE PROBABILITY OF ONE DNA FORMING, ‘FROM APE TO HUMAN BEING, IS AGAIN ZERO’

26) There is no such person as “Henses Crake.” Zaik probably means Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA. Francis Crick believes 100% in evolution, and as recently as last year told the London Telegraph that he did not believe in God at all.
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old April 1, 2005, 02:26 PM
mwrkhan's Avatar
mwrkhan mwrkhan is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: January 27, 2005
Posts: 1,077

Just read Dr. Zakir's lecture. He was probably speaking in hindi/urdu which may account for some of the hilarity in the transcription with regard to names etc. BTW this fellow appears to be a charlatan of some sort. "Topiwalla" medical college!! :embaressed:

It is beyond me that people can actually take this kind of stuff seriously, but hey, American christians believe in all kinds of claptrap spouted by evangelists so why should muslims be exempt?
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old April 1, 2005, 04:18 PM
imtiaz82 imtiaz82 is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: March 14, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,735

Arnab,

Thanks for pointing out the "mistakes" from your point of view. Since you just stated them, without giving references to appropriate sites. I am assuming that these are based on your personal knowledge.

I will see into each of your points though because I personally don't know who is right or wrong. Maybe you are also coming up with your own things, afterall if a medical doctor can make up so much, there is no reason why you won't do so to support your view.

For example you said " 15) Homo sapiens DID NOT die out 500 thousand years ago. WE are Homo sapiens, and we are still alive. "

We are NOT "Homo Sapien" which is "Homo heidelbergensis" we are "Homo Sapien Sapien". You can find more information on this at:

http://bss.sfsu.edu/geog/bholzman/co...316/humans.htm

http://www.brainchannels.com/evolution/homosapiens.html

As for Mwrkhan's reply, Dr Zakir Nayek gave speeches in N.American universities like UIUC ,University of Toronto etc. So, I can't agree with your comments.(You can see the video version of the lectures in the site, but you might be right about the text version of his speech. The text transcription might be done by someone who could not understand his speech to the full extent.)

Secondly, he is a practising doctor and not only a medical student. And I don't know what "topi" or cap has to do with anyone's skill. I have seen lot of jewish doctor with their skull cap here in US. Just because they are adhering to their religion does not mean they are charlatan.

The video version of the lecture is available at:

http://www.irf.net/irf/download/index.htm

Edited on, April 1, 2005, 9:36 PM GMT, by nayeem007.
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old April 1, 2005, 04:32 PM
Fazal's Avatar
Fazal Fazal is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: September 16, 2004
Posts: 15,455

Wow I am Amazed by the dedication of brain cells by some of the memebers in this topic. Indeed it shows the power of mind.

"Power of mind is infinite while brawn is limited."
.

Edited on, April 1, 2005, 9:33 PM GMT, by Fazal.
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old April 1, 2005, 05:29 PM
nihi nihi is offline
ODI Cricketer
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 515

I did watch some videos back in 1995-96 which showed exactly the same things that Dr. Nayek has presented in his speech. Read the first speech anyway. Other than some stuffs, this is actually a quite a rich example of Razab syndrome. I will just talk about one thing in the speech. It's about the last one, where 'the most merciful' has promised to roast and reroast the skin of his creatures, who rejects his 'signs'.

Here is the punch line:
"...if your skin is roasted, We shall give you fresh skin,so that you'll feel the pain".

Now here, this professor Tagada Tagashon, who is supposed to be the ex-head of the dept. of anatomy in Shangma University in Thailand - he was given the translation of this verse. He said: "It is impossible that Qur'an can mention this. We discovered recently - How is it possible?" So, he doesn't agree with this. Later on, after checking with the Holy Qur'an he was so impressed that he said the shahadah.

I have a question. Tell a 10 years old boy that this guy was burnt so bad that his skin lost all sensation. Now ask the boy what needs to be done to let the guy re-experience the same pain of burning. What will he answer? If I tell that the answer will be something to do with repairing the skin or somehow "reskinning" will anyone object here? I hope not. (I don't see a 10 years old boy around here, so had to guess, or is there any flaw in my guessing so?) So what is so extra ordinary or revealing about this that the Ex-head of anatomy converted to Islam just on the basis of this fact. Furthermore, this one event was so significant that Mr. Nayek kept it as a surprise until at the end of the speech. And the audience was so delighted to learn this, that they clapped (ok, may be the clap was for the end of speech too). Isn't that a perfect example of Razab syndrome?
By the way, here is something else, which might be interesting to some. My first thought was, if this guy really converted just by reading this verse, which in this case can't claim to show more intellectuality than a 10 year old boy, then he must be dumb. (See, I am not demeaning the verse by equating with 10 years old boy. All what 10 years old boy knows is not trash. For example he knows that sun rises in the east. So do I, that doesn't mean I will be talking trash if I say that) I thought he probably went through other entlightenments before really converting. So, I tried to search for him. His, as well as the name of the University was misspelled in the script. But well, I found a reference of some Tagata Tagasone from Chiang Mai University of Thailand. In fact I did an exact search for "Tagata Tagasone" in google, and it returned 161 result. I checked all 161 links, and each and every single link was something to do with quran and science. And none of the links were anything to do with Chiang Mai University. Anyway I tried to visit the website of Chiang Mai University, but that is ureadable, as the whole website is in Thai. In short couldn't find any credential for the ex anatomy head.
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old April 1, 2005, 05:38 PM
mwrkhan's Avatar
mwrkhan mwrkhan is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: January 27, 2005
Posts: 1,077

Quote:
Originally posted by nayeem007

And I don't know what "topi" or cap has to do with anyone's skill. I have seen lot of jewish doctor with their skull cap here in US. Just because they are adhering to their religion does not mean they are charlatan.
Did you really think I was refering to whether or not this person wears a cap?

According the bio which you posted this gentleman attended "Topiwalla National Medical College"

Modern human beings are Homo Sapiens (the "s" indicates double usage - Sapien Sapien) we have been taught that all our lives, anybody who has finished school knows that. I don't have to point to an authority for this. What next? Point to a reference for the formula of water H2O?

Giving talks at North American universities does not necessarily lend credibility to anything and everything a person says, N. American schools entertain all manner of speakers on all kinds of subjects. But this is besides the point. I was simply making a rhetorical flourish. This guy is spouting opinion - scientists (and I wonder if he is a researcher either in medicine or biology) back up their opinions with evidence. I am more prepared to listen to a dispassionate scientist who is an active researcher rather than a religious poseur who happens to have a medical degree. I hope Dr. Z spends time in the laboratory to authenticate his beliefs.
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old April 1, 2005, 05:52 PM
imtiaz82 imtiaz82 is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: March 14, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,735

First of all, what is "Razab syndrome"? I can see Arnab's writing style in your replies. You are trying to use sarcasm to demean him. I think you should show respect to other people's point of view and refrain from such namings.

But if you continue writing "Razab Syndrome" it will just show how narrow minded person you are. It might even encourage other people to make similar kind of names like "Mwrkhan-orpheues-arnab-nihi" syndrome. Which in turn, will turn this forum into a place for personal hate messages, instead of a site to have constructive arguments.

Also, can you please quote, from where you read/heard the "skin roasting example"? I think you are taking it out of context or making up the whole thing to make fun of Dr. Zakir Naik.

With my rational, I can't figure out why a scholar will use such an example. And why would people clap after hearing this.(specially since his audience are university students not illterate people.) I have listened to lot of his lectures and I never came across such stupid example like the one you gave.

Please give reference to the above example, I need to listen to it in order to see if you are taking things out of context or not.

Edited on, April 1, 2005, 10:53 PM GMT, by nayeem007.
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old April 1, 2005, 06:02 PM
imtiaz82 imtiaz82 is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: March 14, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,735

Quote:
Originally posted by mwrkhan

Modern human beings are Homo Sapiens (the "s" indicates double usage - Sapien Sapien) we have been taught that all our lives, anybody who has finished school knows that. I don't have to point to an authority for this. What next? Point to a reference for the formula of water H2O?
Modern human being is "homo sapien sapien" NOT "homo sapien". The scientists have clearly defined the terminology. So when Dr Naik said "homo Sapien" he meant "Homo heidelbergensis" which is extinct.(he did not say "homo sapienS"-with a S in the end.(Do you think a medical doctor will be so stupid that he will say current human or "homo sapien sapien" is extinct!! LOL)

Again, i will give reference:

http://bss.sfsu.edu/geog/bholzman/co...316/humans.htm

http://www.brainchannels.com/evolution/homosapiens.html

Quote from the site:

MYA (4?) Species of Hominids
3 Australopithecus
A. aethiopus, A. africanus, A. garhi (this was the recent discovery from the Awash River )

1 Homo habilis

1.75 MYA
A. boisei, A. robustus
Homo erectus

1 MYA
Homo sapien
Homo neanderthal

Recent
Homo sapien sapien

You can clearly see how "homo sapien sapien" has been differentiated from "homo sapien"

Edited on, April 1, 2005, 11:13 PM GMT, by nayeem007.
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 11:35 AM.


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