I don't know which side to take on this. Dawkins is not exacly the guy who favors free speach when it comes to scientists who criticize his religious myth (darwinism).

However, I don't think that banning his site will do any good. I am sure most of the diatribe Clinton Dawkins puts in his site are common among other darwinian sites and blogs.

But anyway, like someone said in the past, I may disagree with Clinton Dawkins, but I will defend his freedom of speach. Too bad he won't do the same for others.

Alas.

Posted by: Crusader at September 19, 2008 9:30 AM

Oh, for crying out... Crusader:

1. Evolution is supported not just by some, but by all the evidence there is in this field. It is one of the most solid theories in the world - up there with the Copernican and the Atomic

2. As long as anti-Jihadists insist on associating with this kind of primitivist drivel we will continue to be isolated and marginalized.

You can't preach something so reactionary and stupid as creationism and then wonder that people don't take you seriously on anything else.

Posted by: Fanusi Khiyal at September 19, 2008 9:50 AM

Fanusi,

1. Evolution is supported not just by some, but by all the evidence there is in this field.

It is one of the most solid theories in the world - up there with the Copernican and the Atomic

Huh....right!

2. As long as anti-Jihadists insist on associating with this kind of primitivist drivel we will continue to be isolated and marginalized.

You can't preach something so reactionary and stupid as creationism and then wonder that people don't take you seriously on anything else.

Posted by: Crusader at September 19, 2008 10:18 AM

But anyway, this is off topic. Let's not start that evolution vs creationism issue in here, bkz it misses the point entirely: Freedom of speach.

Posted by: Crusader at September 19, 2008 10:26 AM

"We are not against freedom of speech or expression but you cannot insult people. We found the comments hurtful.

Yes, you are against free speech. Unpopular speech is exactly what must be protected.
As a Christian, I hate Andre Serrano's "P*ss Christ", but he had the right to free expression. I have the right to say I hate him and his "art."
Moslems have been utilizing freedom of speech when it comes to threats and insults themselves. Just mention Jews or Israel to most moslems.
Freedom for moslems, just not for the kufr.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 19, 2008 10:27 AM

"...a court to blocked access to WordPress.com..." and "...people were been trading video insults..."
From the article.

Looks like the Telegraph's grammatical standards are slipping.

Surely there must be someone in Turkey who is insulted by Mr Oktar's ridiculous actions. Isn't there anyone with enough stones to turn the tables and challenge this in court?

Crusader, Fanusi Khiyal is right. You might not agree with Dawkins, but at least you are free to publicly disagree with him. Dawkins isn't any danger to you, except maybe your peace of mind, but Oktar and his ilk are mortal threats.

Posted by: Eastview at September 19, 2008 10:27 AM

Heh, a little stifling going on at JW....it is everywhere.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 19, 2008 10:29 AM

In what way is Dawkins opposed to free speech?

As far as I know he has never tried to silence any of the legions of fuzzy thinkers who object to him and his work. Even though, like RS and so many other truth-tellers, he gets many death threats.

Posted by: StephenA55 at September 19, 2008 10:39 AM

Dawkins, who has idiotically claimed that "all religions" are equally idiotic, and who, furthermore, has been a great swallower of Guardian-BBC anti-Israel tendentiousness (here I am relying on the testimony -- personal communication -- from Ibn Warraq), is beginning, slowly, to see the light. Perhaps he will begin to see that at this point in world history, dismissal of all "religions" as equally noxious is not exactly the right tack to take.

Posted by: Hugh at September 19, 2008 10:46 AM

"You can't preach something so reactionary and stupid as creationism and then wonder that people don't take you seriously on anything else."

You do know how many people believe in God don't you? Atheists are not in the majority by a long shot.
But unlike atheists, I am not going to tell you to stop your speech because it is embarrassing somehow.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 19, 2008 11:04 AM

See this confrontation between Dawkins and a particularly nasty 'son of Allah' as Oriana would say, for a clue as to whether he has seen the light, or perhaps this is when he began to see it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHRkMcVrt2w
As for equal idiocy between religions, surely they all rest on equally improbable premises. Of course they are not equally noxious.
Sorry to offend any Christians. Not intended.

Posted by: StephenA55 at September 19, 2008 11:11 AM

StephenA55, no offense taken.
The creature featured in that video is well known to Jihadwatchers.
http://www.jews-for-allah.org/Jewish-Converts-to-Islam/Yousef-al-Khatab.htm

Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 19, 2008 11:20 AM

Crusader said >Let's not start that evolution vs creationism issue in here, bkz it misses the point entirely: Freedom of speach.

Posted by: zoltix at September 19, 2008 11:25 AM

Crusader said >Let's not start that evolution vs creationism issue in here, bkz it misses the point entirely: Freedom of speach.

You were the one that raised the issue and even said "I don't know which side to take".

Are you seriously suggesting that Oktar could be supported.

Your remark that Dawkins does not favour free speech is completely without foundation.
This is a man who toured the US publicly debating creationists in sometimes hostile arenas, often under terms unbalanced against him. He always allowed his opponents freedom to speak. His website regularly reprints creationist articles and even allows religious posters on the forum.

This shows a confidence in his views rather than a desire to suppress. Of course he is tough on creationism in science teaching. And so he should be; creationism is drivel.

Incidentally, those so-called 'anomalies' have all been shown to be without merit. Every now and then someone tries to revive them, but that doesn't change anything, they are still false.

by a long shot.
But unlike atheists, I am not going to tell you to stop your speech because it is embarrassing somehow.

And interestinconundrum

Just because atheists are not in the majority is irrelevant.
Once upon a time, everyone believed the earth was flat.
If muslims become the majority religion, would that make islam The Truth.

Posted by: zoltix at September 19, 2008 11:26 AM

It's worthwhile taking a look at Richard Dawkins website to get a sense of the utter crap that is the "Atlas of Creation" (see link below). The author uses a photograph of a caddis fly to prove it hasn't evolved in millions of years - yet plainly visible is the fishhook from the "caddis fly" that is really a fishing lure. Little Green Footballs even has a link to the website where the gentleman designs his lures including the wonderful caddis fly lure.

Adnan Oktar uses photographs of sea snakes to show how eels ( a fish, not reptile) haven't evolved - hell, the list goes on and on.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2833,UPDATED-Venomous-Snakes-Slippery-Eels-and-Harun-Yahya,Richard-Dawkins

Crusader:

Apparently you are in a minority of those who doubt evolution:

"Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design"

Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc, a philosophy professor at the Gregorian, told Catholic News Service Sept. 16 that organizers "wanted to create a conference that was strictly scientific" and that discussed rational philosophy and theology along with the latest scientific discoveries."

" He said arguments "that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite" supporters of creationism and intelligent design."

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804713.htm

Posted by: johnb at September 19, 2008 11:33 AM

And interestinconundrum

Just because atheists are not in the majority is irrelevant.
Once upon a time, everyone believed the earth was flat.
If muslims become the majority religion, would that make islam The Truth.

You missed my point.
"stupid as creationism and then wonder that people don't take you seriously on anything else."
The majority of people will take you seriously. The belief in God is not going to make people discount Crusader's speech. No, I do not believe that numbers make the truth.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 19, 2008 11:34 AM

BTW, a pet peeve.
SPEECH not speach.
/I see it everywhere

Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 19, 2008 11:43 AM

Zoltix, thanks for the comment about "majorities." Majority "beliefs" are not the final arbiter of what is or is not true in the realm of natural law, no matter what the source of the "beliefs." Maybe the Christian creationists out there could comment on just how their views on this differ from Islamic creationism.

Posted by: Eastview at September 19, 2008 11:48 AM

Islam is so full of contradiction and irony.

Ol' mo was supposed to be the most "perfect" example of manhood, and yet he was child molester.

Islam is supposed to be a "religion" of peace and yet it supports murder and slavery to fulfill its own agenda.

And, islam is truly a most offensive stain on the human race, and yet its followers seem to find offense in everything else.

Odd, isn't it?

Posted by: PorkFatRules at September 19, 2008 11:50 AM

Hey guys, please don't start another "creation-evolution" debate here.

Dawkins and everyone else have their rights - first of all free speech. I don't remember Christians, Jews or Hindus rioting because of his book "God Delusion" or other very critical comments he made about religion in general. I don't remember Christian "Creationists" asking to ban his web site or books. And very interesting fact is that is happening in "secular" Turkey. Which just once again proves that - there is not "moderate" Islam.

Posted by: LazarOfSerbia at September 19, 2008 11:54 AM

Last comment on this divisive subject.
Maybe the Christian creationists out there could comment on just how their views on this differ from Islamic creationism.
A lot of difference. Christianity is totally opposite from islam. Darkness to light. Left to right. Up from down.
Read RS' book
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596985151/002-4986521-7864813?ie=UTF8&tag=robertspencer-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1596985151

I never intended to say the majority makes the truth. Only that the majority would not reject a person of faith out of hand, got it yet?

Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 19, 2008 12:02 PM

Interestinconundrum or anyone else who cares to weigh in, my question was a serious one. At a doctrinal level, just what difference is there between the Christian and Islamic versions of creationism? The answer has a bearing on the main subject of this thread.

Posted by: Eastview at September 19, 2008 12:33 PM

Your opinion contradicts the opinion of many non-creationist scientists who say that there many "anomilies".

There are no scientists who say this. There is a lively argument about the individual mechanisms ( gradualism vs. punctuationism, contingency vs. inevitability etc. etc.), but there are no anomalies.

The reason I stress this so much is that it is this that gives the anti-Jihadists their 'wingnut' patina, by associating them with this kind of lunacy.

I'm going to stress this. I think that a great deal of the automatic dismissal of the threat of Islam comes from the fact that people like Pat Robertson raised such a cry about it. Given that they also thundered about faggotry, evolution, neo-paganism etc. it's unsurprising that their opinions were dismissed so readily - and ours alongside them.

Hey guys, please don't start another "creation-evolution" debate here.

There is no such "debate". There is the science and there is the lunacy. Punkt aus basta.

Posted by: Fanusi Khiyal at September 19, 2008 12:41 PM

It shows once again that Islam cannot tolerate freedom of expression.

As far as that obnoxious militant atheist/reductionist goes, he can run his mouth anywhere in the U.S. - about how all religions are crap and not worry about his genteel Ivy league ass getting beaten or thrown in jail. If he were to try pull the same crap he does in the west, in a Islamic state like Turkey or Egypt and he'd see there is a difference.

But I don't expect him to see a difference because like a lot of hard core close minded atheists they see all religions irrelevant and their followers as stupid and backward creatures worthy of only contempt.

Posted by: waltc at September 19, 2008 1:11 PM

If muslims become the majority religion, would that make islam The Truth.
Posted by: zoltix

Yes, and make the earth flat again.

Posted by: Dsinc at September 19, 2008 1:48 PM

Tap,tap,tap...is this thing on?

Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 19, 2008 2:34 PM

Mr Dawkins had written on his site: "I am at a loss to reconcile the expensive and glossy production values of this book with the breathtaking inanity of the content."
......................

Of course, no author wants to receive this sort of criticism--but most authors, and surely ones far superior to Oktar, have heard this and much, much worse. While every writer wants nothing but glowing reviews, few (non-Muslims, anyway) would want to shut down their critics' web sites in response.

More:

It is illegal to criticise either Ataturk or Turkishness in Turkey.
.....................

Ah, yes--the vague miasma that is "Turkishness". "Insulting Turkishness" can be used to censor almost anything, and certainly anything that offers the slightest criticism to any aspect of Islam, no matter how minor.

By the way, I'm sure Robert Spencer would still keep pretty busy if he had nothing to do but silence his critics. Luckily, he is putting his time to better use.

Posted by: gravenimage at September 19, 2008 2:37 PM

I too would like to know, if anyone can say, what the differences are between Christian and Islamic creationism. Judaic too.
From what I have read so far, there seems to be no decisive split between them; rather each side has a range of explanations from the literal Genesis version to an attempt to incorporate some evolution into the myth to try and reconcile it with science. Although Christianity is benign and Islam malign, some issues are not so divided.
Thanks for the link, interestinconundrum.
Harun Yahyah is a laughing stock; but a very rich one. I hear he is currently in jail.

Posted by: StephenA55 at September 19, 2008 3:08 PM

There is no such "debate". There is the science and there is the lunacy. Punkt aus basta.

Posted by: Fanusi Khiyal

I think you are wrong to call somthing lunacy, if you can not, without any doubt, prove somthing wrong. That is the basis of science, is it not?

Do you believe in life on other worlds?
Your answer can provide many interesting comments.

I am not calling you any names, I believe you have the right to think as you do, but general, sweeping put downs do not win the case.

Given enough data, you might even come around.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at September 19, 2008 4:53 PM

*Whining*
That mean ol' website hurt my feelings!
Spewing lies that the earth was round!

Posted by: Callidus at September 19, 2008 5:14 PM

Istanbul's second criminal court of peace has now forbidden internet users to access the site because it "violated" Mr Oktar.

ROTFLMAO

there trying to tell internet users that they cant access the site lol that's going going to work as well as all the idiots that are trying to stop down loading

Posted by: ISLAMSNOTFORME at September 19, 2008 5:26 PM

"Yes, and make the earth flat again."

Posted by: Dsinc

LOL Dsinc! You took the words right off my fingertips!

Posted by: Abscedere at September 19, 2008 6:21 PM

Islofab life? Yes. THe probabilities given the ease of amino acid formation et cetera. is simply too high.

Life as we know it? Multicellular life? Intelligent life? Very different quesiton and I don't know the answer.

I return to my point: there is no evidence, at all, for seperate creation, and a mountain for evolution. As long as people insist on allying themselves with, for whatever reason, this insanity, they have only themselves to blame for their marginilization.

Posted by: Fanusi Khiyal at September 19, 2008 6:25 PM

"I think you are wrong to call somthing lunacy, if you can not, without any doubt, prove somthing wrong. That is the basis of science, is it not?"

No, it is not.

Quite the opposite in fact.

If I say "The planet Zarb IV in the Alpha galaxy is made out of old socks and tins of beans held together by a mixture of Pepsi-Cola and glue" is the onus on me to prove that theory right?

Or is the onus on you to prove my lunacy wrong?

Science deals in facts, not fantasies.

Posted by: Rab at September 19, 2008 6:53 PM

And let's not forget that Science is a method. One group is using the method and also not making absolute claims. The other does not use the method and holds instead to a fixed dogmatic position in harmony with their religious beliefs. In fact the sole raison d'etre for their theories is to support religious dogma. All their research exists only to confirm and not to refute the religious dogma. Clearly so unlike Science.

nabi ZK (pbum)

Posted by: zonie kafir at September 19, 2008 8:40 PM

I'm beginning to wonder if the whopping trade in "diversity" training is mostly paid for by Muslim supremacists anymore.

Certainly the vocabulary the Muslims are using is exactly the same: "disrespectful," "hurtful," "insensitive," "crossed the line," yada yada yada. The could be coming straight from any activist's (pick your grievance) three-ring binder in America.

Check the box, get the lecture, pay the fine/mandatory love offering to avoid a boycott/jizya, and the trainer guns the Mercedes over to the next reeducation camp (cough) session.

Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at September 19, 2008 9:17 PM

If I say "The planet Zarb IV in the Alpha galaxy is made out of old socks and tins of beans held together by a mixture of Pepsi-Cola and glue" is the onus on me to prove that theory right?

Or is the onus on you to prove my lunacy wrong?

Science deals in facts, not fantasies.
Posted by: Rab

Rab;

Thats the point. If I CAN NOT prove your Planet Zarb theory incorrect, I have no business calling it crazy. Or insanity.

"THe probabilities given the ease of amino acid formation et cetera. is simply too high.
Life as we know it? Multicellular life? Intelligent life? Very different quesiton and I don't know the answer.
I return to my point: there is no evidence, at all, for seperate creation, and a mountain for evolution."..Fanusi Khiyal

Fanusi Khiyal,
So, simple life based forms, yes? So, then why not higher life forms, based on "evolution", (I prefer Natural Selection myself)? You can not prove one or the other, but if the lower amino is there, why not the higher evolved? That means your evolution theory, as a universal basis, is not likely? Only on Earth means somthing unique, which flaws the theory of evolved beings .

(1 + 6 = 7) Here on Earth, and in the vast universe as well.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at September 20, 2008 12:58 AM

The main difference that I see between Christian and Muslim creation stories is in their presentation. The Biblical accounts can be viewed in myriad ways, one can say the Bible is utter truth and infallible, and yet admit that their own understanding is fallible.

I do not think Islam admits that fallibility in the ears.

At the risk of belaboring the point an old comedy sketch had nuclear plant workers referring to their training of what to do in a crisis, they remembered the instructor telling them "you cant have too much water in the event" Some thought that meant that they could introduce as much water as they could, that no matter how much they could put in it would not be "too much" others thought it meant, that you could not risk adding water, lest you have too much.

From what I have read of Islam here and in other places, the text is presented in such a way that honest doubts cannot be considered honest.

I think some of our militant secularists are not so concerned with free speech and other manifest rights as they are that there own dogmatic version is not universally hailed as the last word in truth and knowledge.

I do agree with the poster who pointed out " general, sweeping put downs do not win the case." I will add that they probably have a therapeutic effect in venting the spleen of the author.

Posted by: stickman at September 20, 2008 2:38 AM

Isofab,

You don't get to "prefer" anything. Evolution and Natural Selection are two distinct things, each with its own definition. Natural Selecton is the mechanism by which evolution works.

Simple life forms because for the overwhelming majority of our planet's history, life forms were simple. We still are trying to work out how the transition took place.

Posted by: Fanusi Khiyal at September 20, 2008 4:30 AM

Islofob IS-1 said: "Thats the point. If I CAN NOT prove your Planet Zarb theory incorrect, I have no business calling it crazy. Or insanity."

Under the given circumstances, I'd say one would be quite justified in calling the theory crazy. Your counter argument is a variant of confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence. This is both bad science and bad logic.

Posted by: Eastview at September 20, 2008 5:03 AM

"It is illegal to criticise either Ataturk or Turkishness in Turkey."
From the article.

This is entirely consistent with the Islamic mindset that would make it "...illegal to criticise either Mohammad or Islam anywhere."

Posted by: Eastview at September 20, 2008 5:17 AM

Rab,
You are clearly a divinely inspired prophet.
No-one can disprove your planet Zarb theory - make that 'revelation'
Oh and you forgot to mention that Obama is an android from Zarb, come to colonize us for the Zarblings.
Don't believe it?
Oh ye of little faith.

Posted by: StephenA55 at September 20, 2008 5:29 AM

"You are clearly a divinely inspired prophet.
No-one can disprove your planet Zarb theory - make that 'revelation'
Oh and you forgot to mention that Obama is an android from Zarb, come to colonize us for the Zarblings."

Absolutely.

You flatter me though. I am no prophet, but merely a learned Cleric of the Zarbist faith.

Repeat after me, "There is no deity but Zarbos and Obama is his one true prophet."

There. That's you converted now.

The religion of Zarb has been revealed as the one true faith and has come to supercede all others which henceforth shall be known as "infidel". That's the way it works. The new stuff trumps the old stuff.

Anybody like to prove me wrong? Islofob? Anyone?

No?

Apparently there's no onus on me whatsoever to prove my claims so you'll just have to take my word for it.

Lunatic? Me? How dare you even suggest as much when you have absolutely NO proof to refute my claims.

Not one shred.

You must respect my beliefs.

Now, I demand my special privileges as a Zarbist and anybody who refuses me those privileges (we Zarbists require, indeed we absolutely demand, 23 hours a day pampering by non-Zarbists) is nothing but a racist Zarbophobe.

Posted by: Rab at September 20, 2008 6:22 AM

I have absolute proof that evolution is a load of bunk and doesn't stand up to scrutiny. This proof is so solid that once it is revealed to the world the old failed explanation of Darwinistic evolutionary theory, seemingly backed by Mendel, Watson and Crick, Geology, Biology, Neuroscience and recent genetic engineering will be shown for what it is, a shallow construct of mendacious lies.
Richard Dawkins will phone me personally to apologise for peddling his "faith" based drivel. I'm talking nothing more than a complete paradigm shift in modern biological theory.

After thinking about the subject in a introspective manner, discounting the evidence and history and results of all experiments and observations I've come to this unshakable fact,

Here it is,

Organisms are too complex to have evolved.
The Sky Fairy did it.

Lets hope this puts the controversy to bed once and for all. Anyone arguing with this proof, must be considered to be deluded at best.

If any sceptics point to the old chestnut that domestic livestock has changed over a few thousand years by selective breeding so therefore why can't natural selection work over millions. What they fail to appreciate is that farmers merely change the animal for a different one whilst no one is looking and claim they changed it by selective breeding.

Next week, Lamarkian genetics, why it was such a
success.

Posted by: Ian at September 20, 2008 9:13 AM

Two issues here.

1. The Free Speech issue. Most regulars here are agreed about that. I find Dawkins rather arrogant, dogmatic and irritating, but...he's free to say what he thinks. (After all, though I am a Christian, one of my brothers is an aggressive card-carrying atheist, who can sometimes be just as annoying as Mr Dawkins; but so what?).

2. The 'Faith vs Reason' issue, which is currently causing a great deal of heat in this thread.

In that connection, I think it proper to point out that a long, long time ago the Jewish doctor, theologian and philosopher Maimonides skewered the complete irrationalism and arbitrariness of Muslim cosmology and theology. This suggests that his own understanding of the way in which the Holy One creates and sustains the world, was necessarily rather different.

There are some very sensible books that go into the matter of the much-vaunted science of the largely-mythical golden age of Islam, and compare it with the flowering of science and technology in the Christian/ post-Christian western world, and relate the ultimate scientific barrenness of Islam, and the fertility of the West, right back to the radical differences between the Biblical and Islamic cosmology, theology and anthropology.

Mr Fitzgerald - who is an atheist- has recommended two such sensible books, that discuss this topic at some length: one by Rodney Stark, and one by Toby Huff.

Instead of everyone getting distracted and hot under the collar, perhaps people should read Stark and Huff and then start the discussion again on a different level.

Some time ago, in a Fjordman essay posted on this site, the following paragraph summed up the differing assumptions of Jews and Christians, on the one hand, and Muslims, on the other:

"Muslims generally viewed God as unpredictable, whereas both Christians and Jews could more easily view God as predictable, having created the world according to logical natural laws which could be uncovered and understood by humans."

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 20, 2008 9:27 AM

I do not agree that secularists are on board with the ideal of free speech, they would cry foul at turkey censoring some dawkins web site but would also not allow the work of those statisticians who figured the odds of random chance evolution shaping the natural world.

Also the secularists, like the mahometans are all for dhimmitude, they just would like a slightly different group of people to be included in who is allowed freedom to proselytize.

Posted by: stickman at September 20, 2008 10:54 AM

Stickman -

What statistics are you refering to?

Posted by: Xeno at September 20, 2008 11:14 AM

I believe the latest statistics were done by Hoyle and Mortawitz? Creationism evolution is not really an area of interest with me, since it is more in the realm of theory than testable reproducable evidence, such discussions usually ends up with more smoke than light.

Like I said before, not being a mahometan or an Inglishman mockery is not considered by me to be evidence of anything other than the mockers lack of ability to reasonably express themselves, wether they are a dawkins or some Imam.

I have heard no cogent arguments that have disproved hoyle, I do not consider sneers as being arguments.

Posted by: stickman at September 20, 2008 11:34 AM

Stickman -

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Regards

Posted by: Xeno at September 20, 2008 11:52 AM

Stickman,

I think if you look it up you will find that evolution is not a matter of chance; more like a question of mutations subjected to the tests of natural selection over periods of time. A beautifully simple theory. Anyone can understand it.
Even a statistician.

Who are all these secularists who don't believe in free speech? I don't know of any. We should all cherish and defend it or prepare to lose it.

Sadly there are all kinds of people seemingly for dhimmitude: the EU commission, the UN, G W Bush.
Not just secularists.

Posted by: StephenA55 at September 20, 2008 12:01 PM

Those damn securalists, always declaring they want worship banned, and flying planes into buildings. Hating homosexuals, and declaring that people come back from the dead. Wasting their time worshipping the sky, damn those securalists.

Where did they say this?

I love how religious people, because they can't actually argue with evolution, because the evidence is so overwhelming, invent their own theory of evolution, nearly as wacky as their stupid beliefs, and then criticise that instead.

Way to go guys.

Posted by: Ian at September 20, 2008 6:07 PM

"We are not against freedom of speech or expression but you cannot insult people. We found the comments hurtful."

________________

There it is! The main problem, and confusion, that the Left-ists, Muslims, and a lot of ordinary people in the States today have with the concept of "Freedom of Speech."

Okay, my friends, FREEDOM of SPEECH - our PROTECTED right in the States - does NOT MEAN freedom from insult. Repeat with me: Freedom of Speech DOES NOT MEAN you have the right NOT to be insulted!

Freedom of Speech means a person can say whatever they darn well please, as long as it isn't false - i.e. slander, and it also means, that GASP, it might EVEN be offensive!

There is a difference between opinion and fact - prove-able fact I might add.

If a person says: Jesus Christ was a freaking moron. Well, yes, I might be offended by that, but that is their opinion, and their right to express that opinion freely.

Same goes for Moses was a freaking moron, or Mohammed.

Now, if somebody disagrees they might reply: No, Moses was wonderful leader and teacher, and you, sir, are the moron.

See, we just had an exchange of ideas. A debate - a dialogue.

What we didn't have was "Hate Speech Laws", or beheadings, violent riots, or the like.

Those items DO NOT belong in a civilized society that values democracy and public discourse.

I wish more people understand what "Freedom of Speech" was really about and how DANGEROUS it is to limit freedom of speech.

Peace.

Posted by: Monkeywho at September 20, 2008 8:16 PM

"You don't get to "prefer" anything. Evolution and Natural Selection are two distinct things, each with its own definition. Natural Selecton is the mechanism by which evolution works.
Simple life forms because for the overwhelming majority of our planet's history, life forms were simple." Posted by: Fanusi Khiyal

Fanusi Khiyal;
What you see as evolution, I see as Natural Selection, the two are one. Natural selection fits what is seen, where the other is a older theory, IMO. Adaptive solutions both.
I believe life here was complex at a somewhat early stage, and this planet has had complex life for that majority of it's history.

Eastview;
With all respect, in science "Under the given circumstances" means nothing.

I do not believe he really follows "Zarb", it was a story ( A leap of faith there, but you never know). He may really believe, however that in no way means I would follow him without proof that I could accept,and good luck with that by the way.

Rab and Ian ;
Although you both are quite gifted, I am getting the idea that presenting your thoughts, in the spirit of science and truth, are lacking.
Proof of creation I believe is all around us, you may just ignore, or do not wish to see it. And that is your choice, although I can't understand it, I do respect it.

Your brand of humor is very much like that of the persons who placed a copy of Morgan Robertson's "Futilty" in a certain ship's library. Their face in the mirror the day after most likely was "Beyond the Spectrum".

Perhaps the thoughts of Mrs .W.A. Spencer, the day after, would you want to know? (all things are possible, but probally no connection to Robert).

There is proof of the future, as seen from the past. Can you discount this? That is one "evolution" I would very much like to see.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at September 21, 2008 12:22 AM

"Proof of creation I believe is all around us" - Islofob IS-1

What proof are you referring to?

Posted by: Xeno at September 21, 2008 2:28 AM

Islofob

"There is proof of the future, as seen from the past."

I don't have to discount anything, you are the one postulating sky hooks, sky fairies, proof all around us, but actually offering an opinion.

The simple facts are that there is proof of evolution all around us in the scientific sense. Every single scientific discovery since Darwin's Dangerous Idea, has agreed with his original concept, from physics, geology and biology.

Saying you know things is not proof, it's self delusion at best.

If you have proof provide it, and I mean proof, not an opinion.

I might as well say, God is an evil demon, look around you there's proof everywhere, you can't prove I'm wrong can you?
Somehow I don't think you'd consider that a valid argument, so why should I, or anybody else?

Posted by: Ian at September 21, 2008 4:13 PM

There is proof of the future, as seen from the past. Can you discount this? That is one "evolution" I would very much like to see.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1

Well, just stick around - the "future" will become the past soon enough, and then you can just read about it in the paper. ;-)

Posted by: Eastview at September 21, 2008 10:34 PM

If I CAN NOT prove your ... theory incorrect, I have no business calling it crazy.
Islofob

My theory is that you are crazy. Prove me incorrect. Do you see the problem with your statement?

Posted by: Eastview at September 21, 2008 10:48 PM

Gentlemen;

1. If evolution is universal, as it must be to apply everywhere in the world and universe, then by odds, advanced life should be exploding through the worlds that are out there, yes or no?

2. Prophecy as written about by M. Robertson in "Futility". Prophecy that happened. This event can not be explained away with evolution. "Beyond the Spectrum" also adds to his work.

3. See John 1:34; 1:41; 8:55 . Three diffrent people statements, who saw events, and stated what they observed.

4. Mandlebrot sets, infinity in a bottle as you may know. This discovery adds to creation, computers required, almost.

Again, this is not a attack on what you follow, we are in a battle against the followers of islam, Christians are not another enemy. We can disagree with opinions, but we are on the same boat.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at September 22, 2008 2:11 AM

Islofob IS-1 -

1 - We have no idea what is happening on other worlds. However if we were to find a planet exactly the same as earth in the same environment of space as the earth (everything being identical) then chances are that there will be life. We have only got our world to look at to study evolution so we cannot say with any certainty what is happening on places we know nothing about. That type of conclusion jumping is best left to the religious.

2 - If something cannot be explained away by evolution does not then mean (much less prove) god did it. More than likely the authors simply present 'evidence' based on an already decided outcome.

3 - What relevance has a fictional book got with proving anything, or even adding to the debate?

4 - I do not understand your position with this.

I also note you still have not provided evidence for your assertion that there is proof of creation everywhere.

Regards

Posted by: Xeno at September 22, 2008 2:38 AM

Zeno;
1.Lots is known about other planets. Mars, Venus, Jupiters moons (Europa is a contender) for OWL. To say it must be like Earth places the evolution structure in a set box. This world has life in the most extreme conditions, but that should not be seen as the most life can tolerate. Some have said Mars may be where life on Earth started, transfered here on debris from impacts. Conclusion jumping indeed.

2.The book is prophecy masked as fiction. How can a evolution world view explain events that are beyond it's rules? If God is dead, and man is God, can we see the future and lay out events to come?

3. If it is prophecy, then perhaps a higher power is at work.

4. Mathmatics, a discovery, not a invention. Universal, and I dare to say, perfect. It is proof of a higher power, a foundation of everything we know. Of creation.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at September 22, 2008 3:45 AM

Islofob,

If you haven't already read it, I'm sure you would enjoy reading 'climbing mount improbable' by Richard Dawkins. It has a very persuasive account of the practical ways in which organisms evolve from relatively simple systems to progressively more elaborate and complex ones. Such as the eye.

For the origins of life there are some great sources of information on the talkorigins link given by Xeno above.

Anyone who thinks that these kinds of biochemical and evolutionary processes are too unlikely to occur to be believed may want to consider how to explain the 'higher power', and how that might have come into being.

Also how did he work his magic? with a wand? If not then what. And why don't we see this power at work today?

I'm not being flippant, I just feel convinced that scientific explanations are more credible than the old biblical ones. Given how evolution involves increase in complexity over time; it follows that our true origins must be much simpler than we are now.

Yet the postulation of God means a being more complex than anything in the known universe.
We can't disprove God any more than we can disprove Rab's Zarbos or pink unicorns on Pluto, or Wodin, but we don't need any of them.

Regards

Posted by: StephenA55 at September 22, 2008 5:52 AM

Nabi ZK,
Sorry to have briefly strayed from the true path of the wise all-knowing Nabi ZK [pbuh] to the false God Zarbos.

Rab,
It was fun for a while, but I've decided to formally leave the Zarbist faith and become something else. Frankly I'm tired of being a follower, so I'm thinking of setting up on my own as a prophet.

Islofob,
About life on other planets: I agree with you, we don't know what may exist in the universe, such as life forms based on elements other than carbon. I'm hoping the Mars rover may tell us something, if it doesn't get stolen by LGM.

Regards

Posted by: StephenA55 at September 22, 2008 6:23 AM

"It was fun for a while, but I've decided to formally leave the Zarbist faith and become something else. Frankly I'm tired of being a follower, so I'm thinking of setting up on my own as a prophet."

You what?!!!

You know very well that this is not permissible.

According to Zarbist doctrine, those who forsake the one true faith must have their eyebrows plucked hair by hair until facially bald.

It's not quite as severe as some of those old style religions, but it still sends out the right message.

Apostate!

Posted by: Rab at September 22, 2008 1:30 PM

Rab,
Sorry about the apostasy and all that. I wouldn't have minded so much but it was the thought of the pilgrimage to Zarb that tipped it for me. Has anyone ever returned from one of those yet?
I don't mind the punishment so much, I knew you were a plucky type. (sorry).

Posted by: StephenA55 at September 22, 2008 2:38 PM

"Sorry about the apostasy and all that. I wouldn't have minded so much but it was the thought of the pilgrimage to Zarb that tipped it for me. Has anyone ever returned from one of those yet?"

Sorry? Sorry? I swear by the seven purple moons of Zarb and the sacred elephant of Kryyyykkk upon which our holy founder Zarbos made his famous night flight from the great desert of Flimmm to the 7/11 on the western outskirts of Baltimore that such sacreligious and disrespectful talk must be punished, punished I say!!!

Fair point though. That pilgrimage puts a lot of newbies off.

I'm thinking we ought to relocate Head Office somewhere a little easier to get to.

Posted by: Rab at September 22, 2008 7:02 PM

Mathmatics, a discovery, not a invention. Universal, and I dare to say, perfect. It is proof of a higher power, a foundation of everything we know. Of creation.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1

Something we agree on! This is a mathematician's view, e.g., David Hardy. I have many arguments with my physicist colleagues about whether the number 2 existed before the Big Bang (it did, of course, otherwise the Big Bang couldn't have occurred, and the number 3, etc., and numerous other nonphysical things, some of them truly eternal, as in d2/dt=0). We also have spirited, sometimes shouting, discussions about the illogicality (my position) of a "Theory of Everything" that leaves out the theory itself as being part of "everything."

Posted by: Eastview at September 23, 2008 1:30 AM

"Anyone who thinks that these kinds of biochemical and evolutionary processes are too unlikely to occur to be believed may want to consider how to explain the 'higher power', and how that might have come into being.

Also how did he work his magic? with a wand? If not then what. And why don't we see this power at work today?"..
StephenA55;

The Bible touches on some these things. God "is that he is", it is beyond our ability to understand. Jesus is the word of God, that is what you call the "wand".

At work today it is. The greater works are being done today through the church in his name.

I will look into Richard Dawkins book. I believe in Natural Selection as the engine that adjusts life here, will find out how his view may add to this.

Eastview;
Glad we can agree. I see fractals as a window into somthing important, and they are stored inside numbers. A new world to explore.

I would have enjoyed hearing those discussions.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at September 23, 2008 5:13 PM

Islofob IS-1 -

1 - As I stated; not a lot is known about other planets (throughout the universe - which was your argument that I am answering) in relation to evolution. Evolution in this context is simple life evolving into more complex life and we are not talking of abiogenesis. Your initial assertion of "then by odds, advanced life should be exploding through the worlds that are out there, yes or no?" in relation to evolution being universal is something we cannot know. We only know how evolution works here on earth but we can postulate that it may work elsewhere; Europa being a good example of a possible candidate that is within our grasp to confirm. Your point about life arriving from Mars is testable and is a valid hypothesis that is worthy of interest, if for no other reason than to discount 'alien' intervention.

2 - Evolution deals solely with evolving life, simple into complex, and that is it. "Evolution world view" is a strange thing to say and seems to suggest that those who understand the fact of evolution (we know it happened) then go on to live their lives around the theory (the theory being those scientific theories that explain the mechanisms for evolution) as if the MET was somehow a guide to live your life. Do those people who understand the theory of gravity need to be described as having a Gravitational world view? Perhaps I am missing something from your meaning here.

3 - I have never seen any prophecy made and then been shown to be true. A story about someone making a prophecy and then it coming true is only a story.

4 - Oh I see. Well, mathematics does not add to an argument for god and/or design in the same way that looking at a tree is not proof for design and/or god. However, it is certainly a very important medium for understanding. I wonder why more mathematical explanations are not contained within holy books?

I am also interested in what you said above:

"God "is that he is", it is beyond our ability to understand"

Apparently not that far beyond some peoples abilities as we keep hearing from individuals who are sure such a being exists and, more importantly, what this being want of each and every one of us...

Regards

Posted by: Xeno at September 23, 2008 6:12 PM

"in relation to evolution being universal is something we cannot know."

Xeno;
Universal it should be. Otherwise, you start to move away from OWL, and right to this world being unique. That is moving closer to creation.

Testing the Mars rocks should be done. Finding alien remains from Mars here on Earth is a longshot, if they found somthing it probally would have been big news. Europa is the best so far in our solar system, will look forward to somthing going there. Abiogenesis? Not sure I understand what this means.

2. Evolution world view, as describing its view on life itself, not those who accept the evolution theory as fact.

3. Find a copy and read it. He never claimed religion as a reason to predict future events, he wrote books. Also, just a story once perhaps, twice and it will start to make you wonder. This guy was in tune with somthing.

4.Math is non-physycal, a tree is. Also, math is used to describe many things in the Bible, the (Ark, Temples). It is not focused on as it is not needed for the purpose of the book, perhaps it was known we would figure some things out on our own.

"I am that I am" . That is a powerful statement, no beginning or end. Not that easy to grasp, for me at least.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at September 24, 2008 3:40 AM

I wonder why more mathematical explanations are not contained within holy books?
Posted by: Xeno

If you mean using the formal logical framework we use today, then undoubtedly it is because this wasn't available at the time the holy books were written. If this language had been available to Aristotle or Plato is there any doubt they would have made use of it?

As for the prophets who spoke in terms of similes and allegories, they made use of the only conceptual tools they had at their disposal and were limited by lack of a proper formal logic and grammar in which to express their ideas. For the most part, the situation has not improved much in the department over the last several thousand years, the efforts of may smart men like St. Thomas Aquinas and even Isaac Newton notwithstanding. I've not seen any recent attempts to try to impose a formal logic on, say, Christian doctrine, but think it would be a fine enterprise to undertake, as it would force consideration of a number of concepts like eternity, infinity, unknowability, etc. that are very much within the claimed provinces of both mathematics and Christianity.

The social sciences in general (in which, for the purpose of discussion, I would include religion as a subset), which deal in nonphysical things like love and hate and other emotions, as well as "value" and other fuzzy concepts, could benefit from mathematization if a way could be found to establish a suitable metric. The mathematical methods of physical sciences based on complex function theory are not a good model to follow for this, because here it is insisted that a metric must be mappable to the real line, thus providing an ordering of greater than or less than or equal to, etc. It is slavish insistence on following the somewhat simplistic methods of the physical sciences that has prevented the development of a true social calculus that deals with the social world equally as effectively as the physical laws deal with the physical world. (Harry Seldon was on the right track, though.)

For the social sciences, the requirement of everything being expressible as a number could be relaxed, and a usable metric developed based on partially ordered sets and category theory. I don't know how fractals would fit into this...have to think about it.

Posted by: Eastview at September 24, 2008 4:09 AM

The idea of predicting social and political developments in a scientific way is a tantalising one. The Foundation trilogy by Isaac Asimov, referred to by Eastview, was an entertaining exploration of these ideas, but required the reader to suspend disbelief. No-one could ever really do what Seldon claimed to have done. With or without a new theory application.

Predicting the future is easy; people do it all the time. Most of them get it wrong of course.

How many writers of 30 or 40 years ago would have foreseen that we would still be dependent on coal, gas and oil for most of our energy needs in 2008? As I recall, most of them were convinced that our cars would all be able to fly by now. Fuel cells and nuclear fusion should be the norm.

By the law of averages there is bound to be the occasional successful prediction. (Morgan Robertson's 'Futility', referred to by Islofob).

The Titanic disaster was not so unpredictable; the causes and conditions for the event were all in place long before it happened.

"The Bible touches on some these things. God "is that he is", it is beyond our ability to understand. Jesus is the word of God, that is what you call the "wand"."

Thank you for trying to answer unanswerable questions. The Islamic response to this kind of question would be much more severe. But look at just how much religious people have to take on trust. Is it virtuous to have faith? Yes if religion is true.
But if religion is not true then faith is blinding one to reality. Once you take off the blinders you will see.

"At work today it is. The greater works are being done today through the church in his name. "

People have built pyramids, landed men on the moon, built the large hadron collider, are well on the way to explaining the natural mysteries of life the universe etc., all as far as we know without any help from any deity.

We must be smarter and more capable than we know.

Posted by: StephenA55 at September 24, 2008 6:45 AM

StephenA55, among other things, what was missing from Harry Seldon's theory was a metric and a way of assessing what fell into the realm of unknowability. Without this and a way to assign "error bars" prediction is meaningless, as you pointed out. It's more complicated than this for real, nonlinear systems, but Asimov was on the right track, even though he seemingly failed to appreciate what the actual elements are that would have to go into a real theory of psychohistory, or the method of constructing a formal logic and grammar based on them.

Posted by: Eastview at September 24, 2008 11:47 AM

Well you may be right, Eastview. It's true that Asimov made it sound highly plausible. You seem to know more about it than I do so I bow to superior knowledge, but I wonder how all those unknowable variables can submit to analysis. You would need a super-computer that would have to resemble God.

Back on the main topic:
YahYah strikes again. He is interviewed by Der Spiegel, and in a case of apparent projection, claims that 'all terrorists are Darwinists'
Odd how such a barmy dimwit can look so sinister.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,580031,00.html

Posted by: StephenA55 at September 24, 2008 12:58 PM

Eastview –

The point I was replying to was that mathematics is a proof of the existence of god; or a higher power.

My comment "I wonder why more mathematical explanations are not contained within holy books?" was not meant to relate to there being no modern mathematic references within a particular holy book but my surprise that these prophets (who are alleged to have been divinely inspired by an all knowing god, who is alleged to have created everything) have not communicated in a mathematical way. The prophets themselves may have lacked comprehension of modern, or universal, mathematics but surely their 'inspiration' would have understood these things.

We believe that sufficiently advanced alien civilisations would be able to understand the universal language of mathematics so I have to wonder why a god would not choose to communicate his existence through the medium of mathematics in some suitable and subtle way. Although to be frank if a god did exist there are far easier ways to show the truth of the matter.

I enjoyed the rest of your post and it has certainly given me food for thought; particularly your thoughts on the social and physical sciences.

Regards

Posted by: Xeno at September 24, 2008 1:09 PM

Correction:

'You seem to know more about it than I do'
I should have said:
'You know more about it than I do'

Posted by: StephenA55 at September 24, 2008 1:50 PM

YahYah strikes again. He is interviewed by Der Spiegel, and in a case of apparent projection, claims that 'all terrorists are Darwinists.'
Posted by: StephenA55

YahYah clearly needs to either get back on his meds, or up the dose if he's still on them, or read/learn before he speaks. Clearly he rejects the notion that Muslims could possibly be terrorists since they reject Darwinism, so the only other possibility is that terrorists are Westerners who embrace Darwinism. Try drawing a Venn diagram for that piece of logic!

Posted by: Eastview at September 24, 2008 2:48 PM

"By the law of averages there is bound to be the occasional successful prediction. (Morgan Robertson's 'Futility', referred to by Islofob).

The Titanic disaster was not so unpredictable; the causes and conditions for the event were all in place long before it happened."

StephenA55;
Then by the law of averages it was a "lucky guess"? Then, explain his prediction of WW2, and the attack on the U.S. by Japan.

This guy nailed two events,almost told it as a news story. and both happened less that 30 years apart. "Beyond the Spectrum" holds the second "prediction". Remember, he was writing books, not as a faith prophet.

Once may have been very lucky, twice should catch any sceptic's attention. One thing for sure, too much detail to dismiss as a guess.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at September 24, 2008 3:16 PM

'This guy nailed two events,almost told it as a news story. and both happened less that 30 years apart. "Beyond the Spectrum" holds the second "prediction". Remember, he was writing books, not as a faith prophet.'

According to Wiki and other googled sources, there were some startling similarities but also some differences in the two cases which you cite.
For example, it says 'Beyond the Spectrum, which described a future war between the United States and Japan, a popular subject at the time.'

I'd say he was unusually shrewd as well as lucky to predict these things as well as he did, but if it were possible to see into the future as you suggest, then such cases would not be so exceptional.

Posted by: StephenA55 at September 24, 2008 4:11 PM

Islofob IS-1 -

Abiogenesis is the study of the origin of life; or how life could come from non life. This is a separate discipline from the study of evolution, which deals with how life behaves once it exists.

1 - Evolution on other worlds need not work in the same way as evolution on our planet. It all depends on how life on other planets works. Evolution in its basic sense (life evolving into different varieties) would more than likely exist but there is no reason to believe what happens here has to happen everywhere else life has found a foothold. There is also no reason to think that what has happened here is unique to us. I would posit that out there are planets where life works in similar ways to our planet, some which are so different as to boggle our minds and others that are in between. I would say that due to the myriad of planets out there it would be surprising if we are the only planet. Whether there is intelligent life elsewhere is another (once again) issue entirely. Why must evolution be valid for the whole universe to be considered a valid natural theory in your mind?

2 - I understand your point here now more fully. Evolution does not intend to answer these questions dealing, as it does, solely with the way life proceeds under environmental pressures. Also seeing the future is not a proof of a god's existence as it could quite easily (if true) simply be our first ignorant steps into a new dimension. Or it could be anything else we care to think as we simply do not know. If prophecy was happening all the time then I would give it more credence. Also if prophecy is true then our future is set which brings more questions to the fore. Of course if our future isn't set then maybe some prophecies are avoided which makes the prophecy meaningful and useful (thus giving a prophet an advantage in evolutionary terms) but un-testable as the event did not happen outside of the prophet’s mind!

3 - According to what I have found out, which matches StephenA55 conclusion, there does seem to be similarities but there is also a lot which is wrong or missing. For example, he wrote about the Titan, an unsinkable ship, which plied the North Atlantic but the ship in the book sank very quickly and it was not on its maiden voyage. So do we simply ignore the bits that do not fit?

Now is it unfeasible that the designer of the Titanic might have read this book and decided to name his own 'unsinkable' ship after this fictional 'unsinkable' ship? Now is that prophecy or simply an exchange of ideas?

4 - Mathamatics in the bible is simple to say the least; a set of measurements or an accounting of cattle etc. If mathematics is a proof for god (as you asserted) or an avenue that will end up with us seeing no alternative for a god then why bother with any holy book (which ever one is correct - they cannot all be) if "...perhaps it was known we would figure some things out on our own". I see an alternative message in mathematics; everything works without intervention.

Regards

Posted by: Xeno at September 24, 2008 5:17 PM

Mathamatics in the bible is simple to say the least; a set of measurements or an accounting of cattle etc.
Posted by: Xeno

Yes, in fact one could say that there is actually NO "mathematics" in the bible (or the qur'an). There is simple counting and measurement as you say, but completely missing is abstraction, which is the heart and soul of real mathematics.

Posted by: Eastview at September 25, 2008 3:18 PM