Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Do humans have needed kno...
Today at 10:58 AM

Eid Al-Adha
Yesterday at 11:21 PM

Jesus mythicism
by zeca
Yesterday at 10:14 AM

Qur'anic studies today
Yesterday at 06:33 AM

BBC Documentary: Searchin...
by zeca
June 13, 2024, 12:55 PM

France Muslims were in d...
by zeca
June 13, 2024, 10:52 AM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
June 11, 2024, 09:35 PM

New Britain
June 10, 2024, 09:25 PM

What happens in these day...
by akay
June 08, 2024, 12:12 PM

ماذا يحدث هذه الايام؟؟؟.
by akay
June 07, 2024, 12:47 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
June 03, 2024, 08:08 AM

What's happened to the fo...
June 02, 2024, 06:12 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Hello

 (Read 32207 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #60 - October 13, 2010, 07:02 PM

    Quote
    You see, your entire understanding of fikar, and the 'aql come from the capitalist/secular aqeedah. I noticed in another area that you are in egypt, which now makes sense to me.


    What does secularism have to do with anything? pls elaborate.
    Or is it rationalism that you want me to abandon?

    Quote
    Your entire view of life is through this lens.

    That is a joke, right? So i never was a true Muslim?
    Are you implying i have been practicing 21 years of fake Islam, why?
    And i would argue the same , what if its you who is looking at life through an Islamic lens, if no , why not?

    Quote
    The sad part is, I cannot even show you practical application to islam today.

    Good you have noted that i am from Egypt, I hope you also noted that i lived in Saudi Arabia for 17 years.
    So Isn't Saudi Arabia "the practical application" of Islam today, if not , why?

    Quote
    because this would be trying to put yourself in the shoes of the Creator

    As a Deist i don't think that is permissible at all, Laws are constant and finite yet unchangeable.
    So It it is impossible to change them. But allowing wife beating , adulterers to be whipped , can be changed into a much more humane/efficient system (the invention of contraception and condoms did wonders).

    Quote
    Or challenge my linking the Qur'an to this Creator

    Yes, i will .
    If you can link it, (with tangible proof) i will be more than willing to revert.



    P.S = If you think that this site and all the things happening to Islam in the world is a CONSPIRACY (Evolution / 9-11 /The arrivals....Etc ) then there is no point in Arguing with you such a mind set is impossible to convince.

    Confucius:
    "What you do not like done to yourself, do not unto others."
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #61 - October 13, 2010, 07:06 PM

    Which countries have implemented Islam well, Truthseeker?

    19:46   <zizo>: hugs could pimp u into sex

    Quote from: yeezevee
    well I am neither ex-Muslim nor absolute 100% Non-Muslim.. I am fucking Zebra

  • Re: Hello
     Reply #62 - October 15, 2010, 03:29 PM

    Firstly, thanks for taking time to reply. I don't consider myself close-minded or ignorant, I'm just trying to understand you and my own self as well. So yeah.

    What does secularism have to do with anything? pls elaborate.
    Or is it rationalism that you want me to abandon?


    By secularism I mean the separation of God/Creator from governance. In other words, it is saying that it doesn't matter whether a person believes in God or not, laws are to be made by people. Muslims are supposed to reject this in it's entirety, because if you believe in a Creator then it would make sense that He would make the laws if He gave any. Of course if He gave nothing that's a different matter.

    I do not want you to abandon rationality, because I use the same. So if we are both using rationality, and we understand it to mean the same thing (using previous knowledge, what we perceive through senses, the thought process and the ability to differentiate between things to make decisions) then we should come to the same conclusion right?

    The only difference is this. We both agree this universe is created. I say that the Qur'an is from this Creator, you say it is not. So for me whatever is in the Qur'an is what the Creator is telling me, so I read it and find systems, beliefs, etc and I follow them.

    For you, since the Qur'an is not from the Creator, you have to make up your own system and beliefs.

    So my reply to things is "this is what Allah says" and your reply is "this is what I say." If you unlink the Qur'an from the Creator, then I would too become a deist.

    Do we both see eye-to-eye here?

    Quote
    That is a joke, right? So i never was a true Muslim?
    Are you implying i have been practicing 21 years of fake Islam, why?


    Well I don't know what you knew of Islam, but I do know that Islam is taught from a secular perspective. It is heavily modified everywhere, whether you go to madinah university, al azhar university, dar al uloom deoband, etc.

    People generally have no clue what practically it meant to practice islam as a whole. All they have is a bunch of regimes in muslim lands and scholars who try to please these tyrants. We only see contradictions. I would expect many people to leave islam, except many are emotional, or they want to follow their families, or are too scared of persecution.

    Quote
    And i would argue the same , what if its you who is looking at life through an Islamic lens, if no , why not?
    Good you have noted that i am from Egypt, I hope you also noted that i lived in Saudi Arabia for 17 years.
    So Isn't Saudi Arabia "the practical application" of Islam today, if not , why?


    Yes of course I view stuff through an islamic lens. But I was raised looking at things through a secular/western lens.

    I was raised in saudi arabia myself, but from birth I was in an american embassy school. I was raised under a US flag. I lived in saudi arabia 12 years and didn't learn arabic. That should give you some idea =/.

    We each look at life through two ways:

    A) reality, and that is objective.

    B) what we perceive as right/wrong. You view right and wrong as harm/benefit as you see fit, I see it as whether the Creator says something is right or wrong.

    For A we both agree that the rulers in muslim lands are tyrants. For B, we disagree whether say adultry is right or wrong (maybe you believe it's wrong too, it's just an example)


    Saudi arabia is not islam at all. I'll give some examples.

    They implement the punishment of chopping the hands. But they cause the poverty upon the people first, so they are to blame for him stealing. They hoard the wealth, and run a capitalistic economic system

    Their banks are based on riba, I've seen this with my own eyes. They also play around with stuff behind the scenes so that people don't see it as clearly.

    They invest in incorrect investments as a government (citigroup for instance), even though this is haram. They also allow foreign investments in both private things, public things, and state owned things. So many examples of this, as you can see corporations everywhere, especially in the oil business.

    They allow the US to build huge military bases all over the country.

    Most of their military is funded by the US either through intelligence, actual equipment, or money.

    They do not defend the muslims that are suffering through the world, nor do they defend nonmuslims who are oppressed.

    They did not liberate any of the illegal occupations, like in gaza or remove tyrants like the ones in egypt. Of course, the saudi monarchy is full of tyrants itself so that is to be expected.

    They spend their time fighting shia or for the US.

    There are so many other things. But this is just a start so you see they are not even close. This is not islam, this is just a smokescreen to fool people so they don't revolt. You were in egypt, you know how people like husni mubarak work right? Rig elections so he always wins, if people speak up they get tortured, etc.


    Quote
    Yes, i will .
    If you can link it, (with tangible proof) i will be more than willing to revert.


    So we should discuss this. Why I believe the Qur'an is from the Creator we believe in and why you don't.

    Is that fair?

    Which countries have implemented Islam well, Truthseeker?


    None, islam is not represented at all anywhere. That's the problem.
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #63 - October 15, 2010, 04:59 PM

    Why is everyone giving this guy any importance? Looks like this guy makes stuff as he go. Most probably from some Christian or some other political group who try to keep muslims busy with bullshit religious non-sense.
    This guy have been proven wrong before as well, when he translated dahaha as egg shaped. If he was a real muslim with religious information he wouldn't have making lies like that on our faces.

    Admin of following facebook pages and groups:
    Islam's Last Stand (page)
    Islam's Last Stand (group)
    and many others...
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #64 - October 15, 2010, 05:28 PM

    Quote
    meet u here i a couple of years when ... a cell is created in the lab from scratch!!
    the first cell with different DNA sequence (man-computer made)... it was jump started.. giving us a new specie has been made in the lab!!


    actually, tbh, tabun, as a molecular biologist i can tell you that making a cell in the lab from scracth will be immensley difficult - if at all possible - i personally think it's too complex and most other molecular/cellular biologists have said the same - if you know anything about the complexity of cellular pathways that allows a cell to 'live' you would understand why. i think you are talking about J.craig venters work - what he did was to synthesize in the lab a chromosome that was very similar (almost identical) to a bacterial cell's original genome using biological tools (i.e. yeast cells as hosts and DNA polymerases etc.). This chromosome was then injected into an already living bacterial cell whilst causing the endogenous genome to be discarded. The injected genome was able to successfuly take control of the cell. This approach might have great technological benefits. However, as for 'creating life' etc. - it's all hype I'm afraid.

    I think there was a good thread about this when the paper first came out, if you're interested in this sort of thing, it's worth a read:

    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=10381.0

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #65 - October 15, 2010, 10:32 PM

    Hi, noticed some discussions here so dropped by.

    Are there any special rules aside from the standard rules a forum has? It would save me a bit of time thanks!

    I'm a muslim by the way.


    Welcome TruthSeeker. Some links just below, if you like to have a little read on some interesting topics.
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #66 - October 15, 2010, 10:45 PM

    Quote
    None, islam is not represented at all anywhere. That's the problem.

    Maybe, just maybe, the problem isn't the implementation of Islam but Islam itself. Hmmmmm?  parrot

    19:46   <zizo>: hugs could pimp u into sex

    Quote from: yeezevee
    well I am neither ex-Muslim nor absolute 100% Non-Muslim.. I am fucking Zebra

  • Re: Hello
     Reply #67 - October 16, 2010, 12:48 PM

    actually, tbh, tabun, as a molecular biologist i can tell you that making a cell in the lab from scracth will be immensley difficult - if at all possible - i personally think it's too complex and most other molecular/cellular biologists have said the same - if you know anything about the complexity of cellular pathways that allows a cell to 'live' you would understand why. i think you are talking about J.craig venters work - what he did was to synthesize in the lab a chromosome that was very similar (almost identical) to a bacterial cell's original genome using biological tools (i.e. yeast cells as hosts and DNA polymerases etc.). This chromosome was then injected into an already living bacterial cell whilst causing the endogenous genome to be discarded. The injected genome was able to successfuly take control of the cell. This approach might have great technological benefits. However, as for 'creating life' etc. - it's all hype I'm afraid.

    I think there was a good thread about this when the paper first came out, if you're interested in this sort of thing, it's worth a read:

    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=10381.0


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN9FMIdnCX4&feature=channel


    Confucius:
    "What you do not like done to yourself, do not unto others."
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #68 - October 16, 2010, 01:50 PM

    Dear TruthSeeker
    Have you heard about whether God can create a stone so heavy even He cannot lift it?
    car313
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #69 - October 18, 2010, 12:39 AM

    @ Truthseeker

    I totally agree , Islam isn't followed correctly.

    SO
    Following these verses would do good?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_sm_M0-cZA&feature=sub

    Confucius:
    "What you do not like done to yourself, do not unto others."
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #70 - October 18, 2010, 12:47 PM

    Awesome video Tabun..

    Admin of following facebook pages and groups:
    Islam's Last Stand (page)
    Islam's Last Stand (group)
    and many others...
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #71 - October 18, 2010, 04:59 PM

    Though it is ill mannered to butt into a conversation among the Muslims and Ex Muslims, I think TruthSeeker is trying very hard to pretend to be what he/she is not. Not that it matters.

    How normal is it for a believer of any kind to seek to associate with non believers? Not very. So Shouldn't ex Muslims and Non-Believers try to read between lines.

    I came to this forum because I chose not to believe what I was taught in my formative years. If I had chosen to believe I shouldn't have even dream't of sharing cyberspace with a bunch of apostates. I think a lot of others on this forum can vouch for something similar. Given that, how or why would a self confessed believer seek out the company of self confessed apostates? It is only in the absence of conscience that a self confessed believer seeks out the self confessed unbelievers. A careful reading of TruthSeekers postings brings to my mind a red herring. Beware of a truth seeker who already believes. Like black light or hot ice or kind cruelty.

    What would truthseeker say to the Koranic verses that describe unbelievers as Najis? Or how would he interpret/defend the verses that explicitly (even shamelessly) say that the last day will not come until the last Jew has been betrayed even by the tree he is hiding behind? What is divine about these moronic and disgusting sura? What is more disgusting is a believer who can shamelessly defend these and even worse suras under the thinnest gloss of truth seeking? Would he/she still claim them to be divinely inspired? A very very pathetic divinity.

    Beware of these truth seekers or even TruthSeekers. It is they who have wreaked havoc with people, lives and civilizations. Others who are simply trying to live so as to minimize violence, discrimination and hatred have everything to lose from doubtful characters for whom sophistry is substitute for knowledge and knowledge a substitute for wisdom.

    Well let me get it out of my system. This guy/gal is at best a sophist and at worst a trojan.

    Dear TruthSeeker there are a hell of a lot of other fora for you to feed on, where you will not only be welcome but you will make yours as well as their day. In the good old days of unsophistry we had a phrase for guys/gals like you. Smooth operators. Very very smooth.
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #72 - October 18, 2010, 05:29 PM

    one cannot fill a cup that is alreay full.. the best line from the movie avatar!

    truthseeker.. has already labelled.. stamped and convicted everyone here..
    unfortunately..


  • Re: Hello
     Reply #73 - October 18, 2010, 05:45 PM



    interesting vid tabun. i think the video involved a lot of hype though - it's just a more complex version of an in vitro translation technique that has been used for for some years now. but maybe he'll manage to do it - be awesome if he does. but 'building' a functional ribosome in vitro is childs play compared to building a living cell. in addition these methods involve using enzymes/protein/RNA that have been purifed from living cells - so the process is not entirely synthetic but relies on using purified biological tools from already living systems - this is a key point and shouldn't be glossed over - his whole technique is heavily dependent on factors purified from living cells - and simply wouldn't work without them. even then using these techniques, i'm sceptical that he'll be able to build a living cell cabaple of replicating etc. i'd also like to see him publish the ribosome work in a scientific journal so we can see exactly what he did, which i am not sure he has done yet.

    How about we meet back on here in 50 years and see if he or anyone can manage it - even in the pseudo-synthetic manner described. if they do i'll buy you a beer  Smiley

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #74 - October 18, 2010, 05:54 PM

    abuy - are we not able to build proteins that can self-replicate yet?  considering our advancements today, life does not really sound like such a big deal to me.  is that what you are waiting for?

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #75 - October 18, 2010, 06:05 PM

    TruthSeeker seems to be anything but.

    He/she/It claims to be a Muslim AND claims to be seeking truth. Has He/She/It not already found it in Islam and the Holy Koran?

    islam4uk and revolutionmuslim can have more use for him/her/it than ex Muslims or non believers. The smugness and complacency of his/her/its posts are entirely out of character for a so-called seeker of truth. On the other hand they are entirely in keeping with the character of one who seeks to confuse and obfuscate.
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #76 - October 18, 2010, 06:08 PM

    life does not really sound like such a big deal to me. 


    lol


    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #77 - October 18, 2010, 06:26 PM

    Does it also mean that you believe you need four witnesses for a woman to prove rape? Do you believe that rapists generally take along four believing men so as to facilitate the proof of rape? Do you also believe that the majority of the dwellers of hell fire are women as asserted by your Prophet? Do you also believe that you can marry your daughter in law provided she can divorce your son? Do you also believe that the possessions of your right hand are allowed for you to go on unto or into? Do you believe that unbelievers are like filth? Do you believe that the last day will not come until the very tree that hide the Jews will betray them to the swords of holy Muslim warriors? Do you also believe that it is allowed for you to marry widows especially after you have created them through murder? Do you believe that you ought to strike terror into the hearts of those deny Allah and his Prophet? Do you also believe that you can behead the mother of a suckling if she wrote verses ridiculing you?

    I believe that you do.

    Please do not tell me that you believe it is also better for school girls to roast in a school fire than it is for them to come out without a hijab! Then go ahead and tell me that Saudi Arabia is not a truely Islamic country. Just you try telling that to the Al Saud family. Then you can come around telling us here on this forum.

    Frankly how much more can you believe before you find the truth that you claim to be seeking?

    Believe these and you will believe anything. (Sorry James Hadley Chase)
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #78 - October 18, 2010, 07:19 PM

    lol



    here you go - here's gods part done for you by man - changing an ordinary protein with the basic building blocks of life into a perpetual self-replicating & self-propogating one - as you know, this is where specifically the magic of life lies.  And as we know, the rest is taken care of by evolution.

    http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20090011195733data_trunc_sys.shtml


    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #79 - October 18, 2010, 07:33 PM

    A truthseeker who is actually a SELF APPOINTED 'TRUTHSPEAKER' making naive disbelievers see the truth---There's only one GOD and we are only his lackeys who yell  ' Allah u Akbar' for no rhyme or reason like morons gone wild!



    The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.
                                   Thomas Paine

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored !- Aldous Huxley
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #80 - October 18, 2010, 11:24 PM

    interesting vid tabun. i think the video involved a lot of hype though - it's just a more complex version of an in vitro translation technique that has been used for for some years now. but maybe he'll manage to do it - be awesome if he does. but 'building' a functional ribosome in vitro is childs play compared to building a living cell. in addition these methods involve using enzymes/protein/RNA that have been purifed from living cells - so the process is not entirely synthetic but relies on using purified biological tools from already living systems - this is a key point and shouldn't be glossed over - his whole technique is heavily dependent on factors purified from living cells - and simply wouldn't work without them. even then using these techniques, i'm sceptical that he'll be able to build a living cell cabaple of replicating etc. i'd also like to see him publish the ribosome work in a scientific journal so we can see exactly what he did, which i am not sure he has done yet.

    How about we meet back on here in 50 years and see if he or anyone can manage it - even in the pseudo-synthetic manner described. if they do i'll buy you a beer  Smiley


    I know just wanted to know your opinion , since your studying that stuff  Smiley

    Confucius:
    "What you do not like done to yourself, do not unto others."
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #81 - October 19, 2010, 11:35 AM

    here you go - here's gods part done for you by man - changing an ordinary protein with the basic building blocks of life into a perpetual self-replicating & self-propogating one - as you know, this is where specifically the magic of life lies.  And as we know, the rest is taken care of by evolution.

    http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20090011195733data_trunc_sys.shtml





    The study you're refering to is the one by Lincoln and Joyce where they showed that RNA enzymes, not proteins btw (although that's not so important for the discussion), could undego replication without the aid of any proteins. They showed that the R3C RNA molecule which is known to function as as an RNA ligase could cause the joining by covalent attachment of two other subunits of RNA. This RNA, which is also an RNA ligase, could then cause the joining of two subunits that make up the R3C enzyme. This process was cyclical and providing that enough of the four subunits were added to the in vitro mixture, the 'replication' was self sustained. Scientific research like this is really cool and always makes me smile when reading about it. However of course there is no real replication here it's just sustained cyclical ligation reactions to make more of the existing molecules using the added preassembled subunits. Without the preassembled subunits the process wouldn't work. You might say that ok maybe by chance millions (remember millions would be needed since there is no real replication but just joining of individual subunits)  of each of the pressembled subunits happened to exist in the primoridal soup (which in itself needs explaining since these are extremely complex molecules themselves), they hapened to meet up and started reacting together. This is bordering on the impossible and even if it did happen no-one has shown and proposed a concrete model whereby it would have anything to do with life.

    So what if we have RNA molecules that can cause cyclical sustained ligation reactions that can cause the production of more of the molecules by subunit ligation? - it doesn't tell us much at all about how life appeared on earth at all - it certainly tells us nothing about  how a living replicating cell appeared on this planet. Two RNA ligases interacting and causing the prodcution of more of themselves from preassembled units is one thing - but they are only RNA ligases at the end of the day - by themselves they can't do much of anyhting in terms of life - you need thousands of other specialised molecules (whether they be RNA or protein or both) but these other molecules cannot form more of themselves from preassembled units - because they are not ligases - the 'cross-replicating' method described only works with and is only useful for ligases. So, so far all we have is RNA ligases assembled from prexisting subuints (the existence of these complex subunit molecules themselves needs explaining) floating around in the primoridial soup not doing much else. The study simply tells us how two ligases can cross-react to build mature molecules from subunits but not much more - and i'm not sure it has anything to do with the origin of life on Earth. You have to see past the hype and the popular media-way of thinking and think about what the experiments have actually achieved and what the experiments actually tell us.

    Studies like this, whilst interesting are always open to being overhyped - which is why I only stick to the primary literature (i.e. peer-reveiwed articles in scientific journals). Media articles and books written by some scientists who enjoy the media limelight are sometimes not a good source of information - especially if you want the truth of what the studies actually tell us.

    btw, these days I really couldn't care that much about whether Godidit or whatever - maybe there is a completely scientific explanantion to explain life on earth. But i just don't like science being distorted in this manner.

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #82 - October 19, 2010, 12:06 PM

    I didnt understand the jargon, but I think I got the basics of what you are saying.

    Quote
    So what if we have RNA molecules that can cause cyclical sustained ligation reactions that can cause the production of more of the molecules by subunit ligation? - it doesn't tell us much at all about how life appeared on earth at all - it certainly tells us nothing about  how a living replicating cell appeared on this planet.

     
    What it shows is that chemists are now able to produce reactions that enable molecules to reproduce similar molecules.

    That to me at its core is the essense of reproduction, and the life at its most primary & basic level.  The rest is taken care of by successful vs non successful breeding i.e. time & evolution grin12

    I sometimes wonder what Godists, founding their knowledge from nothing other than hyperbole inside ancient manuscripts are waiting for from scientists. 

    Medicines & technology are accepted by the religious, but the minute such science tells you, as in the case of evolution, that those books might be wrong, all of a sudden science is susceptible to error. 

    These religious people will entrust their lives to science & doctors, without even questioning the methodology, but the second it contradicts one of their books, then they suddenly (coincidentially?) find fault.

    As if ancient fossils are not enough, as if information in our DNA is not enough, as if sharing vestigial processes/organs is not enough, as if the chromosome split evidence from chimps is not enough.  But the last treatment you took for your flu was?

    Will the production of a self-replicating protein be enough for you to reverse what these dusty books preach.  Or will the goal-posts then move to creating man from scratch I wonder yes  Or do you think we are simply too special to have risen out of gloop?

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #83 - October 19, 2010, 12:33 PM

    Quote
    I didnt understand the jargon


    Actually I was explaining the scientific details - something which you appear to have little or no regard for. Sorry but it does appear that way. Have you even read the orginal article?

    Quote
    What it shows is that chemists are now able to produce reactions that enable molecules to reproduce similar molecules.

    That to me at its core is the essense of reproduction, and the life at its most primary & basic level.  The rest is taken care of by successful vs non successful breeding i.e. time & evolution


    did you read what I wrote? if you don't agree with any of it, please pick out the points and explain why

    Quote
    Medicines & technology are accepted by the religious, but the minute such science tells you, as in the case of evolution, that those books might be wrong, all of a sudden science is susceptible to error.  

    These religious people will entrust their lives to science & doctors, without even questioning the methodology, but the second it contradicts one of their books, then they suddenly (coincidentially?) find fault.



    what i wrote has nothing to do with religion - we're talking about the scientific data. it's not only religous people who are sceptical about what people claim about these studies. I'm sure if Os was around he might agree with me also  grin12 . I just refuse to be one of those people who follow the media hype and start claiming all sorts of nonsense - even though they haven't understood the scientific data and what it means let alone read the original scientific articles.

    Quote
    As if ancient fossils are not enough, as if information in our DNA is not enough, as if sharing vestigial processes/organs is not enough, as if the chromosome split evidence from chimps is not enough.  But the last treatment you took for your flu was?



    we're talkging about the appearance of life on earth i.e. abiogenesis not evolution

    Quote
    Will the production of a self-replicating protein be enough for you to reverse what these dusty books preach.  Or will the goal-posts then move to creating man from scratch I wonder   Or do you think we are simply too special to have risen out of gloop?


    again I don't know why you're bringing religion into the debate - we're talking about science. and even if it was found that protein could self-replicate you are taking a gigantic,and a bit silly if i'm being honest, leap by suggesting that this itself has the potential to explain the emergence of life on this planet. as i said earlier I'm not concerned whether godidit etc. - it's about being honest and accurate about the science.

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #84 - October 19, 2010, 12:48 PM

    Have you even read the orginal article? did you read what I wrote?

    yes

    Quote
    if you don't agree with any of it, please pick out the points and explain why

    I already did

    Quote
    again I don't know why you're bringing religion into the debate - we're talking about science. and even if it was found that protein could self-replicate you are taking a gigantic,and a bit silly if i'm being honest, leap by suggesting that it has the potetnial to explain the emergence of life. as i said earlier I'm not concerned whether godidit etc. - it's about being honest and accurate about the science.

    Quote
    we're talkging about the appearance of life on earth i.e. abiogenesis not evolution

    I realise that - here I was simply demonstrating a good example of no matter how good evidence gets, theists can never get passed their biases  grin12  It was not long ago that you disputed evolution, and claimed it had nothing to do with religion too.

    You seem to be forgetting the fact that science is on my side, and abiogenesis is currently (afaik) the favoured explanation in the sceintific community with lots of different experiments showing its a possibility. You seem to be still hung up on us producing whole artifical cells from scratch before you will even entertain any such possibility.   

    I really wish you would spend as much time pointing holes behind the scientific method in the goddiddit scenario,  in which you would need a dam to hold the water back, and I would then have no contention.


    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #85 - October 19, 2010, 01:07 PM

    Quote
    yes


    you read the original article?


    Quote
    I already did



    no you didn't  Tongue
    please make your objections point by point

    Quote
    It was not long ago that you disputed evolution, and claimed it had nothing to do with religion too.



    Actually I still dispute whether the evidence exists that evolution theory as it currently stands can explain all that we are - that was always the nature of my arguments. The fact is, this evidence does not exist yet and there is still a huge amount to be done before we can say this - although again I do feel that we might uncover the scientific mechanisms - again something which I have always said. Things like the evolution of conciousness and other complex traits and molecular pathways etc. are critical areas.

    Quote
    You seem to be forgetting the fact that science is on my side, and abiogenesis is currently (afaik) the favoured explanation in the sceintific community with lots of different experiments showing its a possibility. You seem to be still hung up on us producing whole artifical cells from scratch before you will even entertain any such possibility.    



    science is on no-ones side. we don't dictate to science what nature should be - science dictates to us what nature is. however we have to be honest and objective about what the scientific data tells us. I simply think that people are wildly jumping the gun by thinking this study has the potential to explain the emergence of life - and many non-religous scientists would agree. abiogenesis is of course the currently favoured explanation in the scientific community - that doesn't mean we should all start nodding our heads and start making studies like this into something they're not

    Quote
    I really wish you would spend as much time pointing holes behind the scientific method in the goddiddit scenario,  in which you would need a dam to hold the water back, and I would then have no contention.



    the godidit scenario is not scientific so there's not really much to talk about  Tongue

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #86 - October 19, 2010, 02:00 PM

    you read the original article?

    You mean the research papers?  In which case no.


    Quote
    Actually I still dispute whether the evidence exists that evolution theory as it currently stands can explain all that we are - that was always the nature of my arguments.

     
    If you dispute evolutionary theory, then you are still a creationist  Cry

    Quote
    although again I do feel that we might uncover the scientific mechanisms - again something which I have always said. Things like the evolution of conciousness and other complex traits and molecular pathways etc. are critical areas.

    You have to be fair.  The evidence currently presented on abiogenesis & evolution, is far more than the goddidit it theory, for which we have nothing.  Zilch. Diddly-Squat.

    If I am to hypothesize on something that happened billions of years ago, then I will go with where the burden of evidence fits as my first point of call.

    So if you are to accuse me of adding faith on top of the evidence we currently have, I could accuse you of relying on faith alone.

    Quote
    science is on no-ones side. we don't dictate to science what nature should be - science dictates to us what nature is. however we have to be honest and objective about what the scientific data tells us. I simply think that people are wildly jumping the gun by thinking this study has the potential to explain the emergence of life - and many non-religous scientists would agree. abiogenesis is of course the currently favoured explanation in the scientific community - that doesn't mean we should all start nodding our heads and start making studies like this into something they're not

    It might not prove abiogenesis as a fact, but I believe all the evidence & experiments we current have strongly points towards it.  And I believe it will get even better as time goes by (and I would hazard a guess that you secretly do too Wink)




    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #87 - October 19, 2010, 02:28 PM

    Actually I still dispute whether the evidence exists that evolution theory as it currently stands can explain all that we are - that was always the nature of my arguments. The fact is, this evidence does not exist yet and there is still a huge amount to be done before we can say this - although again I do feel that we might uncover the scientific mechanisms - again something which I have always said. Things like the evolution of conciousness and other complex traits and molecular pathways etc. are critical areas.


    We have what ammounts to legal proof of evolution. What do you mean when you say the evidence is lacking? What evidence would be valid in your view?

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #88 - October 19, 2010, 02:57 PM

    Quote
    We have what ammounts to legal proof of evolution. What do you mean when you say the evidence is lacking? What evidence would be valid in your view?



    Sorry, I always seem to confuse people regarding this. I accept evolution as fact - what I'm saying is that current thinking is that evolution theory is the sole mechanism that can explain all that we are - this may be true, but currently, the scientific data to support such a claim does not yet exist. For example, as I mentioned issues such as the evolution of conciousness have yet to be addressed in a satisfactory manner. I also question whether the group survival model can account for the range of human emotions that we posess. In addition detailed step by step molecular accounts of how complex cellular pathways evolved is currently lacking. Evolutionary biologists will probably (one hopes at least) have better descriptions one day, but until then we should be open to the fact that there may be other mechanisms, which of course may well be and probably are scientific, that are involved that modify or complement our current theory in order that these things are more easily explained scientifically.

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Hello
     Reply #89 - October 19, 2010, 03:12 PM


    If you dispute evolutionary theory, then you are still a creationist  Cry


    I don't think you're reading what i write. I don't think my views would be disputed by any evolutionary biologist.

    Quote
    You have to be fair.  The evidence currently presented on abiogenesis & evolution, is far more than the goddidit it theory, for which we have nothing.  Zilch. Diddly-Squat.



    again the godidit theory has no place in a scientific discussion - i never once said this (i'm agnostic remember  Tongue )

    Quote
    If I am to hypothesize on something that happened billions of years ago, then I will go with where the burden of evidence fits as my first point of call.

    So if you are to accuse me of adding faith on top of the evidence we currently have, I could accuse you of relying on faith alone.



    again, i'm agnostic. and i'd rather wait until we actually have the scientific evidence rather than 'having faith on top of the scientific evidence' especially when the existing evidence is rather flimsy


    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »