Should evolution be taught in high school?

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Yup, MUQ has committed the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy. In so doing, he has to pretend that over 12,000 U.S.*Christian clergy*(who fit the very idea of "religious people") have not signed a public statement indicating their acceptance of the theory of evolution.

One would be hard pressed to find a logical fallacy that MUQ has not tripped over repeatedly, head first into the donkey poop. He is almost a classic case study is "indoctrination generated idiocy".

Chimney wrote:

The real scientists will get the Nobel prize while the "Muslim scientists" will continue their 400 year unbroken record of adding zero to the sum of human knowledge.

Actually, the Muslim mathematicians who added "zero" to scientific knowledge significantly moved science forward. Whole area's of science and mathematics would still be struggling without the concept of "zero".

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, the Muslim mathematicians who added "zero" to scientific knowledge significantly moved science forward. Whole area's of science and mathematics would still be struggling without the concept of "zero".

I think his point can be summed up with the question;

'What have they done since then?'

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, the Muslim mathematicians who added "zero" to scientific knowledge significantly moved science forward. Whole area's of science and mathematics would still be struggling without the concept of "zero".

But "Muslim mathematicians" were not the ones that came up with the concept of zero. The concept of a symbol for zero had been around for centuries before Mohamed. Babylonians, during a resurgence of the city's power had developed the concept previous to 300 BC.

Even the so-called "Arabic numerals" did not originate with the Arabs. Europeans merely obtained them by way of the Arabs. The number system originated in India.

This is not to say that no advances in mathematics were made by the Arabs. They did make some advances in algebra (the word is derived from Arabic) by building on concepts discovered by the Greeks.

Christopher Pearsoll wrote:

<quoted text>
I think his point can be summed up with the question;
'What have they done since then?'

Uh....."Zero"?

SupaAFC wrote:

<quoted text>
...
To paraphrase Stan Marsh: "What do you mean who caused 9/11? A bunch of pissed-off Muslims of course."

Yea, bush said so, and we would never question anything bush said. Remember that CIA video they presented showing some guy who claimed to be Bin Laden who admitted to it? Just because it didn't look like Bin Laden in any way means that he wore a disguise. Never doubt anything bush says.

Kong_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Uh....."Zero"?

In grad school, I took a master's level algebra course with a prof named Zierau...pronounced "zero".

Some one is again trying to teach me what science is and what evolution is, as if I do not know it.

I have mentioned many times that science is only the study of cause and effect. It has no place for philosophy or theorization, if it does, then it goes beyond its scope.

It is not necessary for any scientist to know every thing (no one can do that also, for sure), but he should not comment on some thing and be firm in his comment without knowing most of it.

Take the case of this Universe and every thing in it. Can any reasonable man think that all this would have happened without a Creator just by itself?

The people of bygone ages could be pardoned for saying so, because they did not have enough knowledge. But in this age, when we have used powerful telescopes to see countless galaxies and stars all moving in coordinated orbits and following same laws… how can we for an instant believe that they came just by themselves?

The laws of Physics, Thermodynamics and every other branch…indeed prove that there is a single Creator. The laws did not create themselves. How could the same laws be applicable in every part of this universe?

The same thing happens for life, its origin , and its proliferation. If people of bygone centuries denied the existence of a Creator, they could be excused.

But how come a modern scientist who sees with his own eyes, the intricacies and the details that is available even in the smallest unit of life forms, how can he be not amazed at the power and mercy of Creator?

How can a scientist say, that it all happened by itself without any Plan, Design or Creator? If he says that, then he is not a True Scientist.

Further when they are unable to prove any of their hypothesis by “Creating themselves” any living thing, a thing as small and negligible as a “House Fly”!!

The writer says that I am blinded by my religious beliefs, I say that he is blinded by his Atheist beliefs.!!

What caused the destruction of WTC Towers on 9/11 Part-5

The presence of Pacific Scientific Energetics (PSE) in this list of 1999 NSWC-IH contractors is interesting because PSE was the parent company of Special Devices, Inc (SDI). SDI specializes in explosives for defense, aerospace and mining applications, and was acquired in 1998 by John Lehman, 9/11 Commissioner, member of the Project for a New American Century, and former Secretary of the Navy (SDI 2008). Lehman divested in 2001.

With this in mind, it is worthwhile to reiterate that nano-thermite materials were very likely used in the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings, but most certainly played only a part in the plan. However, other high-tech explosives were available to those who had access to nano-thermite materials at the time.

Like SDI, several other organizations with links to military, space and intelligence programs (e.g. In-Q-Tel, Orbital Science) have access to many types of high-tech explosives to cut high-strength bolts and produce pyrotechnic events (Goldstein 2006). These organizations also have connections to those who could have accessed the buildings, like WTC tenant Marsh & McLennan and former NASA administrator and Securacom director, James Abrahamson.

In any case, it is important for those seeking the truth about 9/11 to consider what organizations and people had access to the technologies that were used to accomplish the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings. It is also important to recognize the links between those who had access to the technologies, those who had access to the buildings, and those who produced the clearly false official reports.

To that end we should note that NIST had considerable connections to nano-thermites, both before and during the WTC investigation. It is therefore inexplicable why NIST did not consider such materials as an explanation for the fires that burned on 9/11, and long afterward at Ground Zero. This fact would not be inexplicable, of course, if those managing the NIST investigation knew to not look, or test, for such materials.
(contd.)

What caused the destruction of WTC Towers on 9/11 Part-6

References:

1. http://www.p2pays.org/ref/15/14610.pdf

2.
http://www.asafm.army.mil/budget/fybm/fy01/rf...

3. http://www.dodsbir.net/solicitation/sbir082/a...

4. http://www.battelle.org/solutions/...

5. http://www.enme.umd.edu/cnmm/

6. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php...

7. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.js...

8. http://www.nano.gov/html/res/DefenseNano2005....

9. http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/attachment...

10. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200...

11. http://www.flcmidatlantic.org/interagency_clu...

12. http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/866/HOTWC/HOTWC2006/...

13. http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire02/PDF/...

14. https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/247064.pdf

15. https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/244137.pdf

16. https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/303520.pdf

17. http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/fa...

18. http://www.grc.org/programs.aspx...

19. http://www.grc.org/programs.aspx...

20. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200...

21. http://www.911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc...
22. http://cat.inist.fr/...

23. http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/W...

24. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200...

25. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200...

And Many Many other references.

MUQ wrote:

What caused the destruction of WTC Towers on 9/11 Part-5
The presence of Pacific Scientific Energetics (PSE) in this list of 1999 NSWC-IH contractors is interesting because PSE was the parent company of Special Devices, Inc (SDI). SDI specializes in explosives for defense, aerospace and mining applications, and was acquired in 1998 by John Lehman, 9/11 Commissioner, member of the Project for a New American Century, and former Secretary of the Navy (SDI 2008). Lehman divested in 2001.
With this in mind, it is worthwhile to reiterate that nano-thermite materials were very likely used in the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings, but most certainly played only a part in the plan. However, other high-tech explosives were available to those who had access to nano-thermite materials at the time.
Like SDI, several other organizations with links to military, space and intelligence programs (e.g. In-Q-Tel, Orbital Science) have access to many types of high-tech explosives to cut high-strength bolts and produce pyrotechnic events (Goldstein 2006). These organizations also have connections to those who could have accessed the buildings, like WTC tenant Marsh & McLennan and former NASA administrator and Securacom director, James Abrahamson.
In any case, it is important for those seeking the truth about 9/11 to consider what organizations and people had access to the technologies that were used to accomplish the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings. It is also important to recognize the links between those who had access to the technologies, those who had access to the buildings, and those who produced the clearly false official reports.
To that end we should note that NIST had considerable connections to nano-thermites, both before and during the WTC investigation. It is therefore inexplicable why NIST did not consider such materials as an explanation for the fires that burned on 9/11, and long afterward at Ground Zero. This fact would not be inexplicable, of course, if those managing the NIST investigation knew to not look, or test, for such materials.
(contd.)

You are still fantasizing and still pathetic, Mq.
OK, for the sake of argument, let's say 911 was an incredibly complex and successful effort to "make Islam look baaaad". So; that just leaves the endless day-by-day, week-to-week, month-to-month, year-in, year-out CENTURIES upon CENTURIES of muslim depravity...MOST of that depravity, fortunately, was and is still inflicted upon other muslims.
Carry on, by all means.

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
In grad school, I took a master's level algebra course with a prof named Zierau...pronounced "zero".

Heeheehee...HI, DAR!...smoootch!

MUQ wrote:

Some one is again trying to teach me what science is and what evolution is, as if I do not know it.

Gee, I wonder why that is...

MUQ wrote:

Some one is again trying to teach me what science is and what evolution is, as if I do not know it.

You DON'T know, that's the problem.

MUQ wrote:

Some one is again trying to teach me what science is and what evolution is, as if I do not know it.

As if? It's obvious that you HAVE NO CLUE what science and evolution are. To you, evolution is still about a ball of sludge "randomly" becoming a giraffe overnight.

MUQ wrote:

I have mentioned many times that science is only the study of cause and effect. It has no place for philosophy or theorization, if it does, then it goes beyond its scope.

So, what's the problem?

MUQ wrote:

It is not necessary for any scientist to know every thing (no one can do that also, for sure), but he should not comment on some thing and be firm in his comment without knowing most of it.

A scientist simply works with the info available. And stop exclusively referring to a scientist as "he".

MUQ wrote:

Take the case of this Universe and every thing in it. Can any reasonable man think that all this would have happened without a Creator just by itself?
The people of bygone ages could be pardoned for saying so, because they did not have enough knowledge. But in this age,...-content removed for character count space-

Argument from incredulity, and contradicts what science is about that you even conceded: cause and effect. If you want to show that the "cause" was a creator, then show us the evidence. To date, there is no evidence of any magical creator.

MUQ wrote:

The writer says that I am blinded by my religious beliefs, I say that he is blinded by his Atheist beliefs.!!

And that is validated by your above argument from incredulity. You continue to validate this refutation with every single post you type up.

And you try the same bullsh!t retort on atheism. Irrelevent since 1), the beliefs/non beliefs of scientists never conflict with their studies (unless they are frauds - see Behe, Yahya et all); 2) the absence of evidence for a creator -is- the evidence for atheism, and 3), you are being wholly judgemental as for all you know, you just called a Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Deist scientist an Atheist. How judgemental of you, MUQ.

When are you going to start giving us reason to take you seriously? All you do is whine about being persecuted for your fundie Islamic beliefs and play the "well I can't see how things can happen WITHOUT a creator" card, ie, the argument from incredulity. One of the biggest fallacies in the argumentative code.

MUQ wrote:

Some one is again trying to teach me what science is and what evolution is, as if I do not know it.
I have mentioned many times that science is only the study of cause and effect. It has no place for philosophy or theorization, if it does, then it goes beyond its scope.

While you're technically right, do not even try and imply that philosophy and theosophy are better than science.

Take a look around you and tell us what around you you owe to science and what, if anything, you owe to philosophy and/or religion.

MUQ wrote:

It is not necessary for any scientist to know every thing (no one can do that also, for sure), but he should not comment on some thing and be firm in his comment without knowing most of it.

So, no scientist should have an opinion on anything unless they KNOW enough about it?

Perhaps you should turn that lesson in on yourself. You clearly don't know much about the Universe, and yet you make claims like:

MUQ wrote:

Take the case of this Universe and every thing in it. Can any reasonable man think that all this would have happened without a Creator just by itself?

It's perfectly reasonable when you consider the fact that there is no one solid piece of evidence that lends credence to the notion of any kind of designer. You might as well argue "Take a look under the Christmas tree. Can any reasonable man think that all those presents got there by themselves without Santa Claus?"

MUQ wrote:

The people of bygone ages could be pardoned for saying so, because they did not have enough knowledge. But in this age, when we have used powerful telescopes to see countless galaxies and stars all moving in coordinated orbits and following same laws… how can we for an instant believe that they came just by themselves?
The laws of Physics, Thermodynamics and every other branch…indeed prove that there is a single Creator. The laws did not create themselves. How could the same laws be applicable in every part of this universe?

Assumptions piled on assumptions. You assume all the Universe follows the same laws, and you assume that physical laws are evidence of a designer. Neither assumption you can support with the slightest bit of evidence. Physical laws are only evidence of physical laws - nothing else.

MUQ wrote:

The same thing happens for life, its origin , and its proliferation. If people of bygone centuries denied the existence of a Creator, they could be excused.

Then explain why as science advances, people of religion dwindle in number.

MUQ wrote:

But how come a modern scientist who sees with his own eyes, the intricacies and the details that is available even in the smallest unit of life forms, how can he be not amazed at the power and mercy of Creator?

Because a modern scientist, as with any person of intelligence, would know that complexity does not have to be designed. Case in point: the human body, all biological systems and atomic structures, crystals, etc.

MUQ wrote:

How can a scientist say, that it all happened by itself without any Plan, Design or Creator? If he says that, then he is not a True Scientist.

How dare you say such a truly stupid thing. You have no idea of anything to do with science, so how dare you think that you have a monopoly on who qualifies as a scientist and who doesn't? Based on religion, of all thinks. Truly, you are a pathetic soul with no idea how the real world works beyond your ancient superstitions. I strongly suggest you reevaluate you entire outlook on this world of ours.

MUQ wrote:

Further when they are unable to prove any of their hypothesis by “Creating themselves” any living thing, a thing as small and negligible as a “House Fly”!!

So, because we can't "prove" something, we have no right to think it's true.

Again, apply this argument to yourself and your entire argument falls to pieces.

MUQ wrote:

The writer says that I am blinded by my religious beliefs, I say that he is blinded by his Atheist beliefs.!!

No I'm not. You openly admit that you think religious beliefs make someone more reliable. I say they don't. You also openly admit that you will not accept the words of anyone, scientist or otherwise, if they do not share you beliefs. I do not. You have also claimed that anyone who claims to share your beliefs but doesn't agree with your views on science isn't a "true" theist. I do not. You claim any scientist who doesn't hold a theistic viewpoint like yours is not a "true" scientist. I do not.

Honestly, remove the beam from your eye you total and utter fool.

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, the Muslim mathematicians who added "zero" to scientific knowledge significantly moved science forward. Whole area's of science and mathematics would still be struggling without the concept of "zero".

Yes - but not in the last 400 years. Actually, the last 700 to be more accurate.

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, the Muslim mathematicians who added "zero" to scientific knowledge significantly moved science forward. Whole area's of science and mathematics would still be struggling without the concept of "zero".

"Actually" it was not Muslim but Indian mathematicians who first used true zero. An invention appropriated to the Muslims by later conquest.

MUQ wrote:

Some one is again trying to teach me what science is and what evolution is, as if I do not know it.

Clearly you do not know it. For example, you still raise idiotic issues like "transitional forms" and ask what is "natural selection" as if these things have not been explained repeatedly.

I have mentioned many times that science is only the study of cause and effect.

This is an utterly inadequate definition of science. So you do not know what science is.

It has no place for philosophy or theorization, if it does, then it goes beyond its scope.

So the theories of gravity, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, the germ theory of disease, tectonic plate theory, big bang theory, all these are beyond the scope of science by your puerile definition.
In any case you have contradicted yourself. You say science is "only the study of cause and effect" Theories ARE only explanations of cause and effect. See MUQ - there are facts, collected from our observations of nature. Then there are THEORIES - explanations of cause and effect to explain those facts.

It is not necessary for any scientist to know every thing (no one can do that also, for sure), but he should not comment on some thing and be firm in his comment without knowing most of it.

I WILL REMIND YOU THAT YOU SAID THIS next time you try to claim lack of knowledge of abiogenesis or the big bang makes evolution invalid - as you have repeatedly tried to do.

Take the case of this Universe and every thing in it. Can any reasonable man think that all this would have happened without a Creator just by itself?

Yes, many reasonable men can and do think that. Just blows your mind, doesn’t it. However I do remind you for the 100th time that atheism is not an essential part of any scientific theory including TOE and even BTOE.

The laws did not create themselves. How could the same laws be applicable in every part of this universe?

I do not know the origin of those laws, or even if that is a valid question to ask. Neither do you. The difference is, you pretend to.
At least there is ONE thing we can have confidence in. If there is a "creator", it is nothing like the fantasy stories dreamed up by the Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Science has a least shown that much.