NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:
I don't see anything pseudonymous in brother Adnan using the name Harun Yahya, either.

---

Is the guy's name Harun Yahya or not? If not then the name is de facto a pseudonym.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Thats not how it goes. A pseudonym refers to a fictitous name whereas Harun Yahya is a nick adopted by brother Adnan on the basis that the name is the combination of the name of two Prophets, who, are not fictitous.Of course, the other meaning for pseudonym is pen name and if you want to say Harun Yahya is a pseudonym on the basis that it is a pen name then I have no argument.Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:
Thats not how it goes.

---

Yeah, it does. In English, it does work that way. If a person writes under a name that is not that person's birth/legal name, that person is using a pseudonym. It isn't usually used derogatively. To get that effect one adds something like "hiding behind a ..."

quote:

---

A pseudonym refers to a fictitous name

---

Gee... ficticious is ok with you but pseudo -- meaning false-- isn't?

quote:

---

whereas Harun Yahya is a nick adopted by brother Adnan on the basis that the name is the combination of the name of two Prophets, who, are not fictitous.

---

It is a pseudopnym nonetheless. The difference in English is that nicknames are usually given to a person by someone else while pseudonyms are usually consciously chosen by the person using it. Why are you trying to dress this up? The real issue is whether Yahya is hiding behind the name isn't it?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

John,

quote:

---

The real issue is whether Yahya is hiding behind the name isn't it?

---

He is not hiding behind the name. He does reveal his real name in About the Author section of his site.Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:
He is not hiding behind the name. He does reveal his real name in About the Author section of his site.

---

That's fine by me. I believe that Andya feels that he is hiding, but I didn't comment on that. I only commented on your use of 'pseudonym' It sounds nit-picky, but really, it is all in good faith. It seemed to me that you were incorporating a misunderstanding of English into your dialog with Andya. I pointed it out. You are still free to believe that I am wrong about the word's usage, but at least you know have another perspective.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

As I see it, recent developments in science (molecular biology, paleontology, genetics, etc.) happen to lend more support to evolution by natural selection. No scientific theory has ever survived being upheld only by ideology. Just look at how Lysenkoism look today.As he summarizes these key points scientifically, I also will answer scientifically. It was his challenge that started me:'It should be pointed out that evolutionists have no answer to give to the book you are now reading. And they will not even attempt to answer it for they are aware that such an act will simply help everyone to a better understanding that evolution is simply a lie.'--Harun Yahya.What science do you study and where? Do you major in Biology?

His real name's Adnan Oktar, born 1956. He has a degree from the MImar Sinan University, Faculty of Fine Arts. He challenges Darwinism because the local secularists use it to support their own view; Oktar is a deeply religious man so he cannot accept secularism.OTOH, given the exposure he had enjoyed, I suspect that 'Harun Yahya' is not just Adnan Oktar, but actually a committee. Harun Yahya is/are very productive, having written 120+ books and articles.http://www.harunyahya.com

Andya Primanda,

quote:

---

As I see it, recent developments in science (molecular biology, paleontology, genetics, etc.) happen to lend more support to evolution by natural selection.

---

On the contrary, recent developments in science has shed much more light on the origin of mankind and the universe as a whole. We have observed the irreducible complexity in numerous organelles of living organisms (eg - bacterial flagellum, ATP synthase molecule, proteins etc)which refutes evolution. The recent discovery of the cambrian explosion that occured 500-550 million years ago has refuted the very definition of evolution. And then we have the discovery of the Toumai fossil which had the impact of a small nuclear bomb on evolution according to Lieberman and which evolutionists (like you) are constantly trying to refute and back each other up but it all ends in futility. But anyways, thats my point of view. At the end of the day it all boils down according to Al-Quran, "To you be your way and to me mine".Salam,
Ahmad

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:
On the contrary, recent developments in science has shed much more light on the origin of mankind and the universe as a whole. We have observed the irreducible complexity in numerous organelles of living organisms (eg - bacterial flagellum, ATP synthase molecule, proteins etc)which refutes evolution.

---

These arguments are really nothing more than personal incredulity. Since one does not understand a process, it must be supernatural. This is exactly how primitves view(ed) the universe.

quote:

---

The recent discovery of the cambrian explosion that occured 500-550 million years ago has refuted the very definition of evolution.

---

Recent discovery??? Sorry, but you just blew your credibility off the board. Besides, evolution easily accomodates this 'explosion' that was really not an explosion. You are way behind the curve on this one.

quote:

---

And then we have the discovery of the Toumai fossil which had the impact of a small nuclear bomb on evolution according to Lieberman and which evolutionists (like you) are constantly trying to refute and back each other up but it all ends in futility. But anyways, thats my point of view. At the end of the day it all boils down according to Al-Quran, "To you be your way and to me mine".

---

I will agree with the last statement, but remember: it will put you at a disadvantage when it comes down to scientific progress.

A school board, the lowest level of government in education, has decided to allow the teaching of creationism.As soon as some parent complains, the ACLU will blow this out of the water. Schools have been trying to teach creationism as science for over twenty years, and have always failed in the courts as soon as it is brought up. My personal estimate is that the Creationists in Georgia have about two years before being humiliated once again.

quote:

---

One the contrary, evolution contradicts the very essense of Science.

---

Really? How? Please be very specific, explaining what "the very essence of science" is, according to you (with references, preferably), and also exactly how the Theory of Evolution violates science in any way.

quote:

---

Recent developments in science completely disprove the theory of evolution.

---

Really? Which developments are those, and why are religious fundamentalists the only ones who seem to know about these developments?Please cite peer-reviewed work from the professional literature, please.

quote:

---

The only reason Darwinism is still foisted on people by means of a worldwide propaganda campaign lies in the ideological aspects of the theory.

---

Ah, the Evilutionist conspiracy theory!You will have to do better than baseless assertions and conspiracy theories to be taken seriously here, I'm afraid.

quote:

---

Brother Harun Yahya summarizes all these key points, scientifically.

---

Um, no he doesn't. He just parrots the disinformation propagated, for decades, by the Protestant Christian fundamentalist groups in the US. They bear a striking resemblance to each other, really.It's the same old stuff wrapped in a Muslim package. What you don't realize yet is that these are all very old arguments that were refuted long ago.If these old arguments were valid, and if they had stood up to the rigors of the scientific method, they would have been incorporated into mainstram science long ago. They haven't. This should tell you something.

quote:

---

And since I am a science student, who undesrtands how science fuctions, I have a better grasp over this subject. Of course, I am always open for corrections and rebuttals, nonetheless.

---

OK, why don't you briefly explain to us how you think that science functions, and also give us a short explanation of the scientific method and how to tell the difference between real science and speudoscience?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
If these old arguments were valid, and if they had stood up to the rigors of the scientific method, they would have been incorporated into mainstram science long ago. They haven't. This should tell you something.

---

but.... but.... what about the conspiracy of godless atheist devil worshipping Darwinists?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

These arguments are really nothing more than personal incredulity. Since one does not understand a process, it must be supernatural. This is exactly how primitves view(ed) the universe.

---

So irreducible complexity in living organisms cannot be understood? Is that a primitive view, as you state it? I rather doubt. The very phrase [b][i]Irreducible Complexity[/b][/i] explains its meaning, i.e, something that CANNOT be further simplified. For more info, read Michael Behe's book, "Darwin's black box".

quote:

---

Recent discovery??? Sorry, but you just blew your credibility off the board. Besides, evolution easily accomodates this 'explosion' that was really not an explosion. You are way behind the curve on this one.

---

Since I did not blow my credibility off the board, your accusation is moot. Getting back to the subject, Darwin himself admitted that his theory CANNOT explain cambrian explosion (Origin of Species — 2nd ed. Chapter IX). And this, indeed, is an [b]explosion[/i] in the sense that it was an abrupt appearance of most of the complex invertebrates present in the fossil record.

quote:

---

I will agree with the last statement, but remember: it will put you at a disadvantage when it comes down to scientific progress.

---

I'll take your advise. Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:

​

So irreducible complexity in living organisms cannot be understood? Is that a primitive view, as you state it? I rather doubt. The very phrase [b][i]Irreducible Complexity[/b][/i] explains its meaning, i.e, something that CANNOT be further simplified. For more info, read Michael Behe's book, "Darwin's black box".

---

Irreducible complexity has NEVER been demonstrated in the genome. Never, not once, not even Behe showed it. You seem to be talking as if IC is a fact, it isn't.

quote:

---

Recent discovery??? Sorry, but you just blew your credibility off the board. Besides, evolution easily accomodates this 'explosion' that was really not an explosion. You are way behind the curve on this one. .........

​

Since I did not blow my credibility off the board, your accusation is moot. Getting back to the subject, Darwin himself admitted that his theory CANNOT explain cambrian explosion (Origin of Species — 2nd ed. Chapter IX). And this, indeed, is an explosion in the sense that it was an abrupt appearance of most of the complex invertebrates present in the fossil record.

---

Well if Darwin knew of the Cambrian explosion, it wasn't a recent discovery then, was it? The Cambrian explosion is almost as old as fossils. The Cambrian explosion poses a "problem", in that the "whole organism" paleontological evidence shows a rapid burst of change. The timescale still numbers in the several millions of years, however. There are numerous evidences of metazoans in the pre-cambrian, burrows & other trace fossils for example. Plus molecular evidence places the explosion before the Cambrian too. The real time taken to go from worm to trilobite is unknown.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:
So irreducible complexity in living organisms cannot be understood? Is that a primitive view, as you state it? I rather doubt. The very phrase [b][i]Irreducible Complexity[/b][/i] explains its meaning, i.e, something that CANNOT be further simplified. For more info, read Michael Behe's book, "Darwin's black box".

---

I think what you are saying is, "we do not understand how complexity can be reduced, therefor we need some supernatural agency to create it." This is really different only in degree from appeasing the volcano gods with human sacrifices.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Recent discovery??? Sorry, but you just blew your credibility off the board. Besides, evolution easily accomodates this 'explosion' that was really not an explosion. You are way behind the curve on this one.

---

​

Since I did not blow my credibility off the board, your accusation is moot. Getting back to the subject, Darwin himself admitted that his theory CANNOT explain cambrian explosion (Origin of Species — 2nd ed. Chapter IX).

---

So, then, if Darwin knew about the 'Cambrian explosion' how can you call it a 'recent discovery?' Charles Darwin died in 1882! Actually, the Cambrian 'explosion' been known for a long time and it has provided no obstacle to evolutionary theory. Why don't you check out something more recent than Darwin's own writings? Or is it easier to pick on the dead guy's ideas? [quote]...And this, indeed, is an explosion[/i] in the sense that it was an abrupt appearance of most of the complex invertebrates present in the fossil record.[/quote]Well, if an explosion can last tens of millions of years, I suppose you are right. The problem is that modern theory more accuratedly referes to the 'explosion' a 'slow burn'. Your sources are a bit out of date.Now, if all of the invertebrates in the fossil record appeared in the Cambrian, where are the pelecypods? The starfish? Nautiloids? It seems there are a few missing. Why is that?