Originally posted by ThePoint: Back in the 1920s and earlier, it was commonly agreed on by scientists, and widely accepted by the general public as a result, that some races were inferior to others(namely 'Negros' at the bottom and 'Caucasians' at the top). What does this show other then scientists are humans and reflect the common mindset of their times? And if we are going to judge science by the behaviour of it's practioners, then we should do the same for ALL. If we do that, we'll find everyone in the past was racist. These conclusions were arrived at with reference to the Scientific Method and the scientific knowledge as understood at that time. That is not true, there are no scientific grounds for racism. More precisely, the whole concept of race with regard to humans is scientifically valueless. We are all Homo sapien sapiens as far as science is concerned. Some scientists like Jane Goodall, believe we should go further and consider our closest relatives, the great apes, close enough to humans and give them equal rights. What do you think? At this point, a chorusof howls will echo from folks like Socod-Badane etc. that science is self-correcting etc. Not entirely true. Science is both self-correcting AND provisional enterprise. Nothing is set in stone, ideas are only believed as long as the evidence available supports them. They(amoebas) cannot ever possibly grasp or comprehend something as complex as the human mind or the human heart, with their abilities to think/plan, and feel emotions etc. How do you know about the complexity of the brain when, according to you, it is beyond our comprehension? We can fully comprehend the human heart. Aren't you familiar with heart trasplant, open surgeries..? We also can comprehend great deal about emotions, pain and all the other brain functions. As opposed to the self-correcting and always fallible human endeavour called science. To me, it is clear which takes precedent. Well, I don't share your view. Mainly because I don't believe in the false dichotomy you set up - science vs faith.

Originally posted by liibaan: I have noticed when it comes to Socod Badne and Johnny B, they seem to like to argue over nonsense when it comes to the Qur'an. Where? Surely not in this thread. Whether scientists argue the universe was nothing at one time or if some little piece of crap was there, is irrevelant. It is very relevant to scientists and that is all that matters since this is a discussion about science. The author is simply making the point that the theory of the big bang cannot be trusted or relied upon, because of the simple fact he stated that things do not come together by themselves. He did more then that, I pointed them out in my 1st rebuttal. So while you two are arguing over bullsh*t like it's unoriginal or what scientists say, our sister is giving us da'wa on a topic of extreme importance. What da'wa? Proud-Muslimah (I don't fault her for anything BTW) posted an article that was full of scientific errors. I discovered the errors and corrected them. What else should I've done?

Jimca lee and Hitlerette, meow! keep it up ladies!

Originally posted by Yoonis_Cadue: Another ****** theory. So is the Theory of Gravity. Well that's not scientic then in the true sense of the word. You're insulting our intelligence by saying that it can't be proven for certain if that's the case you've failed in your understanding of the matter in dispute if you are not able to prove it. I doubt you'd know what a proper scientific theory is even if it came up to you and btich slapped you in the face. As I said before prove is not part of science's lexicon. The reason being science is provisional, sensitive to change and revision. Science theories are based on the best knowledge of the time they're formulated. But since our knowledge is always growing/changing, so are the theories they support. Scientific theories change with time. They get revised, strengthed, weakened or outright discredited by new information/knowledge. At the end of the day, science is about knowledge and understanding of the physical world. Prove entails logic -- which is the manipulation of symbols with a 100% certainty. But sometimes (not often) logic and reality disagree in which case -- and always! -- reality wins. So then Yoonis, if 'prove/logic' and reality are not always in agreement, how do you 'prove' scientific theories? From your posts, it is apparent to everyone you have no understanding of how science theories are obtained. The objective criteria used to formulate them. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the ABCs of scientific theories. Here is a link that might help you, that is if you're not lazy: Introduction to the Scientific Method

Originally posted by Yoonis_Cadue: So you don't believe that we decended from apes, right? I've already answered that twice. What would answering it a 3rd time do? I know we didn't descend from apes. But they are your closest relatives, aren't they? According to the latest gene study results, chimps are our closest relatives. Please prove me wrong Again, there is no such thing as 'prove' in science. Prove is mathematical concept, no science. Science is tentative enterprise and based on inductive reasoning. Its all about evidence and testable hypothesis. No science theory can be proven, only demonstrated and supported with facts and experiments. As such, I can not 'prove' to you chimps are our closest relatives. However, I have very compelling evidence. Like this study find: New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level

Originally posted by Yoonis_Cadue: For example if a murderer decides to kill not a whole group of people but instead he decides to kill lets say two of them doesn't he play god because he decides who should live and who should die. No, I disagree. But you can think of it that way if you like. However, that is not what you originally said. Here is what you said, the revised statement: Originally posted by Yoonis_Cadue: Sorry my fault it was meant to say "They also play god and put profit before human life and suffering. Your new analogy is a whole different can of beans.

Originally posted by Yoonis_Cadue: So therefore Socod_badne you can't deny that. Oh I can! According to evolution theory we (humans) did not descend from apes. You just don't know what Evolution theory says. Do me a favour and go google search Evolution Theory and read up what the theory says. Then come and tell me if it says we descended from apes. I know who we -- according to evolution theory -- descended from, it aint apes. You're only speaking from your own point of view True with added caveat: not all POVs are equal. everyone knows that the "theory of evolution" is everywhere You don't. So you're wrong. Again! that the majority of scientists believe in it. Wait a minute! Didn't you tell me you spoke to scientist who said: Originally posted by Yoonis_Cadue: All scientists I spoke to believe in this irrational and comical view of evalution. C'mon, Yoonis, admit you're making up stuff now. I know you are (as most reasonable of this site are) but drop the pretense that you know what you're talking about. I have even seen somali&muslim scientists saying that evolution is a proven theory, so let's not pretend otherwise. Well, they're incompetent scientists because there is no proven science theory. Not even theory of gravity.

Originally posted by Yoonis_Cadue: Sorry my fault it was meant to say "They also play god and put profit before human life and suffering. You're still saying the same thing. If they play like God and put profit before human life and suffering, then you're saying God does the same too. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Originally posted by ThePoint: What began the Big Bang? Does the theory have no explanation as to how it got its start? We don't know what began the Big Bang. If we go back in time, say rewind the creation of this universe, we'll end up hitting a brick wall which we can't see or know what's the other side of it. That is called point of singularity and all mathematics breaks down since the beginnning of this universe -- commencing at the point of singularity -- was coupled with the creation of time and space. If there is no answer - I have no problems. Then, you're happy I guess.

Originally posted by Yoonis_Cadue: All scientists I spoke to believe in this irrational and comical view of evalution. You're lying! You didn't speak to professional 'scientists.' BTW do you really belief all the things scientists tell you. No, only those things evidence and tested predictions suupport. Do we really originate from apes. How come what is the evidence. We didn't originate from apes. There is no evidence for that. what Iam trying to say is that science nowadays has replaced religion. That is not true. Science was never intended to replace religion, politics, culture, tradition etc. It's sole purpose is to seek knowledge. That has been the case in the past and always will be. I don't know where you got the idea science wants to replace religion. Mind sharing? A scientists claims something and people believe in it like it is a revelation from god. That is not scientists fault then, is it? When scientists proclaim a discovery, they always have good evidence to back up. They also play god by putting profit before human life and suffering. What are you saying here? That God puts profit before human life? I don't even know what to make of it but please elaborate.

Originally posted by ThePoint: Big Bang states that the 'Bang' occurred at random - thus the author's statment - 'something coming out of nothing'. Again, that is not what the Big Bang (BB) theory says at all. The author of the article was simply wrong. Nothing comes from nothing, there is no science theory that says that.

Originally posted by Yoonis_Cadue: So most of the time scientists talk nonsense. What a patently false remark! It only bespeaks of bigotry on your part or woeful ignorance. If what you say above were true, how do you account for all the technological advancements of our age? No serious scientist worth his salt talks nonsense. Only you. With regard to this story, I'm not surprised at all. Things like this have happened and surely will happen again in the future. But the great advantage science has over all other human enterprises is it has in place the mechanisms/tools for self-correction. In fact, it is the only purely human enterprise that corrects its own mistakes and that is why science is progressive. Evidence for this progress is seen in the proliferation and sophistication of technology. Any unscrupulous scientist, for whatever personal reason, may claim dubious scientific discoveries/results. But it won't last the test of time, science will eventually uncover it. That is what scientists do everyday, they test and verify old theories.

Originally posted by Ahura: Delightful Socod-Badne is looking to get b!tch-slapped. I would be happy to hold him down if Sheh wants to do the honours. :cool: Shoo away! I seek peace and comity. Me want no trouble. Abaadir, Thanks for the heads-up.

^^^Ooh, she sent el comandante Castro to speak for her. Poor Sheh, didn't know she was that fragile. Sorry Sheh, I promise to leave ya alone... for a while. Maalin dambe bey noo dambeysaa! In the meantime, my proud hooyo baa suuqa uga soo adeygayaa. Nabad galyo!

^^^Just giving ya a reality check. Where is the gratitude :confused: I'll do it again if need be and you can certain that I will see to it. What are the odds? Pretty darn good becuz I keep my word and I'm not an empty shirt like you; who threatens to beat ppl into oblivion only to bulk at the last minute. THAT is why you can't get a job and my sympathy.

Oh poor Shehrezade is crying over spilled milk! To tell ya the truth, I aint surprised no one wants to hire ya. It has nothing to do with you belonging to the inferior sex, it's your attitude. To be blunt: you lack the gumption. You can't complete a task. Who wants to hire such person? Only your bloated ego!

Originally posted by *Proud_Muslimah*: Question: So how come we don't challenge a theory of something coming from nothing and then colliding in the cosmos to make the universe? Because such theory doesn't exist. The Big Bang theory says nothing about the creation of the universe, only this universe. The one we're experiencing NOW. And it surely doesn't speculate this universe came from nothing. That would violate the cause and effect relationship which is the mainstay of science. This author is clearly speaking from ignorance.

Originally posted by Castro: ^ I think she meant to say suppress, not oppress. OK but what gives? It's still voluntary and up to each women unless I'm missing something.

That is why it is prudent to pause and think before destroying your nation to defend and preserve petty and primitive differences. Somalis have no right to complain about racists, since they're world's dumbest racists.

Go for it! If it makes you happy, why not. For verily Allah knows what's best for you.

^^^Nope. No soul or spirit either in our earthly dimension. I believe in the existance of 'souls' but purely on FAITH since I can't prove it.

Originally posted by Modesty: Ovulation is healthy part of being woman, no one has the right to oppress this God given gift. It might be painful sometimes, but you have to stick to it. How can any1 oppress you when taking it is entirely voluntary?

I don't watch TV so can't really comment. But kudos to her for losing wait. Americans (and Canadians too) are eating themselves to death.

Of course there is no such thing as 'mind.' Mind is what brains do. No brain, no mind. Since the brain is NOT inheritable, there is no reason to expect cloned individual will behave like its copy. And as studies of the brain show, alteration of brain activity permanently (ie brain damage) or temporarly (ie drugs) changes the 'mind' or 'personality' of the individual.

Originally posted by Modesty: If you educate a man, you educate an individual, but if you educate a woman, you educate society. Woman are the ones who are the primary teachers of society. You're wrong or sexist like him. If you educate a man, you educate society too. Men and women are like the left and right hand of society. Institute gender inequality and you'll be HALF as productive since you'll have only 1 hand available for work. Compare the gender status in the developed and developing world. You'll notice there is greater gender equality in the developed world then the developing world. This fact is consistant pretty much across the globe. Patterns like this, especially with such convincing statistical density, indicate a cause. Namely, greater equality between the sexes produces generally better off society!