Quote:
Originally Posted by eanassir
The atheist are puffed up with pride
Science cannot tell the age of the universe, neither how it was born, nor that it will end or not?
Moreover, they think that they may have reached the ultimate level of science!
I can simulate this like a child in the kindergarten and gives opinion about the university sciences.
It is very ridiculous that men like Dawkins and Lurence speak things and ascribe it to science: how they cheat themselves and others ... those who believe and admire them and clap hands for them.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by eanassir
The atheist are puffed up with pride
Science cannot tell the age of the universe, neither how it was born, nor that it will end or not?
Moreover, they think that they may have reached the ultimate level of science!
I can simulate this like a child in the kindergarten and gives opinion about the university sciences.
It is very ridiculous that men like Dawkins and Lurence speak things and ascribe it to science: how they cheat themselves and others ... those who believe and admire them and clap hands for them.
|
Sorry.
EPIC FAILS, and on so many levels! c
1) Not all atheists are scientists. In fat, most everyday atheists are NOT scientists.
Most scientists, however, are
atheists, but we are also not PUFFED UP WITH PRIDE
) (PS" What sort of pride, pray tell?)
It seems to be you and your ideas of extreme Islam that are puffed up and exaggerated. Your ideas about advanced Islamic "science", and their imagined place as the originators of all modern science
(now THAT's a real laugh! 
) are the result of those brainwashing sessions down at the mosque. Because it's
for sure not born out by experience, factual evidence or our experience.
As well, your cockeyed statement that science thinks it's reached some ultimate level of knowledge is absurd and telling of your complete lack of scientific literacy.
You say we cannot tell the age of the universe. Perhaps not
exactly, but then we have NEVER made such outrageous statements. But logically, when everything observable in the universe is accelerating away
from a particular point of origin, and since we
can estimate, and with some accuracy, that act of movement, we can then
reasonably estimate the starting point and age. Sound reasonable to you?
It should, but then you and I had significantly different training, that''s pretty obvious!
(In fact, a fair number of my fellow engineering, biology, gelogy and genetics colleagues at my Universities were attending from the Middle East, so they could learn "the right way of thinking" and then return to their goat-herding brothers and teach them a thing or two about "How To Think!". A telling situation, wouldn't you agree,
eanassir?)
But so now, our logic for determining, for example, the age of this earth by the rate of departing systems and universal entities, is not the only means. We've then predicted and then tested the ages of various meteoric rocks, of the age of our own sun and moon, and of the rocks on this planet we live on. We also have various proven-accurate radioactive decay rate-based aging techniques. There is very little difference in the rates of decay of radioactive elements now and 14B years ago. They have remained rather uniform. Too bad for your selective thinking, huh?
There are other measurables as well, for which
our brand of deductive and logic-based science is famous. We Western scientists do not speculate, not do we read the entrails of goats, or consult a book written by an illiterate goatherd who did not even claim to be an omniscient God himself.
So, when we then put
all our measured variables together, we can, yep, come to a pretty confident deduction, a conclusion that rests within
very conservative limits. Then we then go and check if all that predicts whatever else we'll possibly find.
And guess what?
That's what we find. A good and reliable system, this logic and observation based method, huh? The one that Western scientists came up with, not the desert goatherd brand of reading goat entrails while beating one's wife. And in fact, in general we do not provide
absolutes, like your brand of hokey & assumptive pseudo-science likes to claim.
As for Dawkins (and who, exactly, is "
Lurance"?
That one didn't come up in my Google search. Someone you made up?
Or was it "Sir T.E. Lawrence" pr'ahps, ewld chep? A Westerner of
raw-thur epic abilities, one who taught you desert-dwellers quite a bit about how to think and learn?)...
uhmm
Well anyhow... back to Dr. Dawkins...
(btw, it's quite astounding just how very much he frightens theists!) What's so terribly wrong with his thinking in your eyes? Care to expound in point-form detail and stun us with your literacy in the fields of genetics, religion and evolution?
I can hardly wait. But... give me just a minute, OK??... I have to go get something first!
OK. Now you can start!
So.. how's
your brand of goat-entail reading science workin' for yah,
eanassir?
(Hee hee.... and you call us arrogant and ill-informed? Hmmm....)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
