Sunday, December 26, 2010
Two unanswered logic puzzles
Puzzle 1 (This was Subair's last defense against evolution)
----------------
Statement of creationists: We are perfect creations, our brain is perfect so are any inferences and conclusions
Statement of evolutionists: Evolution doesn't result in perfect beings as it didn't have any foresight. Brain wasn't created to give perfect answers. So inferences and conclusions are likely to be wrong.
Statement by Subair (details can be found here) - If we assume both of the above statements are true as claimed by each parties, why should creationists assume any inference and conclusions (including evolution) based on the imperfect brain of evolutionists are correct ?.
[Jack Rabbit]: If there are two believers (from two religions A and B) who claims to be perfect creations of God (perfect brain, no imperfections in perception/cognition) but has theological differences between them, how do you resolve who is correct ?
This is a real life scenario, not a hypothetical case where all believers/creationists worship one God.
Puzzle 2
----------------
[സുശീല്‍] സര്‍വ്വശക്തനായ ദൈവത്തിന് തനിക്ക് ഉയര്‍ത്താന്‍ കഴിയാത്തത്ര ഭാരമുള്ള ഒരു കല്ല് സൃഷ്ടിക്കാനാകുമോ? സൃഷ്ടിക്കാന്‍ കഴിഞ്ഞില്ലെങ്കില്‍ ആ ദൈവം സര്‍വ്വശക്തനാകുമോ? സൃഷ്ടിക്കാന്‍ കഴിഞ്ഞാല്‍ താന്‍ സൃഷ്ടിച്ച ഒരു കല്ല് ഉയര്‍ത്താന്‍ കഴിയാത്ത ദൈവം എങ്ങനെ സര്‍വ്വശക്തനാകും?
[Subair] : t0 സമയത്ത് ദൈവം സര്‍വ ശക്തനായിരുന്നു. ദൈവത്തിന് എല്ലാം ചെയ്യാന്‍ സാധിക്കുമായിരിന്നു.
t1 എന്ന സമയത്ത് ദൈവം തനിക്ക് പൊക്കാന്‍ പറ്റാത്ത കല്ലുണ്ടാക്കി, സര്‍വ ശക്തനല്ലാതാവാന്‍ തീരുമാനിച്ചു. അങ്ങിനെത്തെ കല്ല് ഉണ്ടാക്കുന്നതോട് കൂടി, ദൈവം സ്ര്വഷക്തനല്ലാതെയും, അത് വഴി ദൈവം തെന്നെ അല്ലാതെയും ആയി. ഇനി ആ ഉണ്ടാക്കിയ്‌ കല്ലെടുത്ത് പൊക്കാന്‍ പറ്റുമോ - ഇല്ലാ, പറ്റില്ല.
[ഇവിടെ എന്റെ ദൈവ സങ്കല്പത്തെ ക്കുറിച്ചല്ല പറഞ്ഞത് - ഈ പറഞ്ഞതില്‍ എന്തെങ്കിലും വൈരുധ്യമുണ്ടോ എന്ന് പരിശോധിക്കുകയാണ്. എന്റെ ദൈവ സങ്കല്പതിലേക്ക് വഴിയെ വരാം]
[Jack Rabbit]: Using same steps in the ontological argument, i can mentally construct an infinitely evil Devil who has all capabilities of God except infinitely compassionate. I say the possibility of Devil beating the God, prevents God from acting in scenario at time=t1 as you said.
[സയ്യു]: 'വട്ടത്തിലുള്ള ചതുരം' വരക്കാന്‍ സര്‍വ ശക്തന് കഴിയുമോ എന്നും ചോദിക്കാം...? വട്ടത്തിലുള്ള ചതുരം എന്ന പ്രയോഗം തന്നെ തെറ്റാണ്.. പിന്നെ ആ ചോദ്യത്തിന് അര്‍ത്ഥമില്ല.. അതുപോലെ 'സര്‍വശക്തനു പൊക്കാന്‍ കഴിയാത്ത കല്ല്' അവനു ഉണ്ടാക്കാന്‍ കഴിയുമോ എന്നും ചോദിക്കാം പക്ഷേ 'സര്‍വശക്തനു പൊക്കാന്‍ കഴിയാത്ത കല്ല്' എന്ന പ്രയോഗമേ തെറ്റാണ്.. കാരണം സര്‍വശക്തന്‍ എന്ന് ഉച്ചരിച്ചു കഴിഞ്ഞാല്‍ പിന്നെ 'അവനു പൊക്കാന്‍ പറ്റാത്ത കല്ല്' എന്ന വാചകത്തിന് അര്‍ത്ഥമില്ല.
[Jack Rabbit]: സയ്യു, Could you apply your logic to this statement ? God created this universe out of absolute nothing. Can you put the same emphasis on absolute nothing as above and enlighten us where was God hiding then ?
PS: Please point out if there is any problem in my reply to Subair. I amn't responsible for Subair's reply
Thursday, December 23, 2010
ഇന്നലെ കണ്ട കിനാവ്‌
.
സ്ഥലം : കുറ്റിപ്പുറം LP സ്കൂള്‍
ശങ്കരാ, ശങ്കരാ .....
ശ്രീദേവി ടീച്ചര്‍: ഷാഹിന ടീച്ചറെ, ആരാണു രാവിലെ തന്നെ ശങ്കരാഭരണം പാടുന്നതു ?
ഷാഹിന ടീച്ചര്‍: ശ്രീദേവി ടീച്ചറെ, അതു നമ്മുടെ ഹുസ്സൈന് സാഹിബാണു. ആരൊ പാവത്തെ പിരി കേറ്റി കൊടുത്തു, അദ്ദേഹത്തോടു സംവദിക്കാന്‍ കഴിവുള്ളവരൊന്നും ബൂലോകത്ത് ഇല്ലേന്നും , ഡോക്കിന്‍സോളമില്ലെങ്കിലും വേണ്ടില്ല മിനിമം ഒരു ശങ്കരാചാര്യരുടെ നിലവാരമെങ്കിലും വേണമെന്നു. അദ്ദേഹം ഇപ്പോള്‍ ശങ്കരാചാര്യരെ തപ്പി നടക്കുകയാണു
ശ്രീദേവി ടീച്ചര്‍: പരിണാമം പഠിച്ചുക്കൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്ന ചെറിയ കുട്ടികളുടെ ഒരു ബാച്ച് ഉണ്ടല്ലൊ ? അവരിലൊരാളെ വിളിക്കാം
ഷാഹിന ടീച്ചര്‍: നൌഷാദ്കുട്ടി ഇങ്ങു വരൂ
[ഹുസ്സൈന്]: ഈ നഴ്സറിപ്പയ്യനാണോ 25 കൊല്ലം പരിണാമം പഠിച്ചുക്കൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്ന എന്നൊടു വാദിക്കാന്‍ വരുന്നതു ? നീ എന്റെ 3 പുസ്തകത്തിലെതെങ്കിലും വായിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ടോ ?
[നൌഷാദ്കുട്ടി]: ഇല്ല. പക്ഷേ ആ കാര്യം ഇവിടെ പ്രസ്ക്തമാണോ ?
[ഹുസ്സൈന്]: ആ തിരുമണ്ടന്‍ ജാക് റാബ്ബിറ്റ് Lenski's expt മായി കുറെ നാളായി എന്റെ പുറകെ ശല്യം ചെയ്യുന്നു. ലെന്സ്കിയുടെ പരീക്ഷണങ്ങള്‍ ബാക്ടീരിയകള്‍ പരിണമിക്കുകയില്ലെന്നാണ് തെളിയിച്ചത്. കാരണം 44000 തലമുറകള്‍ കഴിഞ്ഞിട്ടും പുതിയൊരു ഫീച്ചറോ പുതിയതരം സ്പീഷിസോ ഉണ്ടാകാനുളള സാധ്യതപോലും പരീക്ഷണം സൂചിപ്പിക്കുന്നില്ല.
[നൌഷാദ്കുട്ടി]: Ara-3 ട്രൈബില്‍ പെട്ട ബാക്ടീരിയകള്‍ ഒരു പ്രത്യേക കാരണവും കൂടാതെ 33,000 ജെനറേഷനു ശേഷം അവയുടെ പോപ്പുലേഷന്‍ ഡെന്‍സിറ്റി വര്‍ദ്ധിപ്പിക്കുകയുണ്ടായെന്നു മി ചൂണ്ടി കാട്ടിയില്ലെ ?. എത്രയോ മടങ്ങ് കൂടുതല്‍ (0.04 to 0.25). ലിമിറ്റിംഗ് ഫുഡ് റിസോഴ്സായ ഗ്ലൂക്കോസില്‍ നിന്നും E-coli ബാക്റ്റീരിയകള്‍ ഒരിക്കലും ഉപയോഗിക്കാത്ത സിട്രേറ്റിലേക്ക് ചുവടു മാറ്റിയതായിരുന്നു കാരണം.
[ഹുസ്സൈന്]: ലാബിലെ ക്യത്രിമ സാഹചര്യത്തില്‍ ഉണ്ടായ അഡാപ്റ്റേഷനുകള്‍ പ്രക്യതി സാഹചര്യത്തില്‍ അതിജീവിനത്തിന് സഹായിക്കുന്നവയല്ല എന്നും ഞാന്‍ വ്യക്തമാക്കുകയുണ്ടായി. അതു കൊണ്ടു അതിനെ പരിണാമമെന്നു വിളിക്കാന്‍ പറ്റില്ല
[നൌഷാദ്കുട്ടി]: മി ചൂണ്ടി കാട്ടിയില്ലെ എല്ലാ ട്രൈബിലും അവയുടെ സെല്‍ വലിപ്പം ക്രമാനുഗതമായി വര്‍ദ്ധിച്ചത് ? ആകൃതിയില്‍ വ്യതിയാനം വന്നത്. കാലക്രമേണ ബാക്റ്റീരിയകളുടെ ആകൃതി റൌണ്ട് ആയി മാറി. മാത്രമല്ല പരിണാമത്തില്‍ എപ്പോഴും relative fitness in local environment ആണു പ്രധാനം.
കൂരിരിട്ടില്‍ ജീവിച്ചു കാഴ്ച നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ട blind cave fish, അന്റാര്‍ട്ടിക്കയിലെ സമുദ്രത്തില്‍ തണുപ്പു തരണം ചെയ്യാന്‍ വേണ്ടി രക്തത്തിലെ ഹീമോഗ്ലോബിന് നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ട Antarctic ice fish തുടങ്ങിയവ പരിണാമത്തിന്റെ ഉത്തമോദാഹരണങ്ങള്‍ അല്ലേ ?
[ഹുസ്സൈന്]: അതു കൊണ്ടു അതിനെ പരിണാമമെന്നു വിളിക്കാന്‍ പറ്റില്ല. പ്രാദേശിക സാഹചര്യത്തില്‍ ഉണ്ടായ അഡാപ്റ്റേഷനുകളാണവ. അവയെ പിടിച്ചു നമ്മുടെ കുളത്തിലോ കൊയിലാണ്ടി കടലിലോ ഇട്ടാലവ ജീവിക്കുമൊ ? ലെന്സ്കിയുടെ ബാക്ടിരിയ പുരോഗതിയുടെ ലക്ഷണങ്ങള്‍ ഉദാ: ഏക കോശ ജീവിയില്‍ നിന്നു ബഹുകോശ ജീവിയൊന്നും ആയില്ലാലൊ ?
നീ പോയി ഒരു സുലൈമാനി ചായ വാങ്ങിച്ചോണ്ടു വാ. പഹയന്‍!!
സുലൈമാനി ചായയുമായി നൌഷാദ്കുട്ടി തിരിച്ചെത്തി
[നൌഷാദ്കുട്ടി]: സാഹിബ് അപ്പോള്‍ പറഞ്ഞു വരുന്നതു പരിണാമമെന്നു പറഞ്ഞാല്‍ പുരോഗതി വേണമെന്നണോ ? സുബൈര്‍ അങ്കിള്‍ നേരത്തെ തിമിംഗലങ്ങളുടെ പരിണാമത്തെ (വെള്ളത്തില്‍ നിന്നും കരയിലേക്കും പിന്നീടു വീണ്ടും വെള്ളത്തിലേക്കു ജീവികള്‍ തിരിച്ചു പോയതു) പറ്റി ജാക് മാമന്റെ അടുത്തു സംശയം ചോദിച്ചതു ഹുസ്സൈന് സാഹിബ് കണ്ടില്ലായിരുന്നോ ?
[ഹുസ്സൈന്]: പരിണാമം നടന്നിരുന്നെങ്കില്‍ ഈ അമീബയും ബാക്ടിരിയയും ഇപ്പോഴും ഉണ്ടാകുമോ ?
[നൌഷാദ്കുട്ടി]: സാഹിബ്, പ്രശ്നം താങ്കള്‍ പരിണാമത്തിനു കൊടുക്കുന്ന നിര്‍വചനത്തിന്റെതാണു. ഒരു ശാസ്ത്രജ്ഞനും താങ്കളുടെ നിര്‍വചനം ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്നില്ല. താങ്കള്‍ ഈ Hillis diagram ഒന്നു print out എടുത്തു കൊണ്ടു വരാമോ ?
ഹുസ്സൈന് സാഹിബ് print out മായി തിരിച്ചെത്തി
[നൌഷാദ്കുട്ടി]: സാഹിബ്, അതിനെ നിസ്കാരപ്പായ പോലെ വിരിച്ചിട്ടു അതിന്റെ ഒത്ത നടുക്കിരുന്നേ. 3000 species ഇന്റെ rRNA sequence താരതമ്യം ചെയ്തുണ്ടാക്കിയതാണിതു. Hillis diagram il താങ്കള്‍ നമ്മുടെ ലീഗിന്റെ ഏണി പോലൊന്നാണോ കാണുന്നതു ?
[ഹുസ്സൈന്]: അല്ലെടാ വളഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്നതു നിവര്‍ത്തി വെച്ചാല്‍ കുറ്റിച്ചെടി പോലിരിക്കും. എന്നാലും ഈ അമീബയും ബാക്ടിരിയയും ഇപ്പോഴും ഉണ്ടെന്ന ചോദ്യത്തിനു ഉത്തരം ആയില്ലലൊ ?
[നൌഷാദ്കുട്ടി]: സാഹിബ്, നമ്മുടെ ഭൂമിയുടെ surface topography എടുത്താല്‍ എങ്ങനെ ഇരിക്കും ?
[ഹുസ്സൈന്]: കളിയാക്കതെടാ പഹയാ, ഞാന്‍ ഭൂമി ഉരുണ്ടിട്ടാണെന്നാണു വിശ്വസിക്കുന്നതു. പൊങ്ങിയും താണും സമതലവുമായ പ്രദേശങ്ങള്‍ കാണാം
[നൌഷാദ്കുട്ടി]: സാഹിബ്, അതു പോലെയാണു evolutionary landscape. താങ്കള്‍ മനസ്സിലാക്കുന്നതു പോലെ അതു ഒരു cone അല്ല. Evolution is driven by local conditions. There is no global driving force. That is what happened in the case of blind cave fish and Antarctic ice fish i mentioned above.
Similarly in the past for some single celled organism, when variation occurred which can allow them to access new resources (like citrate in Lenski's expts), that part of the population tend to slowly diverge from the original population and found their own niches in new environment. They became the specialists of new surroundings while the old continues to do what they are best doing. This resulted in the various small hills in the evolutionary landscape rather than a single big cone.
എന്തറിയാം ഈ ഹുസ്സൈന് സാഹിബിനു് ??
സ്ഥലം : കുറ്റിപ്പുറം LP സ്കൂള്‍
ശങ്കരാ, ശങ്കരാ .....
ശ്രീദേവി ടീച്ചര്‍: ഷാഹിന ടീച്ചറെ, ആരാണു രാവിലെ തന്നെ ശങ്കരാഭരണം പാടുന്നതു ?
ഷാഹിന ടീച്ചര്‍: ശ്രീദേവി ടീച്ചറെ, അതു നമ്മുടെ ഹുസ്സൈന് സാഹിബാണു. ആരൊ പാവത്തെ പിരി കേറ്റി കൊടുത്തു, അദ്ദേഹത്തോടു സംവദിക്കാന്‍ കഴിവുള്ളവരൊന്നും ബൂലോകത്ത് ഇല്ലേന്നും , ഡോക്കിന്‍സോളമില്ലെങ്കിലും വേണ്ടില്ല മിനിമം ഒരു ശങ്കരാചാര്യരുടെ നിലവാരമെങ്കിലും വേണമെന്നു. അദ്ദേഹം ഇപ്പോള്‍ ശങ്കരാചാര്യരെ തപ്പി നടക്കുകയാണു
ശ്രീദേവി ടീച്ചര്‍: പരിണാമം പഠിച്ചുക്കൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്ന ചെറിയ കുട്ടികളുടെ ഒരു ബാച്ച് ഉണ്ടല്ലൊ ? അവരിലൊരാളെ വിളിക്കാം
ഷാഹിന ടീച്ചര്‍: നൌഷാദ്കുട്ടി ഇങ്ങു വരൂ
[ഹുസ്സൈന്]: ഈ നഴ്സറിപ്പയ്യനാണോ 25 കൊല്ലം പരിണാമം പഠിച്ചുക്കൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്ന എന്നൊടു വാദിക്കാന്‍ വരുന്നതു ? നീ എന്റെ 3 പുസ്തകത്തിലെതെങ്കിലും വായിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ടോ ?
[നൌഷാദ്കുട്ടി]: ഇല്ല. പക്ഷേ ആ കാര്യം ഇവിടെ പ്രസ്ക്തമാണോ ?
[ഹുസ്സൈന്]: ആ തിരുമണ്ടന്‍ ജാക് റാബ്ബിറ്റ് Lenski's expt മായി കുറെ നാളായി എന്റെ പുറകെ ശല്യം ചെയ്യുന്നു. ലെന്സ്കിയുടെ പരീക്ഷണങ്ങള്‍ ബാക്ടീരിയകള്‍ പരിണമിക്കുകയില്ലെന്നാണ് തെളിയിച്ചത്. കാരണം 44000 തലമുറകള്‍ കഴിഞ്ഞിട്ടും പുതിയൊരു ഫീച്ചറോ പുതിയതരം സ്പീഷിസോ ഉണ്ടാകാനുളള സാധ്യതപോലും പരീക്ഷണം സൂചിപ്പിക്കുന്നില്ല.
[നൌഷാദ്കുട്ടി]: Ara-3 ട്രൈബില്‍ പെട്ട ബാക്ടീരിയകള്‍ ഒരു പ്രത്യേക കാരണവും കൂടാതെ 33,000 ജെനറേഷനു ശേഷം അവയുടെ പോപ്പുലേഷന്‍ ഡെന്‍സിറ്റി വര്‍ദ്ധിപ്പിക്കുകയുണ്ടായെന്നു മി ചൂണ്ടി കാട്ടിയില്ലെ ?. എത്രയോ മടങ്ങ് കൂടുതല്‍ (0.04 to 0.25). ലിമിറ്റിംഗ് ഫുഡ് റിസോഴ്സായ ഗ്ലൂക്കോസില്‍ നിന്നും E-coli ബാക്റ്റീരിയകള്‍ ഒരിക്കലും ഉപയോഗിക്കാത്ത സിട്രേറ്റിലേക്ക് ചുവടു മാറ്റിയതായിരുന്നു കാരണം.
[ഹുസ്സൈന്]: ലാബിലെ ക്യത്രിമ സാഹചര്യത്തില്‍ ഉണ്ടായ അഡാപ്റ്റേഷനുകള്‍ പ്രക്യതി സാഹചര്യത്തില്‍ അതിജീവിനത്തിന് സഹായിക്കുന്നവയല്ല എന്നും ഞാന്‍ വ്യക്തമാക്കുകയുണ്ടായി. അതു കൊണ്ടു അതിനെ പരിണാമമെന്നു വിളിക്കാന്‍ പറ്റില്ല
[നൌഷാദ്കുട്ടി]: മി ചൂണ്ടി കാട്ടിയില്ലെ എല്ലാ ട്രൈബിലും അവയുടെ സെല്‍ വലിപ്പം ക്രമാനുഗതമായി വര്‍ദ്ധിച്ചത് ? ആകൃതിയില്‍ വ്യതിയാനം വന്നത്. കാലക്രമേണ ബാക്റ്റീരിയകളുടെ ആകൃതി റൌണ്ട് ആയി മാറി. മാത്രമല്ല പരിണാമത്തില്‍ എപ്പോഴും relative fitness in local environment ആണു പ്രധാനം.
കൂരിരിട്ടില്‍ ജീവിച്ചു കാഴ്ച നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ട blind cave fish, അന്റാര്‍ട്ടിക്കയിലെ സമുദ്രത്തില്‍ തണുപ്പു തരണം ചെയ്യാന്‍ വേണ്ടി രക്തത്തിലെ ഹീമോഗ്ലോബിന് നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ട Antarctic ice fish തുടങ്ങിയവ പരിണാമത്തിന്റെ ഉത്തമോദാഹരണങ്ങള്‍ അല്ലേ ?
[ഹുസ്സൈന്]: അതു കൊണ്ടു അതിനെ പരിണാമമെന്നു വിളിക്കാന്‍ പറ്റില്ല. പ്രാദേശിക സാഹചര്യത്തില്‍ ഉണ്ടായ അഡാപ്റ്റേഷനുകളാണവ. അവയെ പിടിച്ചു നമ്മുടെ കുളത്തിലോ കൊയിലാണ്ടി കടലിലോ ഇട്ടാലവ ജീവിക്കുമൊ ? ലെന്സ്കിയുടെ ബാക്ടിരിയ പുരോഗതിയുടെ ലക്ഷണങ്ങള്‍ ഉദാ: ഏക കോശ ജീവിയില്‍ നിന്നു ബഹുകോശ ജീവിയൊന്നും ആയില്ലാലൊ ?
നീ പോയി ഒരു സുലൈമാനി ചായ വാങ്ങിച്ചോണ്ടു വാ. പഹയന്‍!!
സുലൈമാനി ചായയുമായി നൌഷാദ്കുട്ടി തിരിച്ചെത്തി
[നൌഷാദ്കുട്ടി]: സാഹിബ് അപ്പോള്‍ പറഞ്ഞു വരുന്നതു പരിണാമമെന്നു പറഞ്ഞാല്‍ പുരോഗതി വേണമെന്നണോ ? സുബൈര്‍ അങ്കിള്‍ നേരത്തെ തിമിംഗലങ്ങളുടെ പരിണാമത്തെ (വെള്ളത്തില്‍ നിന്നും കരയിലേക്കും പിന്നീടു വീണ്ടും വെള്ളത്തിലേക്കു ജീവികള്‍ തിരിച്ചു പോയതു) പറ്റി ജാക് മാമന്റെ അടുത്തു സംശയം ചോദിച്ചതു ഹുസ്സൈന് സാഹിബ് കണ്ടില്ലായിരുന്നോ ?
[ഹുസ്സൈന്]: പരിണാമം നടന്നിരുന്നെങ്കില്‍ ഈ അമീബയും ബാക്ടിരിയയും ഇപ്പോഴും ഉണ്ടാകുമോ ?
[നൌഷാദ്കുട്ടി]: സാഹിബ്, പ്രശ്നം താങ്കള്‍ പരിണാമത്തിനു കൊടുക്കുന്ന നിര്‍വചനത്തിന്റെതാണു. ഒരു ശാസ്ത്രജ്ഞനും താങ്കളുടെ നിര്‍വചനം ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്നില്ല. താങ്കള്‍ ഈ Hillis diagram ഒന്നു print out എടുത്തു കൊണ്ടു വരാമോ ?
ഹുസ്സൈന് സാഹിബ് print out മായി തിരിച്ചെത്തി
[നൌഷാദ്കുട്ടി]: സാഹിബ്, അതിനെ നിസ്കാരപ്പായ പോലെ വിരിച്ചിട്ടു അതിന്റെ ഒത്ത നടുക്കിരുന്നേ. 3000 species ഇന്റെ rRNA sequence താരതമ്യം ചെയ്തുണ്ടാക്കിയതാണിതു. Hillis diagram il താങ്കള്‍ നമ്മുടെ ലീഗിന്റെ ഏണി പോലൊന്നാണോ കാണുന്നതു ?
[ഹുസ്സൈന്]: അല്ലെടാ വളഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്നതു നിവര്‍ത്തി വെച്ചാല്‍ കുറ്റിച്ചെടി പോലിരിക്കും. എന്നാലും ഈ അമീബയും ബാക്ടിരിയയും ഇപ്പോഴും ഉണ്ടെന്ന ചോദ്യത്തിനു ഉത്തരം ആയില്ലലൊ ?
[നൌഷാദ്കുട്ടി]: സാഹിബ്, നമ്മുടെ ഭൂമിയുടെ surface topography എടുത്താല്‍ എങ്ങനെ ഇരിക്കും ?
[ഹുസ്സൈന്]: കളിയാക്കതെടാ പഹയാ, ഞാന്‍ ഭൂമി ഉരുണ്ടിട്ടാണെന്നാണു വിശ്വസിക്കുന്നതു. പൊങ്ങിയും താണും സമതലവുമായ പ്രദേശങ്ങള്‍ കാണാം
[നൌഷാദ്കുട്ടി]: സാഹിബ്, അതു പോലെയാണു evolutionary landscape. താങ്കള്‍ മനസ്സിലാക്കുന്നതു പോലെ അതു ഒരു cone അല്ല. Evolution is driven by local conditions. There is no global driving force. That is what happened in the case of blind cave fish and Antarctic ice fish i mentioned above.
Similarly in the past for some single celled organism, when variation occurred which can allow them to access new resources (like citrate in Lenski's expts), that part of the population tend to slowly diverge from the original population and found their own niches in new environment. They became the specialists of new surroundings while the old continues to do what they are best doing. This resulted in the various small hills in the evolutionary landscape rather than a single big cone.
എന്തറിയാം ഈ ഹുസ്സൈന് സാഹിബിനു് ??
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Victims of Hussain's Abuse
.
[Hussain to Appottan in സത്യാന്വേഷി's blog]: (മതവിശ്വാസങ്ങൾ പരിചയപ്പെടുത്തുന്ന ദൈവം) വാസ്തവമാണ് എന്ന നിഗമനത്തിലെത്താനാണ് കൂടിയ ശാസ്ത്രം ആവശ്യമാകുന്നത്. അതുകൊണ്ടാണ് ഡോക്കിന്‍സിന്റെ ക്യതിയില്‍ കുറഞ്ഞ ശാസ്ത്രവും എന്റെ ഖണ്ഡനത്തില്‍ കൂടിയ ശാസ്ത്രവും കാണുന്നത്
Let us see how Hussain abuse different scientists to reach the above goal
Hussain on Charles Darwin
---------------------------------------------------
മി ജാക്ക്,
താങ്കള്‍ അര്‍ത്ഥമോ വിവക്ഷയോ അറിയാതെ ഏറ്റവും കൂടുതല്‍ ഉപയോഗിച്ച വാക്കുകളില്‍ ഒന്ന് 'ചെറി പിക്കിങ്' ആണ്. പരിണാമവാദികളുടെ പഠനങ്ങളില്‍ നിന്നുള്ള വസ്തുതകള്‍ പരിണാമവാദത്തിനെതിരെ ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്നതിനെ സൂചിപ്പിക്കാന്‍.
താങ്കളുടെ വിവക്ഷയില്‍ ,ചരിത്രം കണ്ട ഏറ്റവും വലിയ ചെറിപിക്കര്‍മാരില്‍ ഒരാള്‍ ചാള്‍സ് ഡാര്‍വിനായിരുന്നു. അക്കാലത്തെ പ്രഗല്‍ഭരും പ്രശസ്തരു(സൃഷ്ടിവിശ്വാസികളായ)
പ്രകൃതി നിര്‍ധാരണം ഡാര്‍വിന്റെ കണ്ടുപിടിത്തമല്ല എന്ന കാര്യം താങ്കള്‍ക്കറിയുമോ? ജീവികളുടെ സ്ഥിരത നിലനിര്‍ത്തുന്ന മെക്കാനിസമാണതെന്ന് അക്കാലത്തെ ജീവശാസ്ത്രജ്ഞര്ക്കറിയാമായിരു
സ്ഥിരത നിലനിര്‍ത്തുന്ന പ്രകൃതി നിര്‍ധാരണം ഡാര്‍വിന്‍ ചെറിപിക്കിയപ്പോള്‍ അസ്ഥിരതയുടെ മെക്കാനിസമായി! അതിനാല്‍ ഞാനല്ല സുഹൃത്തേ ചെറിപിക്കര്‍, അതിന്റെ ഒന്നാന്തരം ഉപാസകനും അനുഷ്ടാതാവും ചാള്‍സ് ഡാര്‍വിനാണ്!!
My reply (complementary to kaalidaasan's reply here)
Mr. Hussain,
Do you remember the discussion we had on philosophy of science regarding generalizations and exceptions ? You are repeating the same mistake now. Let me quote you
[Hussain]: In the philosophy of science generalisation means inductive reasoning.A law is generalised by inductive reasoning on the basis of a limited observation.This induction rules out exceptions.
[Jack Rabbit]:Scientific laws doesn't represent 99.99% of observations, but 100% of observations. There are no exceptions here. If there were one, law would have been dead. I challenge Hussain to show a scientific law which fail for some exceptions.
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
[Hussain]:In your own quoted definition , you can see this fact “It is generally accepted to be true and universal…”.Mr Jack, this is generalization and thus a scientific law is formed!
See Hussain cherry picking words. I have highlighted two sections in bold above. Hussain selected first to define scientific laws are generalizations and rules out exceptions as per his first statement. He never looks at second part which clearly says scientific laws are always true
Coming to current discussion, Hussain is accusing Darwin to have done cherry picking. What Darwin did was pursue behind the exceptions and found prevalent understanding of origin of species was wrong. That is how new theories develop. I gave this example earlier
Lord Kelvin famously remarked there are only two small clouds in the clear sky of understanding of 19th century physicists. In fact those two clouds, Michelson-Morley expt and black body radiation resulted in relativity and quantum mechanics respectively. Imagine what would have happened if we continue to generalize and threw out those exceptions.
Is this similar to what Hussain is doing ? NO. Hussain is cherry picking words from publications which approve evolution to disprove evolution. If Hussain has found any exception, why don't he pursue further, gather additional evidence and publish in some respected journal. I throw this challenge to him
If you are so confident that Lenski's expt is not an example of evolution in action, why don't you write to Nature or PNAS ?. They are the ones who published Lenksi's results. If you can get your rebuttal published there, you need only that single evidence for rest of your life and no need to brag about your books published through Islamic Publishing House 17 years back.
Your name will appear in all school text books. This is highest achievement any scientist can get to see in one's life time. Only very limited Nobel laureates get this kind of accomplishment.
But he isn't ready to take up that path which normally scientists will do when they are stumbled with an exception.
So Mr. Hussain, please don't try to fool others by saying what we accuse you are doing and what Darwin did are same thing.
Hussain on Alexander Friedmann
------------------------------------------
Hussain is repeating this blunder in every post (even the latest one). It is on Freidmann graph
ഫ്രീഡ് മാന്‍ ഗ്രാഫില്‍ പ്രപഞ്ചോത്പത്തിക്കു മുന്‍പ് പൂജ്യമാണ് .സമയവും സ്ഥലവും(space and time) പൂജ്യമായ അവസ്ഥ. പ്രപഞ്ചം തന്നെയില്ലാത്ത അവസ്ഥയെ സൂചിപ്പിക്കാനാണ് ഇത്. പ്രപഞ്ചം ഇല്ലായ്മയില്‍ നിന്നും ഉണ്ടായതാണ് എന്നര്‍ത്ഥം. ഇല്ലാത്ത ഒന്നിന് സ്വയം ഉണ്ടാകാനാവുമോ?
MY reply
-----------
For the un-initiated, Alexander Friedmann proposed an equation for the evolution of universe based on Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1922.
Many people make this mistake of tracing back what happens at time=0 from its solution. That is the same thing Hussain is saying above to claim universe was created out of absolute nothing.
The funny thing is that General theory of relativity isn't valid at that dimensions where we are talking about the origin of universe. Once you take quantum mechanics also into consideration, it cannot go to zero.
More can be seen in Victor Stengers' presentation here as a picture is better than 1000 words. and a undergraduate level paper can be found here. Compare page 36 and page 66 of the presentation to see the difference if you want to skip mathematics.
So Mr. Hussain, please stop misusing Physics for your cheap gains.
Hussain on Kurt Godel
------------------------------------------
ഒരു സിസ്റ്റത്തെയും ആ സിസ്റ്റം കൊണ്ടു വിശദീകരിക്കാനാവില്ല. വിശദീകരണം സിസ്റ്റത്തിനതീതമായിരിക്കും. അതുകൊണ്ടാണ് ഭൌതിക പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന്റെ വിശദീകരണം ഭൌതീകാതീതമാണെന്നു പറയുന്നത്.
MY reply
-----------
Can somebody guess although he hasn't given the name ?
Yes it is Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorem.
Here is a beautiful refutation of the claims that it shows existence of God - Apt title for Mr. Hussain - The Danger When You Don’t Know What You Don’t Know
(More personalities will be added later)
കഥയറിയാതെ ആട്ടം കണ്ടു കഴിഞ്ഞപ്പോള്‍ കുട്ടിക്കരണം മറിഞ്ഞ വിദൂഷകന്‍ ഒന്നാമന്‍
.
In the ongoing (for one month now) greatest show in Malayalam blogosphere, these are some of the comments by the spectators who could never raise any technical comment , but spare no chance to proclaim they are studying from the contents. Some even said they don't have any knowledge to participate in the discussion. Nevertheless, they all have their conclusions.
Noushad - ഹുസൈന്‍ നിന്റെയൊക്കെ കരണക്കുറ്റിക്ക് തന്നു എന്നത് ശരിയാണ് ഹുസൈന്റെ ആത്മവിശ്വാസം തുളുമ്പുന്ന വാക്കുകള്‍ക്ക് മുന്നില്‍ നീ ചൂളിപ്പോയി. അത്ര തന്നെ. നിനക്ക് ആത്മവിശ്വാസം നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ടു.നീയൊക്കെ വിവരത്തില്‍ പുലി ആണെന്നാണ്‌ ഞാന്‍ കരുതിയത. ഇപ്പോള്‍ മനസ്സില്യായി നീയൊക്കെ വെറും എലി ആണ്. തൂരി ഓടുന്ന ടൈപ്പ്‌.
ഹുസൈനാണ് താരം. ഇപ്പോള്‍ ചര്‍ച്ച മുഴുവന്‍ ഹുസൈനാണ്. യുക്തിവാദികള്‍ ആശയത്തിന്‍റെ ബലം ഉരച്ചു നോക്കെണ്ടുന്ന അവസ്ഥയിലേക്ക് ഹുസൈന്‍ അവരെ തള്ളിവിട്ടിരിക്കുന്നു. യുക്തിവാദികള്‍ ആശയസംരക്ഷണത്തിനായി വെപ്രാളപ്പെടുന്ന മനോഹര കാഴ്ച ബ്ലോഗുകളില്‍ കാണാം. ഹുസൈനാണ് താരം :)
സത്യാന്വേഷി - ബൂലോകത്തെ മറ്റു മുസ്ലിം എഴുത്തുകാരെ നേരിട്ടതു പോലെ എളുപ്പത്തില്‍ തീര്‍ത്തുകളയാമെന്ന ധാരണയിലാണ് സുശീല്‍ കുമാറുള്‍പ്പെടെയുള്ളവര്‍ ഈ സംവാദത്തിലേക്കു ചാടി വീണത്. എന്നാല്‍ അതു സാധിക്കാതെ വന്നതോടെ അവരുടെ വിദ്വേഷം ഇരട്ടിച്ചു. ദൌര്‍ഭാഗ്യകരമായ കാര്യം, ഇവരില്‍ മിക്കവര്‍ക്കും ബുദ്ധിപരമായ സത്യസന്ധത മഷിയിട്ടു നോക്കിയാല്‍ പോലും കാണാന്‍ കഴിയുന്നില്ല എന്നതാണു്. എത്രവട്ടം ഹുസൈന്‍ വ്യക്തമായി മറുപടി പറഞ്ഞാലും തങ്ങള്‍ക്കു തെറ്റു പറ്റിയെന്ന് ഇവരാരും ഒരിക്കലും അംഗീകരിക്കില്ല.
ചുരുക്കത്തില്‍ എന്‍ എം ഹുസൈന്‍ എന്ന ബ്ലോഗര്‍ ബൂലോകത്ത് ഉണ്ടാക്കിയ കൊടുങ്കാറ്റില്‍ പല വടവൃക്ഷങ്ങളും കടപുഴകി വീണുകൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്ന കാഴ്ച്ചയാണു നാം കണ്ടുകൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്നത്.അണ്‍സഹിക്കബ്ള്‍ ആണ് പലര്‍ക്കും ഈ കാഴ്ച്ച. അതുകൊണ്ട് പലരും കണ്ണടച്ച് ഇരുട്ടാക്കാന്‍ ശ്രമിക്കുകയാണ്. എന്നാല്‍ അങ്ങനെ കണ്ണടച്ചാല്‍ ഇരുട്ടാകുന്നത് ആ കണ്ണടക്കുന്ന ആള്‍ക്കുമാത്രമാണ്. മുസ്ലിം വിരുദ്ധത എന്ന ആന്ധ്യം കാരണം നേരത്തെ തന്നെ കണ്ണടഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്നവര്‍ക്കും ഇരുട്ടു തന്നെയായിരിക്കും. എന്നാല്‍ ആ ഇരുട്ടാണ് യാഥാര്‍ത്ഥ്യമെന്നു കരുതരുത് . അതിനെയാണ് അന്ധവിശ്വാസം എന്നു പറയുന്നത്.
M.A. Bakar - എന്നാല്‍ N.M ഹുസൈന്‍ എന്ന കൊടുങ്കാറ്റില്‍ ആടിയുലഞ്ഞുപോയ ഗര്‍ഭപാത്രങ്ങള്‍ പുറത്തിട്ടതൊക്കെയും ചാപിള്ളകളായിരുന്നു. ബ്ളോഗ്‌ ലോകത്തുള്ള കേരളത്തിലെ അഹന്തയുടെ പരിണാമവാദികളായ യുക്തിവാദികള്‍ എല്ലാം തികഞ്ഞവരും ഇനി ഒന്നും തികക്കാനില്ലാത്തവരുമായതിനാല്‍ അവരെക്കുറിച്ച്‌ കൂടുതല്‍ പറയാനില്ല. പ്രത്വേകിച്ച്‌ അവരുടെ ശവസംസ്കാരം നടന്നുകൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്ന ഈ സന്ദര്‍ഭത്തില്‍..
C.K. Latheef - ബൂലോകത്ത് യുക്തിവാദ ചര്‍ചയില്‍ വമ്പിച്ച വഴിത്തിരിവ് സൃഷ്ടിച്ചു കൊണ്ട് എന്‍ . എം. ഹുസൈന്റെ രംഗപ്രവേശം ഈ നിലക്കാണ് ഞാന്‍ കാണുന്നത്. യുക്തിവാദികളുടെ മര്‍മത്തില്‍ തന്നെയാണ് അദ്ദേഹം കൈവെച്ചത്. യുക്തിവാദികളുമായുള്ള ചര്‍ചയിലും ക്രൈസ്തവ സുഹൃത്തുകളുമായുള്ള ചര്‍ചയിലും കേന്ദ്രബിന്ദു ഖുര്‍ആനും അതിന്റെ സന്ദേശങ്ങളും തന്നെയായിരുന്നു. അതിനെ വിമര്‍ശിക്കുന്നവരുടെ ശാസ്ത്രീയാടിത്തറ പരിശോധിക്കാനും അവരുടെ തെളിവുകളെ പരിശോധിക്കാനും എന്‍.എം ഹുസൈന്‍ തയ്യാറായതാണ് യുക്തിവാദികളെ ചൊടിപ്പിച്ചത്.
prakash - എൻ.എം.ഹുസൈൻ ആധുനിക ശാസ് ത്രവും ലോജിക്കും അടിസ് ത്ഥാനമാക്കി ഡോക്കിൻസിനെ ഖണ്ഡിക്കുമ്പോൾ, അതിൽ ആരോഗ്യകരവും ക്രിയാത്മകവുമായ പ്രതിവാദങ്ങൾ ഉയർത്തി ചർച്ചയെ ധൈഷണിക വിസ്ഫോടനത്തിന്റെ ഗവേഷണപരതയിലേക്കുയർത്തുന്നതിന് പകരം അക്കാദമിക ഗൌരവം തൊട്ടുതീണ്ടാത്ത വിശ്വാസിവിരുദ്ധ ജല്പനങ്ങളിലും ആർപ്പുവിളികളിലും സായൂജ്യം അടയുകയാണ് യുക്തിവാദ പക്ഷം ചെയ്തുകോണ്ടിരിക്കുന്നത്.
ഹുസൈന്റെ കൃതികളിലെ ഒരദ്ധ്യായത്തിന്റെ ഉള്ളടക്കത്തിനൊപ്പം ആയിരം പിഎച്ച്ഡിക്കാരുടെ ഗവേഷണപ്രബന്ധങ്ങളുടെ നിലവാരം എത്തുകയില്ല എന്ന് കാളി ആദ്യം മനസ്സിലാക്കുക.
ചിന്തകന്‍ - മനുഷ്യൻ സ്വതവേ യുക്തി ഉപയോഗിച്ച് കാര്യങ്ങൾ ചെയ്യുന്നവരാണ്. എന്നാൽ സ്വന്തം യുക്തിയിൽ തീരെ ആത്മവിശ്വാസമില്ലാത്തവരാണ്, ഞങ്ങൾ ‘യുക്തിവാദി‘കളാണെന്ന് അവകാശപെട്ടു നടക്കുന്നവർ എന്ന് ‘യുക്തിവാദി’കളുടെ ലേഖനങ്ങളും കമന്റുകളും വ്യക്തമാക്കുന്നു. യുക്തി വാദി/നിരീശ്വരവാദി ദൈവമായ ഡോക്കിൻസിനെ എൻ എം ഹുസൈൻ ഒന്ന് വിലയിരുത്തിയപ്പോഴേക്കും മണ്ണെണ്ണയൊഴിക്കപെട്ട നീർക്കോലിയെ പോലെയായി യുക്തിവാദികളുടെ അവസ്ഥ എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാൽ മതിയല്ലോ :)
Kamaakshi - Dear STupid KP, Why you drag religion here? It is a debate between creationism and evolutionsm. Why you drag religion here Mr. Stupid KP. Did you ever read hussain talk about relgion here? (see below)
For the last 500 years, Westerners were the custodians of science. They developed it as a war science and anti-human science. Thanks to this mode of modern development which reached at its peak in America turned the society a cancerous one. According to the latest statistics, one in two males is at cancer risk and one in three females is at cancer risk. What would be the future of such a society? By the grace of God , Muslim society has comparatively escaped from this catastrophic doom only because they did not accomplish the western mode of development. Can American society be saved by the stock of their 10, 000 nuclear weapons?
naj - സുശീല്‍, താങ്കളുടെ എല്ലാ വാദങ്ങളും പപ്പടം പോലെ പൊട്ടിക്കാം. പക്ഷെ സമയത്തിന്റെ പരിമിതി എന്നെ അതില്‍ നിന്നും തടയുന്നു. ഹുസൈന്‍ എത്ര മനോഹരമായി വിശദീകരിചീട്ടും, താങ്കളും, ജാക്ക് രാബിട്ടും മനസ്സിലാകാത്ത പോലെ അഭിനയിക്കുകയാണെന്നു വേണം കരുതാന്‍. അല്ലെങ്കില്‍ ഹുസൈന്റെ സമയത്തെ വിദഗ്ധമായി ഹൈജാക്ക് ചെയ്തു അദ്ധേഹത്തെ പരമാവധി പ്രോവോകെറ്റ് ചെയ്യാനുള്ള ഒരു സുശീല്‍-ജബ്ബാര്‍-ജാക്ക്-ബ്രൈറ്റ് കന്‍സ്പൈരാസി.
lymi - ടോകിന്സിന്റെ വാദങ്ങളെ തെളിവുകള്‍ ഉദ്ധരിച്ചു ഭാണ്ടിച്ച ഹുസൈനിന്റെ വാദങ്ങളെ തകര്‍ക്കാന്‍ (പ്രതിരോധിക്കാന്‍ എങ്കിലും ) ഒരു പരിണാമ വാദിക്കും സാധിച്ചിട്ടില്ല എന്നത് വ്യക്തമാണ്. ...ഞങ്ങളുടെ നാട്ടില്‍ ഒരു ചൊല്ലുണ്ട്....."മൂത്രം പിടിച്ചു കയറാന്‍ ശ്രമിക്കരുത് എന്ന് "....പരിണാമ വാദികളുടെ അവസ്ഥ കണ്ടപ്പോള്‍ ഇതാണ് എനിക്ക് ഓര്മ വരുന്നത്.....
We are looking forward to hear from Subair, കാട്ടിപ്പരുത്തി and കല്‍ക്കി who participated in various stages of technical discussion .
PS: The discussion is still going on. Hussain is yet to answer questions from many bloggers
PPS: Before this debate, i haven't heard about Mr. Hussain. Even after the trashing he is receiving now in Appoottan's blog, the above mentioned spectators may still hold him in high esteem. The single greatest achievement of this entire debate is that the rest of the world came to know what a LIAR and FRAUD he is. Thanks to സത്യാന്വേഷി for making this happen.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Delusion in Action
..
[Jack Rabbit to കാട്ടിപ്പരുത്തി ]: പരിണാമത്തിനു പരീക്ഷണശാലയിലെ തെളിവ് കൊടുത്തപ്പോള്‍ ഗുരു മുട്ടായുക്തി പറഞ്ഞു ഓടിപ്പോയതാണു
[Mr. Hussain]:What you have referred is not evolution but variations. Please study what evolutionary concept is and what variations are
[Jack Rabbit]: Mr. Hussain, The above sentence qualifies for മുട്ടായുക്തി. Do you recall how many times i asked you for definition of evolution and you were giving back മുട്ടായുക്തി replies? What you did later was restricting comments and came back after one day claiming you are still invincible.
Your definition of natural selection and your recent reply to മി | Mi are all testaments to my accusation of your VERY POOR knowledge on evolution. There is no need for anyone to refer to your books and further substantiating it.
Come on Mr. Hussain. You can save all these verbal gymnastics for just one simple act and get everlasting glory.
If you are so confident that Lenski's expt is not an example of evolution in action, why don't you write to Nature or PNAS ?. They are the ones who published Lenksi's results. If you can get your rebuttal published there, you need only that single evidence for rest of your life and no need to brag about your books published through Islamic Publishing House 17 years back.
Your name will appear in all school text books. This is highest achievement any scientist can get to see in one's life time. Only very limited Nobel laureates get this kind of accomplishment.
[Hussain]: That is my option not an explanation for my critical comments on Lenski's conclusions.
[Jack Rabbit]: We call that option as running away like a COWARD when cornered as you have shown before. That is why i stopped debating you.
[Hussain to Mi]: The (Lenski's) experiment was designed to prove evolution in action but resulted in evolution in inaction!
VERDICT: What we are seeing in the case of Hussain and his unsinkable rubber ducklings is Delusion in Action.
Monday, December 13, 2010
ഹുസ്സൈന് സാഹിബിന്റെ പതിനെട്ടാം അടവു്‌ ?
.
Mr. Hussain has revealed one more trick from his bag of infinite tricks - how to stall the discussion when he ran out of arguments by restricting comments without showing the basic manner of informing others ..
and post this message in a different place that he is starting a new blog exclusively to post comments..
and when that plan was backfired, come back after two days (see time difference between comments below) after deleting the new blog and challenge others as if nothing has happened.
Mr. Hussain,
Do you realize this is the same thing i was earlier accusing of you doing as unsinkable rubber duck behavior ?
..... Hussain who has been shamelessly showing to the entire world that only way he can stay in discussion is through volte-faces, misrepresentation of opponent's ideas, cherry picking available observations (denying the conclusions of experts in every fields) to substantiate your claims, doing verbal gymnastics and acting like an unsinkable rubber duck (reject any amount of contrary evidence, deny any refutations has ever taken place and come up with same arguments again).
Friday, December 3, 2010
Endgame analysis: Act of the Desperate or Evidence of Delusion ?
..
Dear Mr.Hussain,
ബൂലോകത്തു ഉത്തരം മുട്ടുമ്പോല്‍ കൊഞ്ഞനം കുത്തുന്നതും, തെറി വിളിക്കുന്നതും കണ്ടിട്ടുണ്ടു , പക്ഷേ താങ്കളുടെ പ്രതികരണം ഒരു പുത്തന്‍ അനുഭവം ആയിരുന്നു.
Two days back when i wrote the following comment, never in my wildest dreams i was expecting a reply of the kind which i got later from Mr. Hussain. As you can see, i was pointing out his odd behavior of asking for replies without even reading 2-3 my previous comments. First i thought he was doing only with me. Then i saw he shot a similar question to another blogger - Manushya
Mr. Hussain, Is this a new one from your bag of infinite tricks ? Manushya had sent a reply 8 hrs before you sent this mail. You have been asking for response from intelligent readers. From his arguments, i can see you finally got one. But i am pretty sure you will be in a perpetual state of being an unsinkable rubber duck even with him. Yesterday you posted a comment to me without even reading my 2-3 comments posted before. /JR
Instead Hussain re-appeared donning the role of Sherlock Holmes by accusing me of creating another blogger identity - Manushya and started refuting his comments. He claims to have found the evidence based on two observations after a paragraph of bragging how intelligent he is and nobody can con him easily because he isn't short of information and logic. You can read the full paragraph below.
There are a lot of tricks that are played by the actors in accordance with their ability.I shall provide you an apparent example.Same person uses different identities, one original and the other fabricated to get rid of the trap he is holed in.But a person may be able to forge an extra name , email or passport but he cannot effectively manufacture an entirely different language style ,logic or information and thus he would be trapped by a smart intelligence officer. The problem is he was dumb enough to think that there is only one or two ways to identify a bogus man. In my case, there is no need of such tricks ,even a single one. Particularly because I’m not short of information and logic.
(1)I had already replied to all of your arguments and it was you people who failed to provide me explanation for my many critical comments( Jack in one stage declared to withdraw without giving an explanation for many points ).
The point is he thinks he has replied to all (mine and Manushya's arguments) and instead we have a backlog to his questions.
Earlier i had posted a saying i have stopped replying to him and i will join the debate only if he tries to hoodwink the readers by misrepresenting any scientific facts and none has yet pointed out. Later he posted a in a discussion between me and Subair which prompted me to join back again.
Let us see his first evidence
(2)Both people equally and exactly misunderstood my word ‘generalisation’( an intelligent person can easily identify this as a case of an identity fabrication). In the philosophy of science generalisation means inductive reasoning.A law is generalised by inductive reasoning on the basis of a limited observation.This induction rules out exceptions. Without understanding this primary notion in philosophy of science you blunderous identical twins have written so many wastes . Both people equally and exactly misunderstood my word ‘generalisation’( an intelligent person can easily identify this as a case of an identity fabrication). In the philosophy of science generalisation means inductive reasoning.A law is generalised by inductive reasoning on the basis of a limited observation.This induction rules out exceptions. Without understanding this primary notion in philosophy of science you blunderous identical twins have written so many wastes
Long story short, he is finding both Manushya and myself aren't agreeing with his version of philosophy of science and how science is practiced. Both of us raise same objection to his understanding what does a scientific law means and the role of observations which agrees and disagrees with the law. (I will reply on this later below). His reply was later followed by taking my comments and replying to Manushya and vice versa.
Second evidence was both of us pooh-poohed his knowledge in quantum mechanics and both of us objected to his statement that quantum mechanics has led to the demise of rationalism ( I haven't quoted his comments here. Interested readers can refer to his comments on my previous post)
So based on these two evidences he applied his reasoning and infers both Manushya and myself are same person and accused me of forging an identity (Manushya) and mounting a similar attack to relieve the pressure on Jack rabbit.
Let us see whether our smart intelligent officer is closer to Sherlock Holmes or to Jacques Clouseau (starring Peter Sellers). I wish he had read A Study in Scarlet to learn more of Holmes' methods.
Let us see what evidence he has left out to make this conclusion. (There is no surprise here as Hussain thinks scientific laws are generalization by leaving out exceptions)
1. I have been debating Hussain for more than two weeks now. We have had three long mail exchanges on which any intelligent reader can figure out what was the conclusion
2. We have discussed many topics covering logic, cosmology, evolution, philosophy, quantum mechanics etc. So far Manushya's (no offense inteneded) comments were restricted to philosophy of science and quantum mechanics.
3. Any smart investigator always looks for what was the motive for any crime. Here i had no motive to mount a separate attack as i wasn't the one trailing on the arguments. Being an anonymous blogger (for professional reasons) i stand to gain nothing from my posts/comments in terms of recognition and acceptance from anybody. Only thing i get is a feedback from many readers whether there was any flaw in my understanding which i had overlooked. So from my side, the material incentives are almost none to continue or discontinue the debate.
Let us examine it from Mr. Hussain's side. Hussain desperately wants to show he is the last man standing in the debate by any means and was always on the top. It is understandable as he is the only one who is making a living out of these by royalties from his books (mis-representing evolution, Holocaust denial..), giving talks etc. So is it the act of desperation to silence the opposition and to continue his magnum opus of remaining 28 articles refuting Dawkins ?
Or could it be something else ? The very act is a text book example of Fregoli delusion.
The Fregoli delusion or the delusion of doubles is a rare disorder in which a person holds a delusional belief that different people are in fact a single person who changes appearance or is in disguise. The syndrome may be related to a brain lesion, and is often of a paranoid nature with the delusional person believing themselves persecuted by the person they believe is in disguise.
As you saw earlier, Hussain thought he was being attacked by me (Jack Rabbit) and a clone/twin (he is calling all these names) - Manushya and both are same persons. (QED)
This isn't the first time Hussain is showing delusion of any kind. Remember his classic self description -ലോകോത്തര നിരീശ്വരവാദ ബുദ്ധിജീവിയായ ഡോക്കിന്‍സിന്റെ ഒരു കൃതിയെ തന്നെ ഖണ്ഡിക്കാന്‍ ഇറങ്ങിത്തിരിച്ച ഞാന്‍ . This is an example of delusions of grandeur.
Bertrand Russell has once said: "One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important".
Some of his well wishers fan those flames
എനിക്കു തോന്നുന്നത് ഹുസൈന്‍ സാറുമായി സംവദിക്കാന്‍ കഴിവുള്ളവരൊന്നും ബൂലോകത്ത് ഇല്ല എന്നാണ്.ഡോക്കിന്‍സോളമില്ലെങ്കിലും വേണ്ടില്ല മിനിമം ഒരു ശങ്കരാചാര്യരുടെ നിലവാരമെങ്കിലും വേണ്ടെ? അതു പോലുമില്ലാത്തവരുമായി സംവദിക്കാനേ പോകരുത് എന്നാണ് എന്റെ എളിയ അഭിപ്രായം.
From all these discussions, i can safely conclude that Hussain needs somebody from Shankara's era to win a debate on scientific arguments.
On the other hand, it is quite likely Hussain may argue i thought and planned about all these in advance to put him in a trap or i may even be an intellectual crusader recruited by CIA/Mossad to denigrate our "self-styled public intellectual" in front of his well wishers and publishers (if anyone is reading).
Let me conclude this post by replying to Hussain's few blunders (always coming up like an unsinkable rubber duck)
(1) Both people(Manushyan) equally and exactly misunderstood my word ‘generalisation’( an intelligent person can easily identify this as a case of an identity fabrication). In the philosophy of science generalisation means inductive reasoning.A law is generalised by inductive reasoning on the basis of a limited observation.This induction rules out exceptions. Without understanding this primary notion in philosophy of science you blunderous identical twins have written so many wastes. Your assertion shows a lack of exposure to scientific methodology”. “In short, scientific laws doesn't represent 99.99% of observations, but 100% of observations. There are no exceptions here. If there were one, law would have been dead. ...”
Here Hussain is acting like Aristotle. Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths.
Hussain could have checked by searching for the definition of scientific law.
This was the original definition i gave and i still stand by that. See how it ends. Scientific laws have always been observed to be true.
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
I challenge Hussain to show a scientific law which fail for some exceptions.
This was one of the issues Manushya and I agree where Hussian was horribly wrong.
Lord Kelvin famously remarked there are only two small clouds in the clear sky of understanding of 19th century physicists. Infact those two clouds, Michelson-Morley expt and black body radiation resulted in relativity and quantum mechanics respectively. Imagine what would have happened if we continue to generalize and threw out those exceptions.
(2) Regarding the philosophical impact of QM, Jack Rabbit quoted my words as follows:
“In the case of Quantum Mechanics,See the following words of Dr.Paul Davies: “… the new physics …find closer accord with mysticism than materialism”.
Actually what I claimed was a simple and widely accepted observation on philosophical impact of QM.But Jack and Manushyan are ignorant followers of blind materialism.Please remember that though Davies is a populariser of science,he is a reputed physicist also and got his PhD in QM”.
What was his reply? See:
See one of my old post on Paul Davies here
Also see Paul Davies' own reply from his site after getting Templeton prize to advance the world's understanding of God and/or spirituality
I carefully read both of these links but there was no counter explanation against my view in these posts.Moreover both of these pieces were not even slightely related with issue in the discussion that is philosophical impact of QM. So this is an outright lie and deception from the part of Mr.Jack Rabbit.
I cannot help if you aren't able to understand it. It clearly has Paul Davies' views and response by scientists like Lee Smolin. If you think Quantum mechanics is closer to mysticism, how democratic and repeatable are mystic experiences compared to quantum mechanical effects ?
(3) Hussain's words: “In the case of evolution, there is no systematic fossil record. It is really very jerky and you people manufacture a theory out of this exceptions. This shows your approach regarding the knowledge itself is unscientific and irrational. On the other hand , we reject Darwinism on the basis of systematic gaps in the fossil record which very much in accordance with the spirit of science.”
Jacks reply:
“It is not even two days you paraded your ignorance on evolution.
The following paragraph was my reply to Prof. Wahid also.
Fossilization is a rare occurrence in nature as it demands special conditions. Creationists demand to see fossil records like a movie film roll to agree. Even if we had no fossils, by comparison of sequences (of DNA, RNA and proteins) alone and molecular phylogenetics analysis prove evolution. For those who are looking for a popular account of this, refer to Sean Carroll's The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution. Since you are completely ignorant on this, ask any person who is doing molecular biology or population genetics to verify my statement
Hussain's reply: Your explanation for the rarity of transitional fossils is simply false. Almost all transitional fossils go missing in all important places.This is not due to the rarity of fossilization process. Molecular similarities in no way prove an evolutionary relationship ( For details see the book EVOLUTION : A THEORY IN CRISIS by Dr.Michael Denton)
As i said earlier, no wonder you demand to see all transitional fossils. It is like you have a list of all transitional fossils. You are quoting Denton who initially sided with Christian creationists and left the camp later. You don't even know Sean Carroll. He is world's leading evo-devo biologist. I repeat my statement, even if we hadn't discovered any fossils, we could still figure out evolution happened from many other fields in biology. You are living in a fossil age or stuck in a time-warp to always ask for transitional fossils as if it were the ONLY proof for evolution.
Even NON-SCIENTIFIC BODIES like Catholic Pope in Vatican and judicial courts in US rule in favor of evolution against the Christian creationists (with whom you agree) based on overwhelming evidence. Think who has a bigger face to lose if they are wrong and so how much evidence they might have examined. Or is this another example of delusions of grandeur. ?
(4) See my words and subsequent comment by Jack:
“ Secondly, in the subatomic world fluctuations are a temporary phenomenon and it does not violate cause and effect relationship.
What do you mean by temporary ? What is the timescale you use to differentiate between temporary and permanent ? Do you know aboutCassimir effect and it can be experimentally measured ?”
Firstly, you should study QM. It is a known fact that virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space.Don’t try to teach me any effect as that would affect your remaining image.Actually , you are a wondrful idiot parading as an expert in QM.
Virtual particles aren't special particles. They are same matter/anti-matter particles like electron and positron. Ask anybody who is working in sub-atomic physics or spectroscopy what is the life time of their particles (not even virtual particles) under observation ? You can read my replies to Subair on this issue more. I don't want to repeat all those again here.
(5) There are a number of research journals being published by religious people . Creation Research quarterly , Muslim education quarterly, MASS Journal of Islamic Science,American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences ,Journal for christian theological research,Journal of Creation,Biblical Archaeology Review, Archaeology Odyssey,Biblical Archaeology Review,Biblical Astronomer journal etc. etc.
What kind of research is being published in these journals ? See what Manushya replied to Subair
So stop extrapolating things from both ends. I mean from both ends- i.e., from your scriptures (interpret in such a way that it looks to predict all that science says) and from science (twisting scientific facts and cherry picking to support scriptures). So long theists refrain from the above two, I see no conflicts arising
Most of the research is in middle ground to show scientific evidence for statements in scriptures to get more approval from educated believers. Mr. Hussain, do you agree with conclusions of Christian creationist journals ? Or as earlier, you would like to evade the question and want to reply that you agree in the broad conclusions only and not worried about details. Can anybody get a job in academia or industry (respectable science and technology institution) with research papers published in these journals ? Can you point out at least one ? See my discussion with Subair. Even the creationist leaning Philosopher William Craig published his arguments in a mainstream Philosophy journal and didn't choose any creationist journal. Simply there exists some journals doesn't mean experts value their impact similarly.
(6) Actually you (Appottan) and your atheist tribal people like Jack are living in stone age.
I thought you are a person who denies evolution. Where did you get the concept of stone age and what happened there ? As far as i know, people in any of the religious scriptures never lived in Stone age. It started around 2.5milliion years ago when early hominids were around and was over by around 10,000 BC.
Or is it another Freudian slip ?
/JR
Dear Mr.Hussain,
ബൂലോകത്തു ഉത്തരം മുട്ടുമ്പോല്‍ കൊഞ്ഞനം കുത്തുന്നതും, തെറി വിളിക്കുന്നതും കണ്ടിട്ടുണ്ടു , പക്ഷേ താങ്കളുടെ പ്രതികരണം ഒരു പുത്തന്‍ അനുഭവം ആയിരുന്നു.
Two days back when i wrote the following comment, never in my wildest dreams i was expecting a reply of the kind which i got later from Mr. Hussain. As you can see, i was pointing out his odd behavior of asking for replies without even reading 2-3 my previous comments. First i thought he was doing only with me. Then i saw he shot a similar question to another blogger - Manushya
Mr. Hussain, Is this a new one from your bag of infinite tricks ? Manushya had sent a reply 8 hrs before you sent this mail. You have been asking for response from intelligent readers. From his arguments, i can see you finally got one. But i am pretty sure you will be in a perpetual state of being an unsinkable rubber duck even with him. Yesterday you posted a comment to me without even reading my 2-3 comments posted before. /JR
Instead Hussain re-appeared donning the role of Sherlock Holmes by accusing me of creating another blogger identity - Manushya and started refuting his comments. He claims to have found the evidence based on two observations after a paragraph of bragging how intelligent he is and nobody can con him easily because he isn't short of information and logic. You can read the full paragraph below.
There are a lot of tricks that are played by the actors in accordance with their ability.I shall provide you an apparent example.Same person uses different identities, one original and the other fabricated to get rid of the trap he is holed in.But a person may be able to forge an extra name , email or passport but he cannot effectively manufacture an entirely different language style ,logic or information and thus he would be trapped by a smart intelligence officer. The problem is he was dumb enough to think that there is only one or two ways to identify a bogus man. In my case, there is no need of such tricks ,even a single one. Particularly because I’m not short of information and logic.
(1)I had already replied to all of your arguments and it was you people who failed to provide me explanation for my many critical comments( Jack in one stage declared to withdraw without giving an explanation for many points ).
The point is he thinks he has replied to all (mine and Manushya's arguments) and instead we have a backlog to his questions.
Earlier i had posted a saying i have stopped replying to him and i will join the debate only if he tries to hoodwink the readers by misrepresenting any scientific facts and none has yet pointed out. Later he posted a in a discussion between me and Subair which prompted me to join back again.
Let us see his first evidence
(2)Both people equally and exactly misunderstood my word ‘generalisation’( an intelligent person can easily identify this as a case of an identity fabrication). In the philosophy of science generalisation means inductive reasoning.A law is generalised by inductive reasoning on the basis of a limited observation.This induction rules out exceptions. Without understanding this primary notion in philosophy of science you blunderous identical twins have written so many wastes . Both people equally and exactly misunderstood my word ‘generalisation’( an intelligent person can easily identify this as a case of an identity fabrication). In the philosophy of science generalisation means inductive reasoning.A law is generalised by inductive reasoning on the basis of a limited observation.This induction rules out exceptions. Without understanding this primary notion in philosophy of science you blunderous identical twins have written so many wastes
Long story short, he is finding both Manushya and myself aren't agreeing with his version of philosophy of science and how science is practiced. Both of us raise same objection to his understanding what does a scientific law means and the role of observations which agrees and disagrees with the law. (I will reply on this later below). His reply was later followed by taking my comments and replying to Manushya and vice versa.
Second evidence was both of us pooh-poohed his knowledge in quantum mechanics and both of us objected to his statement that quantum mechanics has led to the demise of rationalism ( I haven't quoted his comments here. Interested readers can refer to his comments on my previous post)
So based on these two evidences he applied his reasoning and infers both Manushya and myself are same person and accused me of forging an identity (Manushya) and mounting a similar attack to relieve the pressure on Jack rabbit.
Let us see whether our smart intelligent officer is closer to Sherlock Holmes or to Jacques Clouseau (starring Peter Sellers). I wish he had read A Study in Scarlet to learn more of Holmes' methods.
Let us see what evidence he has left out to make this conclusion. (There is no surprise here as Hussain thinks scientific laws are generalization by leaving out exceptions)
1. I have been debating Hussain for more than two weeks now. We have had three long mail exchanges on which any intelligent reader can figure out what was the conclusion
2. We have discussed many topics covering logic, cosmology, evolution, philosophy, quantum mechanics etc. So far Manushya's (no offense inteneded) comments were restricted to philosophy of science and quantum mechanics.
3. Any smart investigator always looks for what was the motive for any crime. Here i had no motive to mount a separate attack as i wasn't the one trailing on the arguments. Being an anonymous blogger (for professional reasons) i stand to gain nothing from my posts/comments in terms of recognition and acceptance from anybody. Only thing i get is a feedback from many readers whether there was any flaw in my understanding which i had overlooked. So from my side, the material incentives are almost none to continue or discontinue the debate.
Let us examine it from Mr. Hussain's side. Hussain desperately wants to show he is the last man standing in the debate by any means and was always on the top. It is understandable as he is the only one who is making a living out of these by royalties from his books (mis-representing evolution, Holocaust denial..), giving talks etc. So is it the act of desperation to silence the opposition and to continue his magnum opus of remaining 28 articles refuting Dawkins ?
Or could it be something else ? The very act is a text book example of Fregoli delusion.
The Fregoli delusion or the delusion of doubles is a rare disorder in which a person holds a delusional belief that different people are in fact a single person who changes appearance or is in disguise. The syndrome may be related to a brain lesion, and is often of a paranoid nature with the delusional person believing themselves persecuted by the person they believe is in disguise.
As you saw earlier, Hussain thought he was being attacked by me (Jack Rabbit) and a clone/twin (he is calling all these names) - Manushya and both are same persons. (QED)
This isn't the first time Hussain is showing delusion of any kind. Remember his classic self description -ലോകോത്തര നിരീശ്വരവാദ ബുദ്ധിജീവിയായ ഡോക്കിന്‍സിന്റെ ഒരു കൃതിയെ തന്നെ ഖണ്ഡിക്കാന്‍ ഇറങ്ങിത്തിരിച്ച ഞാന്‍ . This is an example of delusions of grandeur.
Bertrand Russell has once said: "One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important".
Some of his well wishers fan those flames
എനിക്കു തോന്നുന്നത് ഹുസൈന്‍ സാറുമായി സംവദിക്കാന്‍ കഴിവുള്ളവരൊന്നും ബൂലോകത്ത് ഇല്ല എന്നാണ്.ഡോക്കിന്‍സോളമില്ലെങ്കിലും വേണ്ടില്ല മിനിമം ഒരു ശങ്കരാചാര്യരുടെ നിലവാരമെങ്കിലും വേണ്ടെ? അതു പോലുമില്ലാത്തവരുമായി സംവദിക്കാനേ പോകരുത് എന്നാണ് എന്റെ എളിയ അഭിപ്രായം.
From all these discussions, i can safely conclude that Hussain needs somebody from Shankara's era to win a debate on scientific arguments.
On the other hand, it is quite likely Hussain may argue i thought and planned about all these in advance to put him in a trap or i may even be an intellectual crusader recruited by CIA/Mossad to denigrate our "self-styled public intellectual" in front of his well wishers and publishers (if anyone is reading).
Let me conclude this post by replying to Hussain's few blunders (always coming up like an unsinkable rubber duck)
(1) Both people(Manushyan) equally and exactly misunderstood my word ‘generalisation’( an intelligent person can easily identify this as a case of an identity fabrication). In the philosophy of science generalisation means inductive reasoning.A law is generalised by inductive reasoning on the basis of a limited observation.This induction rules out exceptions. Without understanding this primary notion in philosophy of science you blunderous identical twins have written so many wastes. Your assertion shows a lack of exposure to scientific methodology”. “In short, scientific laws doesn't represent 99.99% of observations, but 100% of observations. There are no exceptions here. If there were one, law would have been dead. ...”
Here Hussain is acting like Aristotle. Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths.
Hussain could have checked by searching for the definition of scientific law.
This was the original definition i gave and i still stand by that. See how it ends. Scientific laws have always been observed to be true.
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
I challenge Hussain to show a scientific law which fail for some exceptions.
This was one of the issues Manushya and I agree where Hussian was horribly wrong.
Lord Kelvin famously remarked there are only two small clouds in the clear sky of understanding of 19th century physicists. Infact those two clouds, Michelson-Morley expt and black body radiation resulted in relativity and quantum mechanics respectively. Imagine what would have happened if we continue to generalize and threw out those exceptions.
(2) Regarding the philosophical impact of QM, Jack Rabbit quoted my words as follows:
“In the case of Quantum Mechanics,See the following words of Dr.Paul Davies: “… the new physics …find closer accord with mysticism than materialism”.
Actually what I claimed was a simple and widely accepted observation on philosophical impact of QM.But Jack and Manushyan are ignorant followers of blind materialism.Please remember that though Davies is a populariser of science,he is a reputed physicist also and got his PhD in QM”.
What was his reply? See:
See one of my old post on Paul Davies here
Also see Paul Davies' own reply from his site after getting Templeton prize to advance the world's understanding of God and/or spirituality
I carefully read both of these links but there was no counter explanation against my view in these posts.Moreover both of these pieces were not even slightely related with issue in the discussion that is philosophical impact of QM. So this is an outright lie and deception from the part of Mr.Jack Rabbit.
I cannot help if you aren't able to understand it. It clearly has Paul Davies' views and response by scientists like Lee Smolin. If you think Quantum mechanics is closer to mysticism, how democratic and repeatable are mystic experiences compared to quantum mechanical effects ?
(3) Hussain's words: “In the case of evolution, there is no systematic fossil record. It is really very jerky and you people manufacture a theory out of this exceptions. This shows your approach regarding the knowledge itself is unscientific and irrational. On the other hand , we reject Darwinism on the basis of systematic gaps in the fossil record which very much in accordance with the spirit of science.”
Jacks reply:
“It is not even two days you paraded your ignorance on evolution.
The following paragraph was my reply to Prof. Wahid also.
Fossilization is a rare occurrence in nature as it demands special conditions. Creationists demand to see fossil records like a movie film roll to agree. Even if we had no fossils, by comparison of sequences (of DNA, RNA and proteins) alone and molecular phylogenetics analysis prove evolution. For those who are looking for a popular account of this, refer to Sean Carroll's The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution. Since you are completely ignorant on this, ask any person who is doing molecular biology or population genetics to verify my statement
Hussain's reply: Your explanation for the rarity of transitional fossils is simply false. Almost all transitional fossils go missing in all important places.This is not due to the rarity of fossilization process. Molecular similarities in no way prove an evolutionary relationship ( For details see the book EVOLUTION : A THEORY IN CRISIS by Dr.Michael Denton)
As i said earlier, no wonder you demand to see all transitional fossils. It is like you have a list of all transitional fossils. You are quoting Denton who initially sided with Christian creationists and left the camp later. You don't even know Sean Carroll. He is world's leading evo-devo biologist. I repeat my statement, even if we hadn't discovered any fossils, we could still figure out evolution happened from many other fields in biology. You are living in a fossil age or stuck in a time-warp to always ask for transitional fossils as if it were the ONLY proof for evolution.
Even NON-SCIENTIFIC BODIES like Catholic Pope in Vatican and judicial courts in US rule in favor of evolution against the Christian creationists (with whom you agree) based on overwhelming evidence. Think who has a bigger face to lose if they are wrong and so how much evidence they might have examined. Or is this another example of delusions of grandeur. ?
(4) See my words and subsequent comment by Jack:
“ Secondly, in the subatomic world fluctuations are a temporary phenomenon and it does not violate cause and effect relationship.
What do you mean by temporary ? What is the timescale you use to differentiate between temporary and permanent ? Do you know aboutCassimir effect and it can be experimentally measured ?”
Firstly, you should study QM. It is a known fact that virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space.Don’t try to teach me any effect as that would affect your remaining image.Actually , you are a wondrful idiot parading as an expert in QM.
Virtual particles aren't special particles. They are same matter/anti-matter particles like electron and positron. Ask anybody who is working in sub-atomic physics or spectroscopy what is the life time of their particles (not even virtual particles) under observation ? You can read my replies to Subair on this issue more. I don't want to repeat all those again here.
(5) There are a number of research journals being published by religious people . Creation Research quarterly , Muslim education quarterly, MASS Journal of Islamic Science,American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences ,Journal for christian theological research,Journal of Creation,Biblical Archaeology Review, Archaeology Odyssey,Biblical Archaeology Review,Biblical Astronomer journal etc. etc.
What kind of research is being published in these journals ? See what Manushya replied to Subair
So stop extrapolating things from both ends. I mean from both ends- i.e., from your scriptures (interpret in such a way that it looks to predict all that science says) and from science (twisting scientific facts and cherry picking to support scriptures). So long theists refrain from the above two, I see no conflicts arising
Most of the research is in middle ground to show scientific evidence for statements in scriptures to get more approval from educated believers. Mr. Hussain, do you agree with conclusions of Christian creationist journals ? Or as earlier, you would like to evade the question and want to reply that you agree in the broad conclusions only and not worried about details. Can anybody get a job in academia or industry (respectable science and technology institution) with research papers published in these journals ? Can you point out at least one ? See my discussion with Subair. Even the creationist leaning Philosopher William Craig published his arguments in a mainstream Philosophy journal and didn't choose any creationist journal. Simply there exists some journals doesn't mean experts value their impact similarly.
(6) Actually you (Appottan) and your atheist tribal people like Jack are living in stone age.
I thought you are a person who denies evolution. Where did you get the concept of stone age and what happened there ? As far as i know, people in any of the religious scriptures never lived in Stone age. It started around 2.5milliion years ago when early hominids were around and was over by around 10,000 BC.
Or is it another Freudian slip ?
/JR
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Who can inflate Subair's balloon ? A simple challenge for Hussain and his ilk
...
Jack Rabbit said:
They are treating God like a balloon. When confronted with scientific and logical arguments, they inflate their pet balloon so large and make it bigger than universe beyond the realm of testability and falsifiability. When none are around and faced with thoughts on life/after-life, they deflate the balloon and treat it like a tribal deity.
Subair said
അതിന് ശേഷം X എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാല്‍ ഒന്നാണോ, പലതാണോ, ഒന്നും മൂന്നും കൂടിയതാണോ, ആ ശക്തിയെ അള്ളാഹു എന്ന് വിളിക്കണമോ, ആ ശക്തിക്ക് അവതാരങ്ങള്‍ ഉണ്ടോ തുടങ്ങിയ കാര്യങ്ങള്‍ നമ്മുക്ക് ആസ്തികര്‍ എന്ന നിലക്ക് ചര്‍ച്ച ചെയ്യാം.
Finally, Hussain has clearly spelled out what kind of God he is defending. Read his comment 8 and my response 8 here . He is defending a God which is refuted by Dawkins in this book The God Delusion - Abrahamic God
Let us take your assumptions:
1. ഉത്ഭവം ഉള്ള എതോന്നിനും ഒരു കാരണം ഉണ്ടാകും.
This isn't always true. In particle physics, virtual pairs can originate with no reason as it is the outcome of uncertainity principle. This is quite relevant in cosmology. During cosmological inflation, when space was expanding exponentially fast, by the time these particles are ready to find each other and disappear again, they're already stretched out across the Universe. This is how tiny quantum fluctuations create regions with less dense and more dense parts in our universe.
Also there are physical events like radioactive decay which happens without any particular reason.
Hmm this is like plane crashing even before take off.
Let us continue on the universe needs an eternal creator line of thought.
Can we call X as the God Hussain is defending or Dawkins is refuting ? No. Why ?
Take this example of linear system of equations for an analogy
x,y,z,w are unknowns
x + y + z + w = 10
x + 2y + z + w = 12
x + y + 3z + w = 16
x + y + z + 4w = 22
The solution of this is x=1, y=2, z=3 and w=4
Had i showed only the first equation, x + y + z + w = 10, (x,y,z,w) could have been (1,2,3,4), (1,1,4,4), (1,1,1,7)...Many combination can satisfy the first equation.
The above is only a special case where we have unique solution when we have all 4 equations. This doesn't mean that all sets of equation have unique solutions. Some may have no solution and some may have many solutions
So unless we bring all the attributes of the God under discussion, X could be anything.
So what attributes do we have in hand ?
X എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാല്‍ പ്രാപഞ്ചിക നിയമങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് അതീതവും, അപ്പുറവും ആയ പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന്റെ കാരണത്തിന് ഹേതുവായ ഉന്മ. X പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിലെ ഒരു നിയമങ്ങല്കും വിധേയനല് - beyond any physical laws
കാരണം X പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന്റെ തെന്നെ ഉത്ഭവത്തിന് കാരണമാണ്, അതുകൊണ്ട് തെന്നെ അതിലെ നിയമങ്ങള്‍ ഉണ്ടാക്കിയതും X ആണ്. - Creator of universe and all its natural laws
അതെ പോലെ തെന്നെ X അനാദിയാണ്
X ഇല്ലാത്ത ഒരു കാലം ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നിട്ടില്ല. - eternal
ഏറ്റവും പ്രധാനമായി X തീരുമാനങ്ങള്‍ എടുക്കാന്‍ കഴിവുള്ള ഒരു ശക്തിയാണ്, അതുകൊണ്ട് തെന്നെ X വേണമെന്ന് വെച്ചിട്ടാണ്ട് ഈ പ്രപഞ്ചം ഉണ്ടാക്കിയത്. - Since X is powerful to take decisions like creating this universe he should be omnipotent and omniscient (all knowledgeable, since he has to take decisions)
Is this the God Hussain is defending or Dawkins is refuting ? Not yet
What is missing here ? This X doesn't need to have any connection with humans or the world we live in and it has only partial resemblance to Abrahamic God.
So which is the God Hussain is defending or Dawkins is refuting ?
It is similar to Case 1 God: God with infinite abilities (eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinitely compassionate) who also intervenes in our daily life and co-exist with evil around us.
These are the features you omitted compared to my definition
1. infinitely compassionate - I am taking that from the beginning of almost every Surah in Koran - IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, MOST COMPASSIONATE, MOST MERCIFUL. You may choose to deny this feature by denying Allah and Koran.
2. intervenes in our daily life - If your X has no business with our lives, why are you spending so much time to defend him/her ?
3. co-exist with evil around us - You may choose to deny there is no evil in this world and it is my illusion
Can we omit any of these features while making the transition from X to God under discussion ? No
Tell me why X who is omnipotent, powerful to take decisions and infinitely compassionate choose to leave so much evil in this world ? This was the question asked by Epicurus 2500 years ago, even before Christ or Muhammed.
Please don't come up with this absurd reply.
God was aware about the future events but he didn't take decision on the course of future events instead he gave free will and delegated decision making to humans. So evil is creation of humans. God cannot be blamed for that.
This kind of bail-out plan was advocated by Hussain and Alikoya.
Hussain proved he is dumb enough not to understand proof by Epicurus .
It looks like both aren't aware about evil in nature other than those caused by humans. For eg: the famous example by William L. Rowe on natural evil:
In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn (baby deer) is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering. God could have chosen otherwise.
Don't tell me this is a hypothetical situation. Wild fires are common in places like Yellow Stone National Park
Alikoya was wise enough not to reply my question.
See whether you can answer my question to Alikoya ?
Alikoya Sir,
Here is my moral dilemma.
One group decided to bomb and derail a passenger train. I came to know about their plan. I WASN'T INVOLVED IN ANY OF THE PREPARATION OR PLANNING STAGES. I remained silent. The D-day came, their mission was successful and many people died.
Am i culpable of any crime on the judgment day ? My plea before Allah is i was only aware of the mission and didn't plan or execute it.
PS: At the end of the demonstration, it is commonly observed that some act like an unsinkable rubber duck by claiming their balloon is still intact despite the fact that nobody in 2800 year old history of philosophy (from axial age to current day) was able to do so .
Jack Rabbit said:
They are treating God like a balloon. When confronted with scientific and logical arguments, they inflate their pet balloon so large and make it bigger than universe beyond the realm of testability and falsifiability. When none are around and faced with thoughts on life/after-life, they deflate the balloon and treat it like a tribal deity.
Subair said
-
X - നെ ഞാന്‍ താഴെ കൊടുക്കുന്ന പോലെ നിര്‍വചിക്കുന്നു.
X എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാല്‍ പ്രാപഞ്ചിക നിയമങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് അതീതവും, അപ്പുറവും ആയ പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന്റെ കാരണത്തിന് ഹേതുവായ ഉന്മ. X പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിലെ ഒരു നിയമങ്ങല്കും വിധേയനല്ല, കാരണം X പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന്റെ തെന്നെ ഉത്ഭവത്തിന് കാരണമാണ്, അതുകൊണ്ട് തെന്നെ അതിലെ നിയമങ്ങള്‍ ഉണ്ടാക്കിയതും X ആണ്. അതെ പോലെ തെന്നെ X അനാദിയാണ്, X ഇല്ലാത്ത ഒരു കാലം ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നിട്ടില്ല. ഏറ്റവും പ്രധാനമായി X തീരുമാനങ്ങള്‍ എടുക്കാന്‍ കഴിവുള്ള ഒരു ശക്തിയാണ്, അതുകൊണ്ട് തെന്നെ X വേണമെന്ന് വെച്ചിട്ടാണ്ട് ഈ പ്രപഞ്ചം ഉണ്ടാക്കിയത്.
ഇനി ഞാന്‍ ചെയ്യേണ്ടത്, X മുകളില്‍ നിര്‍വചിച്ച ശക്തി ഉണ്ട് എന്ന് തെളിയിക്കുകയാണ്. - എന്റെ വാദം താഴെക്കൊടുക്കുന്നു.
1. ഉത്ഭവം ഉള്ള എതോന്നിനും ഒരു കാരണം ഉണ്ടാകും.
2. ഈ പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന് ഒരു ആരഭം ഉണ്ട്.
3.അത് കൊണ്ട് ഈ പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന് ഒരു കാരണം ഉണ്ട്. - ഇനി ഈ കാരണം X ആകുന്നതു എങ്ങിനെയെന്ന് ?
പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന്റെ കാരണം തീര്‍ച്ചയായും പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന് പുറത്തായിരിക്കും. കാരണം പ്രപഞ്ചം ഇല്ലാതെ ഒരു അവസ്ഥയില്‍ നിന്നാണല്ലോ അത് ഉണ്ടായത്. അതെ പോലെ തെന്നെ പ്രപഞ്ചവും സമയവും ഇല്ലാത്ത ഒരു അവസ്ഥയില്‍ നിന്നും പ്രപഞ്ചം ഉണ്ടായി എങ്കില്‍ അത് മനപ്പൂര്‍വ്വം ഉണ്ടാക്കിയതായിരിക്കണം. കാരണം സമയമില്ലാത്ത ഒരു ലോകത്ത് സംഭവങ്ങളും ഉണ്ടാകില്ല, സംഭവങ്ങള്‍ ഇലാല്‍ എങ്കില്‍ ഒന്നും "താനേ" ഉണ്ടാകില്ല. അതുകൊണ്ട് തെന്നെ സമയത്തിന് അപ്പുറത്തുള്ള, പ്രാപഞ്ചിക നിയമത്തിനു അതീതനായ ഈ പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന് കാരണക്കാരനായ X എന്ന ശക്തിയുണ്ട്
അതിന് ശേഷം X എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാല്‍ ഒന്നാണോ, പലതാണോ, ഒന്നും മൂന്നും കൂടിയതാണോ, ആ ശക്തിയെ അള്ളാഹു എന്ന് വിളിക്കണമോ, ആ ശക്തിക്ക് അവതാരങ്ങള്‍ ഉണ്ടോ തുടങ്ങിയ കാര്യങ്ങള്‍ നമ്മുക്ക് ആസ്തികര്‍ എന്ന നിലക്ക് ചര്‍ച്ച ചെയ്യാം.
Finally, Hussain has clearly spelled out what kind of God he is defending. Read his comment 8 and my response 8 here . He is defending a God which is refuted by Dawkins in this book The God Delusion - Abrahamic God
- How anyone can prick this balloon -X ?
Let us take your assumptions:
1. ഉത്ഭവം ഉള്ള എതോന്നിനും ഒരു കാരണം ഉണ്ടാകും.
This isn't always true. In particle physics, virtual pairs can originate with no reason as it is the outcome of uncertainity principle. This is quite relevant in cosmology. During cosmological inflation, when space was expanding exponentially fast, by the time these particles are ready to find each other and disappear again, they're already stretched out across the Universe. This is how tiny quantum fluctuations create regions with less dense and more dense parts in our universe.
Also there are physical events like radioactive decay which happens without any particular reason.
Hmm this is like plane crashing even before take off.
Let us continue on the universe needs an eternal creator line of thought.
Can we call X as the God Hussain is defending or Dawkins is refuting ? No. Why ?
Take this example of linear system of equations for an analogy
x,y,z,w are unknowns
x + y + z + w = 10
x + 2y + z + w = 12
x + y + 3z + w = 16
x + y + z + 4w = 22
The solution of this is x=1, y=2, z=3 and w=4
Had i showed only the first equation, x + y + z + w = 10, (x,y,z,w) could have been (1,2,3,4), (1,1,4,4), (1,1,1,7)...Many combination can satisfy the first equation.
The above is only a special case where we have unique solution when we have all 4 equations. This doesn't mean that all sets of equation have unique solutions. Some may have no solution and some may have many solutions
So unless we bring all the attributes of the God under discussion, X could be anything.
So what attributes do we have in hand ?
X എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാല്‍ പ്രാപഞ്ചിക നിയമങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് അതീതവും, അപ്പുറവും ആയ പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന്റെ കാരണത്തിന് ഹേതുവായ ഉന്മ. X പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിലെ ഒരു നിയമങ്ങല്കും വിധേയനല് - beyond any physical laws
കാരണം X പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന്റെ തെന്നെ ഉത്ഭവത്തിന് കാരണമാണ്, അതുകൊണ്ട് തെന്നെ അതിലെ നിയമങ്ങള്‍ ഉണ്ടാക്കിയതും X ആണ്. - Creator of universe and all its natural laws
അതെ പോലെ തെന്നെ X അനാദിയാണ്
X ഇല്ലാത്ത ഒരു കാലം ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നിട്ടില്ല. - eternal
ഏറ്റവും പ്രധാനമായി X തീരുമാനങ്ങള്‍ എടുക്കാന്‍ കഴിവുള്ള ഒരു ശക്തിയാണ്, അതുകൊണ്ട് തെന്നെ X വേണമെന്ന് വെച്ചിട്ടാണ്ട് ഈ പ്രപഞ്ചം ഉണ്ടാക്കിയത്. - Since X is powerful to take decisions like creating this universe he should be omnipotent and omniscient (all knowledgeable, since he has to take decisions)
Is this the God Hussain is defending or Dawkins is refuting ? Not yet
What is missing here ? This X doesn't need to have any connection with humans or the world we live in and it has only partial resemblance to Abrahamic God.
So which is the God Hussain is defending or Dawkins is refuting ?
It is similar to Case 1 God: God with infinite abilities (eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinitely compassionate) who also intervenes in our daily life and co-exist with evil around us.
These are the features you omitted compared to my definition
1. infinitely compassionate - I am taking that from the beginning of almost every Surah in Koran - IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, MOST COMPASSIONATE, MOST MERCIFUL. You may choose to deny this feature by denying Allah and Koran.
2. intervenes in our daily life - If your X has no business with our lives, why are you spending so much time to defend him/her ?
3. co-exist with evil around us - You may choose to deny there is no evil in this world and it is my illusion
Can we omit any of these features while making the transition from X to God under discussion ? No
Tell me why X who is omnipotent, powerful to take decisions and infinitely compassionate choose to leave so much evil in this world ? This was the question asked by Epicurus 2500 years ago, even before Christ or Muhammed.
Please don't come up with this absurd reply.
God was aware about the future events but he didn't take decision on the course of future events instead he gave free will and delegated decision making to humans. So evil is creation of humans. God cannot be blamed for that.
This kind of bail-out plan was advocated by Hussain and Alikoya.
Hussain proved he is dumb enough not to understand proof by Epicurus .
It looks like both aren't aware about evil in nature other than those caused by humans. For eg: the famous example by William L. Rowe on natural evil:
In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn (baby deer) is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering. God could have chosen otherwise.
Don't tell me this is a hypothetical situation. Wild fires are common in places like Yellow Stone National Park
Alikoya was wise enough not to reply my question.
See whether you can answer my question to Alikoya ?
Alikoya Sir,
Here is my moral dilemma.
One group decided to bomb and derail a passenger train. I came to know about their plan. I WASN'T INVOLVED IN ANY OF THE PREPARATION OR PLANNING STAGES. I remained silent. The D-day came, their mission was successful and many people died.
Am i culpable of any crime on the judgment day ? My plea before Allah is i was only aware of the mission and didn't plan or execute it.
PS: At the end of the demonstration, it is commonly observed that some act like an unsinkable rubber duck by claiming their balloon is still intact despite the fact that nobody in 2800 year old history of philosophy (from axial age to current day) was able to do so .
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Dozen more blunders in Hussain's understanding including three volte-faces
COMMENT 1: (1)There are a few atheists who argue that design in the universe is not real but appears as real.Most of the peoples perceive it as real. So the perception error belongs to a few atheists that is an exception which proves the rule. Of course there are perception errors . But that in no way proves all perceptions are in errors. An elephant appears black and huge. Is it a perception error? You state : “It is known in brain sciences even we our senses can fool sometimes”. Correct. Some times -not always! .
RESPONSE 1: Another VOLTE-FACE. See what you had written before
1."പ്രപഞ്ചം ആസൂത്രണം ചെയ്യപ്പെട്ടതുപോലെ തോന്നുന്നു'' എന്നു തന്നെയാണല്ലോ ഞാനെഴുതിയത്. ഇത് appearance ആണെന്നും reality അല്ലെന്നുമാണ് ഡോക്കിന്‍സിന്റെ വാദം. എന്നാല്‍ appearance ഉം reality യും ഒന്നാണെന്ന് സമര്‍ത്ഥിക്കുന്നതോടൊപ്പം ഡോക്കിന്‍സിന്റെ വാദങ്ങളെ ഖണ്ഡിക്കുക കൂടി ചെയ്യുന്നതാണ് എന്റെ പഠനങ്ങള്‍ . അതിനാല്‍ appearance reality ആകണമെന്നില്ല എന്ന താങ്കളുടെ വാദത്തിന് യാതൊരു പ്രസക്തിയുമില്ല.
What is the difference between bold statements in your comment (quoted in comment 1) and my response (in my last post) cited above ?
Mr. Hussain, if you are doing VOLTE-FACE like this, there is no way we can proceed with a healthy discussion.
You also have consciously avoided to respond to your another volte-face which was caught in my last post and given below. What is your stand on this or you flip-flopped again ?
COMMENT 2: 5. ദൈവത്തിന് ആരംഭമില്ലെന്ന് ഞാന്‍ സമര്‍ത്ഥിച്ചിട്ടേയില്ല.
RESPONSE 2: Then what the heck does the below sentence mean ? I have been following up (asking for evidence for eternalness) many times only based on this concluding sentence by you.
ആസ്തിക്യവാദപ്രകാരം ദൈവത്തിന് ആരംഭമില്ല.ആരംഭമില്ലാത്തതിനു കാരണം ആവശ്യമില്ലെന്ന തത്വചിന്തിലെ പ്രാഥമികവിവരം പോലും ഡോക്കിന്‍സിനില്ല
Thanks for this big VOLTE-FACE. Then how was your God originated/created ?
COMMENT 3: You suggest two books ‘Phantoms in the brain: probing the mysteries of the human mind’‘by V. S. Ramachandran, Sandra Blakeslee and ‘ The man who mistook his wife for a hat and other clinical tales’‘by Oliver W. Sacks. But these books have nothing to favor your argument
RESPONSE 3: I gave these references to show perception isn't always same as reality and our modes of perception and cognition can fail us sometimes. This is what you also agree now by saying.
You state : “It is known in brain sciences even we our senses can fool sometimes”. Correct. Some times -not always! .
COMMENT 4: More over I have read at least 100 books (most of which is published by Oxford , Cambridge and MIT Presses) on perception and cognition problems alone( ALL THESE ARE IN MY PERSONEL COLLECTION and I am ready to provide you for reading).Just imagine how many books I would had browsed for other topics.
RESPONSE 4: Good collection. But as long as you are looking for outlier observations and cherry picking evidence to suit your purpose and push your agenda, i amn't sure what is its utility. I would consider them as a dead weight, wastage of natural resources (trees for printing paper) and aids you to commit injustice to the unfortunate young readers (mostly from Muslim community) by exposing them to these wonderful fields for first time through your writings .
COMMENT 5: (2)Concrete or scientific evidence technically means experimental evidence( all these I had explained in my first post). You cannot prove that Mr.Bertrand Russel was/is atheist/agnostic scientifically.
RESPONSE 5: Since you use material as a meaning for concrete, (Quoting you: ദൈവം concrete ആയ material അല്ലാത്തതിനാല്‍ ദൈവാസ്തിത്വത്തിന് concrete evidence (മുര്‍ത്തമായ തെളിവ്) ഉണ്ടാകില്ലെന്ന് ഞാന്‍ detailed ആയി സമര്‍ത്ഥിച്ചതാണ്.) why don't you consider writings/biography/public acts/autobiography by Russell as a proof that he is an atheist/agnostic ?
You are choosing different meaning for concrete/material/scientific to suit your argument. Then what was the scientific evidence you used to say -
പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിലെ design ന് പിന്നില്‍ ഒരു designer അനുമാനിക്കുന്നതാണ് chance നെ കാരണമാക്കുന്നതിനേക്കാള്‍ logical, rational and scientific എന്നാണ് ഞാന്‍ സമര്‍ത്ഥിച്ചത്. ?
Since you don't think Russell can be proved to be atheist/agnostic, i have one simple question ?
Why should the readers of this blog believe in what you write here and else where (supporting creationism) is really what you think and believe and you are not a charlatan who is doing only for business reasons ?
What evidence can you show them ?
COMMENT 6:(5)20th century cosmology proved the basic tenet of religions that universe has an origin which clearly disproves the basic tenet of materialism that the universe had no beginning. So whether the atheists are with science or with 19th century materialism-that was my question .
See Jack Rabbits reply :” Rationalist way of thinking is not something which is etched in stone and beyond self-correction compared to religious dogma. It reflects the availability of scientific evidence. In a similar manner, even after two centuries worth of evidence on evolution, creationism/religion still doesn't accept it. Why don't you call that അശാസ്ത്രീയം ? This shows that you are cherry picking the scientific evidence to suit your purpose and push your agenda.”
Is this an answer to my question?
RESPONSE 6: I can't help if you aren't able to understand it. You only select the statement - Big bang theory states universe originated from a microscopic state and underwent massive expansion - to show big bang supported creationism and refutes rationalism. What i am saying is that, you are selecting this part "universe has an origin" and discards everything what cosmology has to say about the later evolution (spatial and temporal) of universe (as it contradicts with religious books).
For eg: religious books and believers (at early 20th century and some even now) thought God created world in 6 or 8 days and he populated with living beings. This was in total contradiction with existing knowledge of cosmology/biology/geology. This is what i call cherry picking the scientific evidence and claim scientific support for religious scriptures.
You are treating rationalism and scientific thinking as two different water-tight compartments. But core of rationalist thought is derived from scientific observations and conclusions on the origin and nature of universe. When there was no empirical evidence on the expansion of universe, there was no reason to think so unless one is a scriptural literalist. But when it was found, rationalists adopted that view. You may even say new scientific evidence can disprove existing science, so science itself should be called unscientific. (More on this in response 12)
FYI, as i said before, Rationalist way of thinking is not something which is etched in stone and beyond self-correction compared to religious dogma. It tries to adopt the best possible conclusions on the origin and nature of universe.
COMMENT 7: No, he is raising another question. He says evolution is scientific and but religion does not accept it and why I do not lament it as unscientific.
My answer: Darwinism is not a scientific theory; it is “a metaphysical research programme” as phrased by the great philosopher of science Karl Popper. (If you are ready for a discussion, please read my three books on Darwinism and make a refutation of any single point)
RESPONSE 7: What i am saying is that, you are picking "universe has an origin" from science and discards everything what science has to say about the later evolution (spatial and temporal) of universe (as it contradicts with religious books).
I think you are living in a time warp. Even NON-SCIENTIFIC BODIES like Catholic Pope in Vatican (statement quoted below)
Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies – which was neither planned nor sought – constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory
and judicial courts in US rule in favor of evolution against the Christian creationists (with whom you agree) based on overwhelming evidence.
(quoting you -ക്രിസ്ത്യന്‍ സൃഷ്ടിവാദക്കാരുടെ കൃതികള്‍ റഫറന്‍സായി നല്‍കിയതു പരാമര്‍ശിച്ച് അവരുമായി യോജിക്കുന്നുണ്ടോ എന്നും റാബിറ്റ് ചോദിക്കുന്നു. സൃഷ്ടി എന്ന സങ്കല്‍പ്പം ആരുടേതായാലും സമാനതയെ സൂചിപ്പിക്കുന്നു. വിശദാംശങ്ങളിലെ വ്യത്യാസങ്ങളിലല്ല പൊതുവായ സമാനതകളിലാണ് എന്റെ ശ്രദ്ധ.)
This issue was exclusively discussed with with Prof. Wahid in another post who also doubts evolution asked in similar lines
Prof. Wahid said,
Instead, you should have thought that if the study gives convincing scientific proof of evolution, why the scientist(s) didn’t get a Nobel? The origin of life and forms of life is one of the most important areas of scientific research since long. So far no evolutionist has presented scientifically convincing proof of evolution and that is why evolutionary biology has remained as of today Nobel-sterile field.
My reply ...
I guess you know there is no Nobel prize for biology. It is given for Physiology and medicine. Instead Swedish academy gives Crafoord Prize in astronomy, mathematics, biosciences and geosciences in a rotating scheme to complement those for which the Nobel Prizes are awarded.
If you take a look at the list of laureates for biosciences (so far only 8 prizes were given, 50% of them were given to evolutionary biologists)
2007 Robert Trivers
1999 John Maynard Smith, Ernst Mayr, George C. Williams
1993 William D Hamilton
1990 Edward O. Wilson
They are doyens in the field of evolutionary biology. So your argument that evolutionary biology has remained as of today a Nobel-sterile field doesn't hold any water. This shows the recognition and acceptance it has among the scientific community.
Prof. Wahid left the discussion without continuing much further citing time shortage.
Since you are a Popper fan, let me ask you one thing. If evolution was wrong, why isn't there a single fossil found which appear in out of time order in available fossil record. This could have easily falsified evolution.
COMMENT 8: (6)First part of your narration is not an answer to my argument. Concerning your second part, to my knowledge, there are no specific answers for these questions in religious texts. Hence open to accept available scientific theories.
RESPONSE 8: Is this another VOLTE-FACE or sign of cracking up ? You replied in comment 7 above, that evolution is wrong and you have written 3 books to refute it and asked me to read them.
This is what i wrote (this is third time now)
Scientists aren't looking for simple YES/NO or TRUE/FALSE answers. Both accounts (science vs religion) differ in every detail. Let us know what religion has to say
a) How long it took to create or how old is the universe ?
b) What was the order and distribution of creation (physical and biological world/universe) ?
On the above two aspects given as a and b, creation/intelligent-design proposals fail miserably with evidence in hand.
Now you are saying, you are open to accept available scientific theories. What does this mean ? You will accept available theories in cosmology and evolutionary biology as this is what is covered in two questions (a and b) given above.
COMMENT 9: (7) The explanation given by evolutionary anthropologists on the origin of religious nature in no way reduces the validity of religious concepts. Why are you talking about male nipples which have No known biological function of milking? Moreover, the homosexuality research is based on Alfred Kinsey’s fraudulent findings.
RESPONSE 9: It seems you haven't understood what i wrote.
Scientists in those fields (evolutionary anthropology) have explanation for the origin of religious thought. They conclude religious belief is an evolutionary by-product. For eg: just because males have two nipples doesn't mean we should try to use/milk them. On a similar note, homosexuality is found in nature among animals. Would you suggest there is no need for its ban in Islamic societies since it is a fact and part of nature ? In philosophy, this is called as naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is found in nature or if humans have a pre-disposition based on evolutionary past doesn't mean we need to adopt or encourage it.
It means we have a natural explanation of why we believe in super-natural gods and there is no need to reason it based on any messiah or prophets and their revelations. They also show this belief has lot of overlap in different communities including hunter-gatherer societies living today. That means no religion can claim superiority why their super-natural gods are better than others.
The example of male nipples and homosexuality is to show things which are natural, but we don't make it a point to use/enforce them.
You are quoting Alfred Kinsey (who did research mostly on humans was dead in 1950s) to show homosexuality research among animals is fraudulent. This proves my earlier statement - I think you are living in a time warp. Check this and this to know more about homosexuality in animal world.
My question was would you suggest to revoke ban on homosexuality in Islamic societies on the same way as you are claiming innateness of teleological thinking supports need for creationist belief since both are a fact and part of nature ?
This is why i wrote, in philosophy, this is called as naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is found in nature or if humans have a pre-disposition based on evolutionary past doesn't mean we need to adopt or encourage it.
COMMENT 10: (8) Your words “Epicurus in Greece could easily prove such a God doesn't exist”.Can you explain how he proved that God did not exist?
RESPONSE 10: This is what i wrote before in my last post.
NOBODY in the 2800 year old history of Philosophy (from axial age to current) was able to give a logically coherent concept of God with infinite abilities (eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinitely compassionate) who also intervenes in our daily life and co-exist with evil around. Even before the era of Christ/Muhammed, Epicurus in Greece could easily prove such a God doesn't exist.
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" — Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief
If you aren't able to see the issue of logical contradictions (compared to concept of God stated above) raised by Epicurus, i cannot help.
COMMENT 11: Your conclusion “I am finally repeating what i said before - Perhaps in the past, you have only encountered an audience as in local print edition of Prabhodhanam/Madhyamam. Please wake up to reality, what you are writing here is read by educated readers from all over the world”.
Can you suggest a single research article on any subject from any of malayalam atheist/rationalist journals for the last 10 0r 20 years ? Can you suggest a single research article from any of english atheist/rationalist journals for the last 20 years?
RESPONSE 11: This shows what i wrote in my last post was true.
RESPONSE 6: This shows you don't know the philosophy of science and how science is practiced in real life.
You are assuming (as i stated before in this post in Response 6) rationalism and scientific thinking as two different water-tight compartments. But core of rationalist thought is derived from scientific observations and conclusions on the origin and nature of universe.
There are hundreds of reputed journals in different fields. People publish their research findings in them and not in any special atheist/rational journal.
അപ്പൂട്ടൻ has also replied on this issue.
COMMENT 12: (9)ജീവശാസ്ത്രം,ഗോളശാസ്ത്രം, തത്ത്വചിന്ത, മനഃശാസ്ത്രം, രാഷ്ട്രമീമാംസ, മാധ്യമപഠനം, പുരാവസ്തുശാസ്ത്രം, ഭാഷാശാസ്ത്രം-- Have you systematically studied any of these areas?
Let the “educated readers from all over the world” decide whose arguments are more rational and scientific.
RESPONSE 12: This is what i wrote in my last post.
What i can conclude now is that you don't have relevant knowledge in any areas (ജീവശാസ്ത്രം, ഗോളശാസ്ത്രം, തത്ത്വചിന്ത, മനഃശാസ്ത്രം, രാഷ്ട്രമീമാംസ, മാധ്യമപഠനം, പുരാവസ്തുശാസ്ത്രം, ഭാഷാശാസ്ത്രം) as you claim and worse part is you don't even understand that you are trying to prove which cannot be proved for logical reasons. The scientific evidence only drives the nail in coffin further.
I can very confidently say after these three long exchanges that even if you have knowledge in these areas as you claim, i don't see how much of that is relevant to this discussion.
Rest is left for readers to decide who (ലോകോത്തര നിരീശ്വരവാദ ബുദ്ധിജീവിയായ ഡോക്കിന്‍സിന്റെ ഒരു കൃതിയെ തന്നെ ഖണ്ഡിക്കാന്‍ ഇറങ്ങിത്തിരിച്ച താങ്കളോ അതോ വഴി മുടക്കിയ നഴ്സറിപ്പയ്യനോ) is better informed and also logically consistent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)