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 comment 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 comment 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

35 comments:

Jack Rabbit said...

Endgame analysis: Act of the Desperate or Evidence of Delusion ?

ea jabbar said...

-ലോകോത്തര നിരീശ്വരവാദ ബുദ്ധിജീവിയായ ഡോക്കിന്‍സിന്റെ ഒരു കൃതിയെ തന്നെ ഖണ്ഡിക്കാന്‍ ഇറങ്ങിത്തിരിച്ച ഞാന്‍ ......!!!!!!



എനിക്കു തോന്നുന്നത് ഹുസൈന്‍ സാറുമായി സംവദിക്കാന്‍ കഴിവുള്ളവരൊന്നും ബൂലോകത്ത് ഇല്ല എന്നാണ്.ഡോക്കിന്‍സോളമില്ലെങ്കിലും വേണ്ടില്ല മിനിമം ഒരു ശങ്കരാചാര്യരുടെ നിലവാരമെങ്കിലും വേണ്ടെ? അതു പോലുമില്ലാത്തവരുമായി സംവദിക്കാനേ പോകരുത് എന്നാണ് എന്റെ എളിയ അഭിപ്രായം.
------
(:

നിഷ്കളങ്കന്‍ said...

നമുക്ക്‌ എല്ലാവര്ക്കും കൂടി ജബ്ബാര്‍ മാഷിന്റെ ബ്ലോഗില്‍ സംവദിച്ചാലോ നല്ല നിലവാരമുള്ള സംവാദം നടക്കുന്ന ബൂലോഗത്തിലെ ഒരേ ഒരിടം.

എന്‍ എം ഹുസൈന്‍ said...

Dear Mr. Jack,

Thanks for the response.
Sorry for the misspeculation.This two word sentence itself demolishes your twenty or more paragraphs!
And you accuses me as delusional well in accordance with your Dawkins’ that religion itself is delusional.But the pathetic fact is that Dakins bases his argument on a fictional writer Pirzig who was really a mental patient !

I had read all of your and manushya’s comments and replied to all cardinal points adequately.If you can’t agree, let the readers decide.

Let me examine the arguments.

(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”.
Replying to this Jack has written as follows:

“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”.

Again Jack is mass producing the same waste.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!Both of you( Manushya )missed this fact.

Yor pathetic challenge is this: “I challenge Hussain to show a scientific law which fail for some exceptions”.

What a dubious challenge is this? I never claimed that atleast there is one scientific law which fails for some exceptions. You and your atheist tribes are under the notion that a believer cannot grasp philosophy of science. On the basis of this arrogence ,you are producing wastes as reply.This is nothing but non-sense ,pure and simple.Do you think that mentioning Aristotle and Lord Kelvin make your non-sense meaningful?

Continue...

എന്‍ എം ഹുസൈന്‍ said...

(2)Jack quotes my words:

“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”.

See his reply:

“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 ?”

In the both links Jack mentioned, there was not a single sentence related with philosophical impact of Quantum Mechanics including Smolin’s words.The whole discussion was on another issue , ie, science is based on faith. Hence what you had done is outright deception and lying.Your reply unambiguosly prove this.

Continue...

എന്‍ എം ഹുസൈന്‍ said...

(3) Jack quotes my 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)”

See his reply:


“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.”

I never demanded “to see all transitional fossils” as Jack remarks. If you repeat your former statement, that would be a repeatation not an explanation or a reply on my entirely different comment. There is no explanation for the systematic fossil gaps in the above reply.

Continue...

എന്‍ എം ഹുസൈന്‍ said...

Please see what Charles Darwin said:
“There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.”Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 348.
“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.” Ibid., p. 344.
“To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.”Ibid., p. 350.
“The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” Ibid., p. 351.
See what Dawkins has to say:


“And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils]already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (London: W.W. Norton & Co., 1987), p. 229.

So on the basis of evidence and the words of the pioneers, the theory of evolution stands disproved.

Continue ...

എന്‍ എം ഹുസൈന്‍ said...

(4)He quotes my words : “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.”

See his reply:



“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.”

The word Virtual particle itself proves that it is a special kind of particle.So your argument itself is nonsense.Virtual particles are particles that flash in and out of existence.Unlike normal particles, virtual particles don’t have real mass. They are allowed to have mass (of borrowed energy) because they exist for only a short period of time. They are not real particles, even though they exhibit some of the same phenomena that real particles do.

I wonder where Jack learned his Quantum mechanics from!

But the fact remains as it is: You totally failed to defend your senseless stand.

Continue ...

എന്‍ എം ഹുസൈന്‍ said...

(5) He quotes my words : “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 was the context in which I listed these journals? Atheists (Appoottan) failed to point out a single research article published in any of the atheist journals for the last 20 years. Hence I pointed out that there are a lot of research papers being published by religious people.This itself exposes the abject intellectual poverty of atheists. They are really parasiting science and parading as hosters!

But covering up this context, Jack again produces wastes and wastes!


(6) Jack quotes my words: “Actually you (Appottan) and your atheist tribal people like Jack are living in stone age.”

Reply follows:

“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 ?”

You atheist people ( not all ) are living in delusion. Stone Age is also a mythic concept of evolutionary social anthropology. So my comparison seems a well suited one! If you are hurt by this remark, I am ready to promote you to a more advanced stage, ie, NEO-LITHIC AGE!!

End.

Jack Rabbit said...

Mr. Hussain said..

Sorry for the misspeculation.This two word sentence itself demolishes your twenty or more paragraphs!


This alone shows your arrogance and delusion. It is very pathetic of you to say your Sorry for the misspeculation demolishes my twenty or more paragraphs . You are conveniently forgetting that my reply was to expose your lengthy Jacques Clouseau style clumsy detective work.

No SANE person would have included that sentence after a sorry remark.


Anwar azhicode said...

...പ്രതിപക്ഷ ബഹുമാനം പുലർത്തുന്ന എൻ.എം.ഹുസ്സൈന്റെ സംവാദ ശൈലി ചർച്ചകളിൽ പങ്കെടൂക്കുന്നവർക്കുള്ള ഒരു പാഠപുസ്തകം തന്നെയാണ്...


നല്ല മാതൃക അധ്യാപനം.

I have no further interest in debating with you. Period. You have realized the objective (as i stated earlier in my post) in shooing people away by your style of discussion.

I still think you are suffering from delusional disorder. You have vomited a lot of garbage here. You have been conveniently avoiding to reply on one of my comments (given below) which was asked twice before (in this post and Response 7 in here)

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 (you or them) has a bigger face to lose if they are wrong and so how much evidence they might have examined. This shows another example of your DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR


/JR

എന്‍ എം ഹുസൈന്‍ said...

Dear Mr.Jack,

I am always expecting a declaration “I have no further interest in debating with you” from you.There is no other way if one is holed in.

This is the second time you are declaring withdrawal.When you miserably fail to counter my arguments,you declare withdrawal. Then after a few days, you would reappear raising some other arguments. Is there a psychiatrist who has identified and categorized this disorder? Anyway you are dumb enough to ignore the fact that so many readers are following each post and comment keenly.

When you fail to provide satisfactory explanation, you declare withdrawal!
What a wonderful model of debate!

Take the case you asked. You argued that design in the universe is an appearance.But it is a reality.You countered my argument saying sometimes perception error occurs. You erroniously interpolates this ‘sometimes’ to an ‘always’ argument.That is blatantly irrational and unscientific.

Whether Jack and Manushya are the same person or not is immaterial in an intellectual debate but the fact remains that both are identical in their ignorance, arrogance and confusion.

Jack Rabbit said...

Mr. Hussain,
I stopped debating you as you proved to be an outright LIAR and CHARLATAN. Even your last reply shows that.

SEE WHAT I ASKED IN MY LAST COMMENT (I only asked about this)

You have been conveniently avoiding to reply on one of my comments (given below) which was asked twice before (in this post and Response 7 in here)

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 (you or them) has a bigger face to lose if they are wrong and so how much evidence they might have examined. This shows another example of your DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR


and SEE WHAT WAS YOUR REPLY

Take the case you asked. You argued that design in the universe is an appearance.But it is a reality.You countered my argument saying sometimes perception error occurs. You erroniously interpolates this ‘sometimes’ to an ‘always’ argument.That is blatantly irrational and unscientific

താങ്കള്‍ ഒരു സംഭവമോ പ്രസ്ഥാനമോ അല്ല, ഒരു അവതാരം തന്നെയാണു

/JR

എന്‍ എം ഹുസൈന്‍ said...

Dear Mr.Jack,

Do you convinced that repeating lies , deceptions and ignorance without providing proper explanation constitute a reply? The readers of these blogs are watching and wondering your panic and distress.

Now, you withdrawn from debate and started abusing!

Jack Rabbit said...

എന്‍ എം ഹുസൈന്‍ said...

Dear Mr.Jack,

Do you convinced that repeating lies , deceptions and ignorance without providing proper explanation constitute a reply? The readers of these blogs are watching and wondering your panic and distress.


Mr. Hussain,
Here is my proof for all the accusations

The very act of intentionally never replying to my comment below shows you are a complete FRAUD

You are very well aware that this question is a CHECK MATE for you. That is the only reason why you aren't answering this even after asking three times.

This was my question


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 (you or them) has a bigger face to lose if they are wrong and so how much evidence they might have examined. This shows another example of your DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR

Institutions like Catholic church and US Judiciary are concerned about civic response in case they make a sloppy examination, trial and judgment.

Let us see the different ways Mr. Hussain responded/can respond.

1. As we saw last time, he took this question and gave completely different answer after posing himself a different question - FRAUDULENT ACT

2. You know Catholic Church and US Judiciary for Dover trial had asked lot of experts to examine all the evidence for evolution, before declaring it is a fact and intelligent design is false. If you are never admitting this, you are a LIAR and propagating falsehoods on evolution by writing books and articles only for business reasons. All your replies to my comments on evolution were fabricated by cherry picking to deceive readers.

3. Or you can claim that you don't know about Catholic Church and US Judiciary declaring evolution is a fact and intelligent design is false. In that case you aren't an expert and not current on these matters. But still you are creating an impression you know everything and my comments were wrong - again FRAUDULENT ACT

4. Last case, you can claim that you have more knowledge than all scientists who examined evidence and gave green light to Pope and testified before US judges. But you are yet to publish any single research paper on evolution in a respectable biology journal - evidence of DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR - Needs serious psychological counseling

QED


/JR

എന്‍ എം ഹുസൈന്‍ said...

Dear Mr.Jack,

It is very pity that a man declared withdrawn without providing not a single explanation from the debate is now appearing here and there and challenging me for replies. What a shame!

I unambiguously proved that you fraudulently quoted Paul Davies. But no explanation from you. In order to escape, you declared withdrawal!


(1)Catholics accepted evolution theory. So what? I am not a blind follower of Pope. So this was an irrelevant question .Hence, I never replied .Now; Jack says I gave another reply for this question .This is really a cognition error.

(2)Your words: “All your replies to my comments on evolution were fabricated by cherry picking to deceive readers”. Then why don’t you expose? Instead, you declared withdrawn from the debate without providing even a false explanation. So it is blatantly clear that it is you are a fraudulent man and a shameless man as well.

(3)You atheist people believe that Catholicism is a fraudulent establishment. Now, you are producing certificates from these horrible inquisitors to prove me wrong. What a DISGRACE!

(4)I don’t claim to have more knowledge than all the scientists. I simply refuse to follow them blindly and refuse to accept your blunders.

Finally, for your information : I had examined the whole procedure of Dover Trial and has written elaborately exposing Dawkins’ misrepresentation .It will be published in “Snehasamvadam” monthly in the coming issues and also in this blog.

Jack Rabbit said...

Mr. Hussain said ...

(1)Catholics accepted evolution theory. So what? I am not a blind follower of Pope. So this was an irrelevant question .Hence, I never replied .
(3)You atheist people believe that Catholicism is a fraudulent establishment. Now, you are producing certificates from these horrible inquisitors to prove me wrong. What a DISGRACE!


Since this is the only new thing you said, let me elaborate. Christianity had a longer history than Islam in fighting evolution which started with the legendary debate between Thomas Huxley and Rev. Wilberforce. Most of the Church denominations except fundamentalist Protestants in US now accept evolution as a fact.

All the arguments presented by Hussain here and Islamic creationists elsewhere are copied from Christian creationists and they also get help from them. I haven't seen any original contribution from Islamic world even to creationism. (leave out contribution to modern science)

It is a good and welcome thing from the side of Catholic Church to move ahead from its dark past. But you are discounting their acceptance citing 16th century inquisitions.


Subair,
Since you were confused with what comes under ad hominem attack, this argument by Hussain is a text book example of guilt by association or ad hominem attack

Good job Mr. Hussain. You are one of the current torch bearers of the tradition started by the second greatest Muslim ever lived (after Muhammed), Al-Ghazali in 13th century to put out ANY LIGHT OF REASON from the Islamic world. As long as there are people like you who can hold the Muslim masses on short leashes, the vision of Al-Ghazali remains in tact.

Poor Hoodbhoy doesn't know he is preaching to choir on his recommendations how science can return to Islamic world


(Concluded)

എന്‍ എം ഹുസൈന്‍ said...

Dear Mr.Jack,

Many thanks for your response.

You are not aware of very priliminary historical facts. Muslim world never banned evolution or any other scientifc theories as Catholic establishment had done and it is out of question “to move ahead from its dark past”.

Still , muslim world keeps an open mind towards evolution.So there is no need of an appology from the never existed ‘Muslim Pope’ .If you were literate in history ,you could easily undrstand that there were no Pope or Hierarchies in the muslim world similar to Catholic Church.

I have been studying evolution for the last 25 years and has expressed my own personel conclusion.My first book on Evolution was published 18 years ago.How many years did you spend to study evolution? I assume you will not dare to answer this question as you did in the case of many other questions that I had raised.Actually you and your atheist tribes swallowed what Dawkins’ had propagated without any critical examination. I never blindely copied any one else’s ideas. It is you people who are copy cats of Dawkins. That is why you miserably fail to answer my criticisms and totally failed in defending a single argument of Dawkins.

Prof: Hoodbhoy is a physics teacher having no historical and cultural sense. I had examined his most important work ‘Islam and Science’ a decade back and find it senseless. Modern science is predominantly a war science and there is no need of planting modern science in the muslim world.

Jack Rabbit said...

Hussain said ..

Modern science is predominantly a war science and there is no need of planting modern science in the muslim world.


Mr. Hussain.
I presume you are using all your resources in fighting MES against their science and engineering colleges since you are against planting modern science in Islamic world.

Do you know how many of your fans here got their science and engineering degrees from these colleges ?

1. Or you don't have any problem with technology - the fruit of modern science** ?. As i mentioned before the very exchange through these blogs are the realization (Transistors/Lasers/High density hard disk) using the applications of quantum mechanics - a modern science.

2. Or you are ok with any modern science field as long as the students don't think too much about underlying philosophy and don't venture into fields like cosmology and evolution whose philosophical implications and findings are against Koranic claims.

** You may know pornographic industry and Islamic terrorists are some of the early adopters of every technology.

Jack Rabbit said...

Mr. Hussain said ...
I have been studying evolution for the last 25 years and has expressed my own personel conclusion.My first book on Evolution was published 18 years ago.How many years did you spend to study evolution? I assume you will not dare to answer this question as you did in the case of many other questions that I had raised.


Mr. Hussain,
Because of our age differences, i have only around 10 years experience in learning more about evolution. It is pity that you don't find any fallacy in your question.

You published a book when you had only 7 years of experience with evolution. Did anybody forbid you from doing so citing your "less" experience which is what you are using against the authenticity of my arguments ? In the field of research, age doesn't matter. If that were the case no young researcher could have published any paper refuting the conclusions of an aged researcher.

As i said before, you are under the delusion that quantity of books in one's personal library and age translates to quality, depth and clarity of understanding.

എന്‍ എം ഹുസൈന്‍ said...

Dear Mr. Jack,

(1)If a man is fighting environmental pollusion, Mr.Jack , would you argue that it should be done breathing hundred percent non-polluted air? Your argument based on the technology adoption of the Muslim world is such a fallacy.

(2)Your words : “In the field of research, age doesn't matter”. Then, why have you withdrawn from the debate when I marshalled evidences that invalidate evolution theory and after that reappeared again with non-scientific ‘Pope argument’ and after the destruction of that argument you now again appeared with ‘technology argument’? This is the general nature of your argumentation!

(3)Your words : “you are under the delusion that quantity of books in one's personal library and age translates to quality, depth and clarity of understanding’ In fact you were under such notion. That is why you had quoted two books about perception error which were not relevent to that context.To counter your ‘book demonstrations’, I pointed out a fact that I have already collected at least 100 books on cognitive studies including the above.

(4)Finally, regarding “quality, depth and clarity of understanding” the readers can take a decision who has the above three, the one who runs away from arguments or the one who counters them.

Jack Rabbit said...

See Mr. Hussain's quality, depth, clarity of understanding and delusions of grandeur

[Jack Rabbit to Hussain]:4. Last case, you can claim that you have more knowledge than all scientists who examined evidence and gave green light to Pope and testified before US judges. But you are yet to publish any single research paper on evolution in a respectable biology journal - evidence of DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR - Needs serious psychological counseling

[Hussain to Jack Rabbit] :(4)I don’t claim to have more knowledge than all the scientists. I simply refuse to follow them blindly and refuse to accept your blunders.

Tell me Mr. Hussain, how can a person with less knowledge and less evidence can invalidate evolutionary theory which is the conclusion of many scientists with more knowledge and more evidence than you have (as you himself as agreed)

Refuting evolutionary theory isn't a logical argument where a less knowledgeable person can beat a more knowledgeable person

എന്‍ എം ഹുസൈന്‍ said...

Dear Mr.Jack,

(1)My word was this : “I don’t claim to have more knowledge than all the scientists”.Is there any one who have more knowledge than ALL SCIENTISTS ?
You are trying to refute it? Think yourself!

(2 ) Your words : “Refuting evolutionary theory isn't a logical argument where a less knowledgeable person can beat a more knowledgeable person”
Of course refuting evolution theory is a logical argument. If not, is it illogical, according to you?
It is a fact that a less knowledgeable person can beat a more knowledgeable man logically if the less knowledgeable man is more logical. Knowledge is a collection of information and it’s quantity has nothing to do with grasping, that is the area of logic.

Jack Rabbit said...

Mr. Hussain said ..

Of course refuting evolution theory is a logical argument. If not, is it illogical, according to you?

It is a fact that a less knowledgeable person can beat a more knowledgeable man logically if the less knowledgeable man is more logical. Knowledge is a collection of information and it’s quantity has nothing to do with grasping, that is the area of logic.


Mr. Hussain,
You have conveniently ignored the word "evidence" from my statement


Tell me Mr. Hussain, how can a person with less knowledge and less evidence can invalidate evolutionary theory which is the conclusion of many scientists with more knowledge and more evidence than you have (as you himself as agreed)

What evidence do you have compared to scientists who do field work and collect evidence for evolution ? Or you sit in an arm chair and judge all those evidences are wrong ?. Your claim is you have written 3 books published by Islamic publishing house. It is no big deal to write any book as there are around 28 books in market against God Delusion. Any body can write a book these days by copying content from Christian creationist websites

If your arguments were so logically correct as you proclaim, why didn't you get it published in any respectable biology journal ? You could have got more fame and got more converts from educated side to support your arguments.

യുക്തി said...

പ്രിയ ജാക് റാബിറ്റ്
താങ്കള്‍ ഈ സംവാദത്തില്‍ കാണിക്കുന്ന ക്ഷമ അഭിനന്ദനാര്‍ഹമാണ്.
“ഫോസില്‍‘തെളിവുകളുടെ കാര്യങ്ങള്‍ വിശദമായി താങ്കള്‍ വിശദീകരിച്ചിട്ടും ഹുസ്സൈന്‍ സാഹിബ്ബ് മഞ്ഞക്കണ്ണട ഊരുന്നില്ല.അദ്ദേഹം ഡാര്‍വിനെ അസ്ഥാനത്ത് ഉദ്ധരിക്കുന്നതിനു പല പ്രാവശ്യം താങ്കള്‍ മറുപടി നല്‍കിക്കഴിഞ്ഞതാണ്.എന്നിട്ടും അദ്ദേഹം വീണ്ടും വീണ്ടും പഴയ പല്ലവി ഉരുവിടുകയണ്.
താങ്കള്‍ നന്മകാംഷിക്കുന്ന ആശയപ്രചരണത്തിനായി ഇതുചെയ്യുമ്പോള്‍ അദ്ദേഹത്തിന്റെത് മറ്റുപലതുമാണ്. ഇവിടെ അന്തസ്സായി അതിനാല്‍ അദ്ദെഹത്തിനു പൊരുമാറാന്‍ കഴിയില്ല.

താങ്കള്‍ ചര്‍ച്ചക്കില്ലന്നു ആദ്യമായി പറഞ്ഞതിനുശേഷം ,സുബൈറും താങ്കളുമായുള്ള സംവാദത്തില്‍ അദ്ദേഹം കയറികൂടുകയയിരുന്നു.എന്നിട്ട് താങ്കള്‍ വിണ്ടും നാണമില്ലാതെ ചര്‍ച്ചക്കുവരുന്നാതായി ആരോപിക്കുന്നു.
വാസ്തവത്തില്‍ ഹുസ്സൈന്‍ സാഹിബിനു കാലിടറുകയാണ്.അതു കൊണ്ടാണ് ഈ കോപ്രായങ്ങളൊക്കെ ....

യുക്തി said...

ജാക് റാബിറ്റിന്റെ
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Dozen more blunders in Hussain's understanding including three volte-faces എന്ന

പോസ്റ്റിനു മറുപടി പറയാതെ
ഹുസ്സൈന്‍ സാഹിബ് എഴുതുന്നു....


1)When you fail to provide satisfactory explanation, you declare withdrawal!
What a wonderful model of debate!

2)It is very pity that a man declared withdrawn without providing not a single explanation from the debate is now appearing here and there and challenging me for replies.

3) What a shame!>>>>>>>>>>

വാസ്തവത്തില്‍,What a shame!

jayarajmurukkumpuzha said...

aashamsakal....

യുക്തി said...

ഹുസ്സൈന്‍ സാഹിബ് അഹങ്കരിക്കുന്നു.....

I have been studying evolution for the last 25 years and has expressed my own personel conclusion.My first book on Evolution was published 18 years ago>>>>>>>>>>>

ടിയാന്റെ‘ പരിണാമ‘പരിജ്ഞാനത്തിന്റെ നല്ലൊരു തെളിവ് കാണുക,

“ഇരുപത് ലക്ഷത്തിലേറെ ജീവജാതികള്‍ ഉള്ളതില്‍ മനുഷ്യനൊഴിച്ച് മറ്റേതങ്കിലും ഒരു മ്രഗം സര്‍വ്വകലാശാല സ്ഥാപിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ടോ,പി.എച്ച്.ഡി എടൂത്തിട്ടുണ്ടോ,അധ്യാപകനായിട്ടുണ്ടോ,വൈസ് ചാന്‍സലര്‍ ആയിട്ടുണ്ടോ,...........
(പരിണാമ സിദ്ധാന്തം പുതിയ പ്രതിസന്ധികള്‍-എന്‍ എം ഹുസ്സൈന്‍ p78)

യുക്തി said...

ഹുസ്സൈന്‍ സാഹിബ് പറയുന്നു......

Still , muslim world keeps an open mind towards evolution.>>>>>>>

എന്നാല്‍ ഖുറാന്‍ മൊഴിയുന്നതോ......
015.026
YUSUFALI: We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape;

015.028
YUSUFALI: Behold! thy Lord said to the angels: "I am about to create man, from sounding clay from mud moulded into shape;

015.033
YUSUFALI: (Iblis) said: "I am not one to prostrate myself to man, whom Thou didst create from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape."

15:26) Surely We brought man into being out of dry ringing clay which was wrought from black mud,17(thafheem)

(17:61) And recall when We asked the angels73 to prostrate themselves before Adam; all prostrated themselves except Iblis,74 who said: "Shall I prostrate myself before him whom You created of clay?" (thafheem)

017.061
YUSUFALI: Behold! We said to the angels: "Bow down unto Adam": They bowed down except Iblis: He said, "Shall I bow down to one whom Thou didst create from clay?"

തുടരും..

യുക്തി said...

തുടരുന്നു......
പാ‍കപ്പെടുത്തിയ ചെളി ഉണങ്ങി ഉറച്ചുണ്ടായായ മുട്ടിയാല്‍ മുഴങ്ങുന്ന കളിമണ്ണുകൊണ്ട് ഒരു മനുഷ്യനെ നാം ശ്രിഷ്ടിക്കാന്‍ പോകുന്നു:അതിനെ ഞാന്‍ ശരിപ്പെടുത്തുകയും എന്റെ ആത്മാവില്‍ നിന്നും അതില്‍ ഞാന്‍ ഊതുകയും ചെയ്താല്‍....(
15;28,29)

തീര്‍ച്ചയായും മനുഷ്യനെ കളിമണ്ണിന്റെ സത്തില്‍ നിന്നും നാം ശ്രിഷ്റ്റിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു(23;12)

ഇങ്ങനെ അശാസ്ത്രിയമായ ഒട്ടനവധി “പരിണാമ ശസ്ത്രം “ ഖുറാനില്‍ ഉടനീളം കാണാം
see,how the open mind keep the evolution

യുക്തി said...

ഹുസ്സൈന്‍ സാഹിബ് തട്ടിവിടുന്നു......

So on the basis of evidence and the words of the pioneers, the theory of evolution stands disproved.>>>>>>>>>>>>

അതായത് പരിണാമ സിദ്ധാന്തം അതിന്റെ പ്രയോക്താക്കളുടെ വാക്കുകള്‍ കൊണ്ടുതന്നെ അംഗീകാരം നഷ്ടപ്പെടുത്തി.

വീണ്ടും ഹുസ്സൈന്‍ സാഹിബ് .....

Still , muslim world keeps an open mind towards evolution.>>>>>>>
അതായത് മുസ്ലീങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് പരിണാമ സിദ്ധാന്തത്തെ പ്രതി തുറന്ന മനസ്സാണിപ്പോഴുമെന്ന്.....

എന്തിനാ മുസ്ലിം ലോകമെ,
സര്‍വ്വ വിജ്ഞാനകോശശസ്ത്രജ്ഞനായ ഹുസ്സൈന്‍ ഉസ്താദ് തെളിവുകള്‍ സഹിതം കഴിഞ്ഞ 25 വര്‍ഷമായി തള്ളികളഞ്ഞു കൊണ്ടേയിരിക്കുന്ന പരിണാമ വാദത്തില്‍ അനാവശ്യമായി തുറന്നു വെച്ചിക്കുന്ന ഒരു കുടില മനസ്സ്.

ഉടന്‍ തന്നെ ഗോദ്രജ് പൂട്ടിട്ടു പൂട്ടുക.
ns ഗൊദ്രജ് പൂട്ടു വേണ്ട,ടി കമ്പനി ഉടയോന്‍ മമ്മക്കാ‍ വിരോധിയാണ്.അലിഗാര്‍ നമ്മന്റെ പൂട്ടു മതി.

നിഷ്കളങ്കന്‍ said...

"യുക്തി" സമനില തെറ്റിയ മട്ടുണ്ടല്ലോ. ഏതായാലും ഹുസൈന്‍ സാബ്‌ ഒരു ഇടിമുഴക്കമായി തന്നെയാണ് വരവ് അറിയിച്ചത്‌. യുക്തിയുടെ ഗുരു ജബ്ബാര്‍ മാഷ്‌ നേരത്തെ സ്ഥലം വിട്ടു. യുക്തിക്ക് സമനിലയും തെറ്റി. നല്ല കാഴ്ച.

യുക്തി said...

നിഷ്കളങ്കന്‍ said...

"യുക്തി" സമനില തെറ്റിയ മട്ടുണ്ടല്ലോ. ഏതായാലും ഹുസൈന്‍ സാബ്‌ ഒരു ഇടിമുഴക്കമായി തന്നെയാണ് വരവ് അറിയിച്ചത്‌. യുക്തിയുടെ ഗുരു ജബ്ബാര്‍ മാഷ്‌ നേരത്തെ സ്ഥലം വിട്ടു. യുക്തിക്ക് സമനിലയും തെറ്റി. നല്ല കാഴ്ച.>>>>>>>

പ്രിയ നിഷ്കളങ്കന്‍,
ഉടനെ മറ്റൊരു ‘മുങ്ങല്‍‘ഉണ്ടാവില്ല എന്നു പ്രതീക്ഷിക്കട്ടേ,‘ഇടിവെട്ട്‘ കൂടെ ഉണ്ടല്ലോ.
സമനില തെറ്റാത്ത താങ്കളില്‍ നിന്നും
എന്റെ കമന്റിനു മറുപടി പ്രതീക്ഷിക്കുന്നു.‘ഇടിമുഴക്കം‘ ഇകാര്യത്തില്‍ ഒരുകാരണവശാലും മുഴങ്ങില്ല,മുഴങ്ങിയാല്‍ പിന്നെ അധികം മുഴങ്ങേണ്ടിവരില്ല എന്ന് അതിനു നന്നായി അറിയാം,അല്ലേലും അതിന്റെ വിലോസിറ്റി ദുര്‍ബലപ്പെട്ടു വരികയാണ്,ഉടനെ നിലയ്കും,മമ്മാക്കാ കല്‍ട്ടുകളുടെ സമനില തെറ്റും, തീര്‍ച്ച.pl മറുപടി.

യുക്തി said...

ഹുസ്സൈന്‍ സാ‍ഹിബിനോട് ജാക് റാബിറ്റ് പറയുന്നു.....
If your arguments were so logically correct as you proclaim, why didn't you get it published in any respectable biology journal ? You could have got more fame and got more converts from educated side to support your arguments.>>>>>>

ഹുസ്സൈന്‍ സാഹിബിന്റെ വാക്കുകള്‍ തന്നെ ഉത്തരം പറയട്ടെ.....

ഏതാനും വര്‍ഷങ്ങള്‍ക്കു മുമ്പ് mathrubumy ആഴ്ചപ്പതിപ്പില്‍ പരിണാ‍മ സിദ്ധാന്തം ശാസ്ത്രസത്യമാണെന്നു സമര്‍ഥിക്കുന്ന ഒട്ടേറെ ലേഖനങ്ങള്‍ തുടര്‍ച്ചയായി വന്നു കൊണ്ടിരുന്നു. ആ സന്ദര്‍ഭത്തില്‍ ജീവജാതികളുടെ ഉദ്ഭവം വശദീകരിക്കാന്‍ ഡാര്‍വിന് സാധിച്ചില്ലെന്ന് ശാസ്ത്രിയമായി സമര്‍ഥിക്കുന്ന ഒരു ലേഖനം ഞാന്‍ അവര്‍ക്കു അയക്കുകയുണ്ടായി.........
“ആ ലേഖനം പത്രാധിപര്‍ തിരിച്ചയച്ചു”......
(പരിണാമ സിദ്ധാന്തം പുതിയ പ്രതിസന്തികള്‍ എന്‍ എം ഹുസ്സൈന്‍ p7)

ജാക് റാബിറ്റേ,ഈ ചക്ക മമ്മക്കാ മീഞ്ചന്തയിലേ വില്‍ക്കൂ.അവിടെ ഒരു പറ്റം കല്‍ട്ടുകള്‍ ഇതിനാ‍യി കൊതിയൂറി നില്‍പ്പുണ്ട്.

നിഷ്കളങ്കന്‍ said...

വെറുതെ കമന്റ് എഴുതി കൂട്ടുകയാണ് ബ്ലോഗില്‍ സജീവം എന്നറിയിക്കാന്‍ വഴി എന്ന് വിശ്വസിക്കുന്ന പലരും ഇവിടെ കാണും. ബ്ലോഗ്‌ കക്കൂസ് ആക്കി മാറ്റിയ പലരും യുക്തിയെ പോലെ ഉള്ളവര്‍ക്ക്‌ പൊങ്ങാന്‍ പറ്റിയ സ്ഥലമാണ്. (ജാക്ക് റാബിറ്റിനെ ഉദ്ദേശിച്ചില്ല കേട്ടോ).

യുക്തി അടക്കമുള്ള പരിണാമവിശ്വാസികള്‍ ഹുസൈന്‍ സാബിനോടു പരിണാമസിദ്ധാന്തവും യുക്തിവാദവും ചര്‍ച്ച ചെയ്യാന്‍ ഭയക്കുന്ന മനോഹര കാഴ്ച ബ്ലോഗ്‌ വായനക്കാര്‍ കണ്ടു വരികയാണ്.

കക്കൂസ് ബ്ലോഗുകളില്‍ കമന്റാന്‍ അല്ലാതെ ബൌദ്ധിക ചര്‍ച്ചയില്‍ പങ്കെടുക്കാന്‍ യുക്തി എപ്പോഴാണാവോ തന്റേടം കാണിക്കുക. ജബ്ബാര്‍ മാഷിന്‍റെ കക്കൂസ് ബ്ലോഗില്‍ പരിണാമവും ശാസ്ത്രവും വലിയ വായില്‍ സംസാരിക്കുന്നവര്‍ക്ക് ഹുസൈന്‍ സാബിനോട് ചോദിക്കാന്‍ നാക്കിറങ്ങിപ്പോയത്‌ എന്ത് കൊണ്ട്?ആത്മവിശ്വാസക്കുറവ് ഒളിക്കമാന്റില്‍ കൂടി തെളിയിക്കാതെ "യുക്തി" പുറത്ത്‌ വരൂ.

യുക്തി said...

നിഷ്കളങ്കന്‍ പതറുന്നു.....
1)ബ്ലോഗ്‌ കക്കൂസ് ആക്കി മാറ്റിയ പലരും യുക്തിയെ പോലെ ഉള്ളവര്‍ക്ക്......

2)കക്കൂസ് ബ്ലോഗുകളില്‍ കമന്റാന്‍ അല്ലാതെ ബൌദ്ധിക ചര്‍ച്ചയില്‍ പങ്കെടുക്കാന്‍ യുക്തി എപ്പോഴാണാവോ തന്റേടം കാണിക്കുക....

3)ജബ്ബാര്‍ മാഷിന്‍റെ കക്കൂസ് ബ്ലോഗില്‍ പരിണാമവും ശാസ്ത്രവും വലിയ വായില്‍ സംസാരിക്കുന്നവര്‍ക്ക് ഹുസൈന്‍ സാബിനോട് ചോദിക്കാന്‍ നാക്കിറങ്ങിപ്പോയത്‌ എന്ത് കൊണ്ട്?ആത്മവിശ്വാസക്കുറവ് ....>>>>>>>

എന്റെ പ്രിയ നിഷ്കളങ്കാ,
എന്തിനാ ഇങ്ങനെ സ്വയം‘സമനിലയെ’തെറ്റിക്കുന്നത്.രക്തമര്‍ദ്ദം കൂട്ടിയാല്‍ heart attack വരുമേ.

ഇനി മാ‍ന്യമായി താങ്കളില്‍ നിന്നും പ്രതീക്ഷിക്കുന്നത്
1‌)എന്റെ കമന്റുകള്‍ക്കുള്ള മറുപടീയാണ് (കക്കുസ് തെറിവിളി ശീലം ഖബറുവരെ തുടരരുത്)

2)ജാക് റാബിറ്റിനു, ‘ഇടിമുഴക്കം’(തക്ക) മറുപടികള്‍ നല്‍കാന്‍ താങ്കളാല്‍ കഴിയുന്നത് ചെയ്യല്‍(Thursday, November 25, 2010
Dozen more blunders in Hussain's understanding including three volte-faces എന്ന ജാക് രാബിറ്റിന്റെ പോസ്റ്റിനു പ്രത്യേകിച്ചും)

3)ജബ്ബാര്‍ മാഷുള്‍പ്പടെയുള്ള വരുമായി ഞങ്ങള്‍ ഉന്നയിക്കുന്ന വിഷയത്തില്‍‘ഇടിമുഴക്കത്തിനെ’സംവാദത്തിനു പ്രേരിപ്പിക്കല്‍.

4)മറ്റൊരു മുങ്ങല്‍.