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)
മായ നിരവധി ശാസ്ത്രജ്ഞരുടെ നിരീക്ഷണങ്ങള്‍ 'ചെറിപിക്ക്' ചെയ്താണ് ഡാര്‍വിന്‍ 'ഒറിജിന്‍ ഓഫ് സ്പീഷീസ്' എഴുതിയുണ്ടാക്കിയത്.

പ്രകൃതി നിര്‍ധാരണം ഡാര്‍വിന്റെ കണ്ടുപിടിത്തമല്ല എന്ന കാര്യം താങ്കള്‍ക്കറിയുമോ? ജീവികളുടെ സ്ഥിരത നിലനിര്‍ത്തുന്ന മെക്കാനിസമാണതെന്ന് അക്കാലത്തെ ജീവശാസ്ത്രജ്ഞര്‍ക്കറിയാമായിരുന്നു. ഈ ആശയം 'ചെറിപിക്കി'യിട്ട് നേരെ തലതിരിച്ചിട്ട് വിഡ്ഢിവേഷം കെട്ടിയത് താങ്കളുടെ ആചാര്യനായ ചാള്‍സ് ഡാര്‍വിനാണ്.

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)

3 comments:

Jack Rabbit said...

[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

kaalidaasan said...

Jack,

He is doing a lot of cheery picking to mislead ignorant Islamists.

Jack Rabbit said...

എന്‍ എം ഹുസൈന്‍ said...

Dear Mr.Jack,

Many thanks for your challenge.

These are my replies to Mr. KP’s questions along with a few questions of mine towards you, expecting a reply( not so many links!) .

1.Creationism is my alternative hypothesis. Adam was a typical human being ( I think you do not mean whether he looks like Mohan Lal or Mammootty).Yes, he was like a modern human being. All half-man fossils are evolutionary constructions based on evolutionary speculations and often outright forgeries like Dubois’ Java half-man.

2.All scientific experiments done by evolutionary scientists ( Eg: Muller’s on Drosophila etc. to Lenski ) really proved that a species would not evolve in to an entirely different species.

3.Humans appeared last in the order of creation. Hence no contradiction in getting human fossils on upper strata and the absence of the same in the lowest strata.

4.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?

Please provide me an explanation for the following Questions:

1.If two million species were evolved from amoeba , why does amoeba still survive in the simplest form ? If it could survive so long, why should other species evolve from it?

2.How and why did the long neck of the giraffe evolve?

3.All species except Homo sapiens are predominantly driven by instinct. Why did the transformation happen suddenly and did not evolve through many species? Why didn’t this happen in any other species?

4.Why language ability did not evolve in any species other than man while all humans possess inborn language ability?
December 23, 2010 1:44 AM