<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d13721725\x26blogName\x3dDivineTalk+...+God+inspired+Commentar...\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dSILVER\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://divinetalk.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://divinetalk.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d3446630450564529066', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Science = Neopaganism

Darwinism is a 'blind' faith for the scientific community, so said the faithful.

Not sure if they meant believeing in a God that no one has ever seen is an 'informed' faith?

Darwinism heading towards oblivion

by Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib

From his letter, SK Wong utilised the use of quantum mechanics to explain the origin of the universe. He implied that it is possible for virtual particles to pop into existence from nothingness through “quantum tunneling”. As a result, it is also possible for the universe to pop into existence in the same manner. Wong is also of the opinion that the world and its universe are nothing more than a collection of wave-functions

Unfortunately for Wong, quantum mechanics is limited in nature. It is founded on the concept that quantum events occurring in accordance to finite possibilities within finite time intervals. That factor alone negates quantum mechanics’ role in explaining the origin of universe since before there was universe, there was no time (or space or energy or matter). Therefore, the origin of time (coincident with that of space, matter and energy) eliminates quantum tunneling as a “creator”.

In short, before the existence of the universe, there was no time, space, matter and energy. How. then, can quantum mechanics be applied to explaining the origin of the universe?

That provokes even the likes of Paul Davies, a British physicist - and Wong quotes from him - to change his stand and to argue that the law of physics seem themselves to be the product of an exceedingly ingenious design. (Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature).

Evolutionists should instead worry about the survival of their theory. In 1991, the Gallup poll showed that 81% of Americans believed that the world was created by a superior power. They also need to worry that authoritative evolutionists are beginning to announce their doubt in the theory openly as with the case of Stephen Jay Gould and neo-Darwinism.

Neo-Darwisnism came about when traditional Darwinism was in danger of dying due to Mendel’s Law Of Limited Inheritance (aka Genetics). Darwinism cannot exist without the assumption that inheritance is unlimited while Mendel’s Law denies it. To save Darwinism, Ernst Myer took it upon himself to create a new model of evolution called “Neo-Darwinism”.

Unfortunately, his successor at Harvard, Stephen Jay Gould, has declared the demise of Neo-Darwinism (in Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?). The issue now is where does Darwinism lie now? It’s stuck in no-man’s land and slowly heading towards oblivion.

It still survives though, not as a scientific fact but more as an ideology spread to people of science via a paradigm imposed upon all of them. Under this paradigm, scientists continue to believe in Darwinism in spite of the apparent lack of empirical evidence. As Thomas Kuhn clearly justifies it by saying:

“To reject one paradigm without substituting another is to reject science itself.” ( in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

It looks like religious people are not the only ones relying on faith Evolutionists are also guilty of the same sin. Except their faith is in the form of an ideology disguising itself as various baseless mathematical models. So, to untrained eyes, they see the theory of evolution as being part of the scientific discipline when it is no more than a dogma forced upon people of science.

I pity the Western scientific community. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. On one end, they are expected to be factual, rational, inquisitive, depending only empirical evidence and embarking on exhaustive experimentation and research routine before deriving a conclusion.

On the other end, as a result of the paradigm they are subjected to, they are suppose to ignore all of the evolution theory’s weaknesses, accept it with blind faith, ignore the fact that the theory lacks empirical evidence and strive to create a pretense that the theory has a deep basis in science. They are to operate in a condition whereby conclusions are readily determined for them and their sole purpose of existence is to show that these conclusions are valid. To question the theory is to invite instant reprisal.

To me, such Western double-standard is appalling. Criticism of religion is encouraged while criticism of the evolution theory is suppressed - when they both operate on the same engine, faith. This disguise is nothing more than an implicit conspiracy to get rid of religion in our daily lives and to replace it with another set of faith structure disguised as a scientific theory when it is nothing more then modern-day paganism.

How about EXORCISM? Are religions some kind of exorcism? If so, Jesus and Mohammad must be the some of the greatest exorcists on earth!

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Desinger Veil & Floured Meat

I find this interesting ...

‘Covered pearls': Chic fashion for Islamic women
By AP

Iman Moustafa loves the sea, but she always knew her bikini didn't conform with the rules of Islam, so each time she took a dip she would quickly cover up and pray on the beach. The guilt spoiled the fun.

"I felt as if I were fooling God," said Moustafa, 25.

The solution? La Femme.

La Femme is one of three women-only beaches at this elite northern Mediterranean resort, offering beach-goers a priceless commodity: guiltless fun. Here the veiled, conservative and shy can strip down to skimpy bikinis safe from God's disapproval and intruding male eyes.

The beaches, about 60 miles west of Alexandria, are part of a growing business that caters to the new class of religious Egyptians who are hip, rich and young. These secluded strips of sand are an attempt to reconcile liberal and conservative, worldly and heavenly, fun and piety.
At ordinary beaches, where the sexes mix and any swimwear is allowed, religious women face a challenge. They must get up early to find a secluded spot. Some take to the waves fully clothed or wearing unrevealing Islamic swimsuits. Moustafa all but gave up the beach altogether when she donned the veil four years ago.

Then women-only beaches came along.

The Islamic revival has spawned chic fashion stores catering specifically to veiled women. Makeup artists advertise new trends in tying head scarves. Video clips of religious songs feature handsome male models.

Iman Moustafa says her veil makes her feel like "a precious and covered pearl."

Her bikini, she says, is strictly for La Femme.

I see a lot of similarity between the above and ‘vegetarian’ Buddhists who consumed ‘meat’ made from flour such as floured-BBQ Duck, Roast Pork etc

My take is if you want to be holy, just forget about all things material, otherwise, I am sure God will not punish you for being ‘human’ eg. wanted to be attractive and look beautiful is simply a human nature for the woman folks.

Any objection?

Friday, October 14, 2005

Acts of God

Theologians weigh in on natural disasters

By RACHEL ZOLL
AP Religion Writer

They're sometimes called "acts of God" and, when disasters strike, it's not unusual for people to read a divine punishment into earthquakes, floods or other natural cataclysms.

Now, with the unrelenting devastation of the last few months, a few religious thinkers have done the same in response to the Indian Ocean tsunami, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, mudslides in Guatemala and the earthquake in Pakistan.

They have proclaimed these events as heavenly retribution for sins ranging from legalized abortion to U.S. support for Israel and the war on Iraq. Conversely, one Israeli rabbi said the American storms came because the U.S. government pressured the Jewish state to withdraw from the Gaza Strip.

The vast majority of theologians reject this thinking, however, and The Associated Press decided to examine why this is so. What follows in question and answer format is a summary of the prevailing thought on the question of God's place in disasters, based on interviews with some theologians and public statements of others:

Q: Does God cause natural disasters?

A: Theologians, citing the biblical Book of Job, say people can never understand how God uses nature. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, notes that God rebuked Job's friends who contended that he was being punished for misdeeds. Commenting on Katrina, Mohler said, "We have no right to claim that we know what this storm means."

He's in agreement with Rabbi Jerome Epstein, executive vice president of the United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism, which represents Conservative synagogues in North America. "I would hate to ever become so haughty as to think I know what God does or what God is thinking. That's beyond man or woman," he said.

Q: Was God trying to express displeasure with sinful behavior, for example in New Orleans, which has long had a reputation as a party town?

A: Jamal Badawi, director of the Islamic Information Foundation, said there are examples in the Quran — and the Bible — of punishments inflicted on nations because of tyranny or rejection of God. But Badawi said these episodes are history and do not necessarily explain the meaning of disasters today. "The absence of that direct indication in the Quran means one cannot really say," he said.

Q: Do the sins of humankind play any role in the disasters at all?

A: Christians believe the root of evil in the world is humanity's fall into original sin. But Chap Clark, a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, an evangelical school in Pasadena, Calif., says the explanation cannot stop there. He said people need to acknowledge their responsibility for environmental degradation, poverty and other problems that contribute to disasters. "We've been called to be stewards of what God has given us," Clark said. "We are responsible to do everything we possibly can to help one another, to relieve the pain."

Q: The outpouring following the tragedies has brought together people of different races and faiths. Did God inflict the disasters to unite humanity?

A: Terrence Tilley, a professor of religious studies at the University of Dayton, a Roman Catholic Marianist school, called that notion "morally repugnant." He said the overwhelming generosity shown to victims regardless of background was a bright spot in the devastation, but it would be wrong to say God caused widespread suffering in order to achieve this goal.

Q: Are the disasters a sign of the End Times, the end of the world?

A: The Rev. Jerry Falwell, who was condemned after saying the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were God's punishment for abortion, homosexuality and other sins, says no. Only a fool claims to know the hour or the day Christ will return, he says.

Looks like a direct answer from His Almighty is long overdue.

My Lord, please be obliged to tell your children the truth ...

Saturday, October 08, 2005

New Messiah!

Wow, it looks like God has finally come to His senses ... He has come to talk to us again in form of a human being just like Christ!

Ladies and gentlemen, proudly present ... The latest Messiah: George Walker Bush!

God told me to invade Iraq, Bush tells Palestinian ministers

President George W. Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals.

In Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, a major three-part series on BBC TWO (at 9.00pm on Monday 10, Monday 17 and Monday 24 October), Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister, describe their first meeting with President Bush in June 2003.

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

Abu Mazen was at the same meeting and recounts how President Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state."

The series charts the attempts to bring peace to the Middle East, from Bill Clinton's peace talks in 1999/2000 to Israel's withdrawal from Gaza last August.

Norma Percy, series producer of The 50 Years War (1998) returns, with producers Mark Anderson and Dan Edge, to tell the inside story of another seven years of crisis.

Presidents and Prime Ministers, their generals and ministers tell what happened behind closed doors as peace talks failed and the intifada exploded.

Israel and the Arabs: Elusive Peace - Mondays 10, 17 and 24 October, from 9.00 to 10.00pm on BBC TWO.

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Who created the Creator then?

More rebuttal on intelligent designer ...

by S K Wong

Steven Foong raised a contentious concept called the "irreducible complexity". The definition of complexity depends on human perception. What seems complex to a layperson, may not be so to an expert. What seems complex in the past is no longer mysterious today.

What seems complex today may have a perfectly logical explanation in the future. It is a folly to base a theory on present level of human understanding and assume that it will never advance.

For the sake of argument, lets accept for the moment that "irreducible complexity" is a proven fact. I will demonstrate that the conclusion drawn from this assumption is logically inconsistent, therefore the assumption must be wrong.

Foong argued that the theory of intelligent design need not speculate on the nature of the designer itself. But there is at least one characteristic we can deduce about the designer/creator. The designer/creator must necessarily be more complex then its creation, otherwise, it would mean complexity spontaneously emerge from a less complex creator/designer. If the creations are "irreducibly complex", its creator/designer must be at least as "irreducibly complex".

If "irreducible complexity" proves the case for intelligent design, then there must be an even bigger creator/designer that created our immediate creator/designer. But, who created the creator? And who created the creator's creator? One can go on like this ad infinitum.

I am reminded of a story about an old lady who said that the world rests on the back of a giant turtle. A smug professor then asked her what is the turtle resting on, the old lady then replied indignantly that it was turtles all the way. Modern theory of intelligent design despite its sophistry, suffers from the same shortcomings.

Religious scholars arbitrarily put a stop at our most immediate creator. That would directly contradict the assumption of "irreducible complexity". You can't have your cake and eat it too. Unless, of course, the creator operates on a different set of rules. If we can accept an omniscient creator to exist without being created, why can't we accept the universe and everything in it to emerge spontaneously and naturally?

Another argument for intelligent design is that the universe seems to be exquisitely fine-tuned to the emergence of life. For all we know, there could be an infinite number of other universes where life is impossible or where other forms of life exist.

If one lets an infinite number of monkeys to type on a keyboard, one will eventually write Macbeth, but does that mean they are as intelligent as Shakespeare? This argument makes the mistake of making a general statement based on only one example that we know, namely our universe.

In the final analysis, it boils down to faith. Intelligent design is more faith than science. I have no qualms about people having faith in intelligent design, but please, don't pretend that it is science.

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Intelligent Designer

An intelligent designer in the origins of life?

by Steven Foong

SAB's letter entitled Scientific theories are beyond reasonable doubt is referred.

While many scientific theories are beyond reasonable doubt, Darwinism certainly isn't. I concede that the mainstream today tends toward naturalism but doubts still abound within the scientific community.

One viable challenger to Darwinism is intelligent design, using the notion of "specified complexity" and that certain biological systems, such as the bacterial flagellum, are evidently irreducibly complex and the best way to explain these is to attribute them to design, and not natural laws and chance.

While intelligent design presupposes a disembodied designer, it does not, for it to be a true scientific enterprise, speculate about the designer. Furthermore, a designer need not be a creator, specifically a Creator-God. Whether one will, assuming intelligent design is upheld, ascribe the designing work to the Judeo-Christian-Islam God is more theological than scientific.

Hardcore Darwinists, and I suppose there are many here, should look into researches done by design theorists such as William Dembski honestly and see whether there can be no alternatives to naturalism as far as the origin of life is concerned.

Until the day evolutionists can "account for the emergence of irreducibly complex biological systems", paraphrasing Dembski, I remain doubtful of the theory. Evidences please, not merely creative, wishful thinking and promise of better luck in digging fossils in the future.

And here comes the rebuttal ...

No proof of an intelligent designer

by Dr Syed Alwi Ahmad

In reply to Steven Foong, I would like to say that the intelligent design paradigm is not strictly scientific because it cannot answer the question regarding evidence for the existence of the designer.

It rests on the belief that very complex systems could not have evolved but had to be created in whole and complete. However there have been many counter examples by Darwinists such as Sir Richard Dawkins and others.

Irreducible complexity is irreducible only because its proponents could not envisage an evolutionary pathway to such levels of complexities. But others - Darwinists in particular - have succeeded in proposing plausible evolutionary pathways towards such complex systems without invoking an intelligent designer.

Ultimately the flaw in special creation ideas is that it offers no proof of the existence of a maker or designer. The existence of such a being has to be assumed without proof.

Moreover it cannot be reconciled with other aspects of geology and astronomy. Only Darwinism has survived the acid test of time and evidence to a high degree of rigour and consistency.

What else can I say? Well said, gentlemen.

Saturday, October 01, 2005

No scientific proof for special creation

by Dr Syed Alwi Ahmad

In reply to the letter Islam is not a dogma, Darwinism is, I would like to first of all say that Darwinism is a scientific theory with plenty of material evidence. It is not a Western belief as the writer suggests.

The so-called scientific studies which claim to prove Darwinism false are neither scientific nor were they air-tight studies. I have said in my letter, the consensus of biologists the world over is that evolution holds.

The scientific literature is filled with evidence supporting evolution. Why read pseudo-science literature? Besides, where is the material evidence for special creation? None whatsoever - it is merely faith. So if the writer is suggesting that special creation should take the place of evolution in biology, may I ask him to provide scientific proof of special creation?

As for apostasy and Islam, my answer is clear. We respect Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights permitting the freedom to choose a religion. I ask everyone this question - of what use is the faith of someone who is forced to remain Muslim by apostasy laws?

Does Islam take pride in forcing people to remain as Muslims long after their hearts are no longer Muslim? I leave it to the readers to decide for themselves. Truth is most certainly clear from falsehood.

I would also like to reply to the letter Quran does not contradict scientific facts . Firstly, I disagree with the writer that the Quran contains ‘scientific’ facts to begin with. What there are, are vague verses whose ‘scientific’ meaning was put into them after the scientific discoveries were made.

Where were these scientific claims in the Quran before the discoveries were made? Nowhere, because Muslims did not read any scientific meaning into those vague verses. As for Darwinism, perhaps the writer ought to work harder at distinguishing between scientific literature and the pseudo-scientific folklore sponsored by certain organisations for their own agenda.

I urge the writer not to be misled by pseudo-science. The accepted and well-recognised scientific literature has provided all the necessary rebuttals to the claims of creationists. It is up to the reader to check the literature.

We were monkeys some 200 thousands years ago, I wonder what are we like say in a quarter of millions years from now? A bunch of hitech monkeys that is most probably hairless?

Should male circumcision be outlawed?
Yes
No
Not Sure
  
Free polls from Pollhost.com
Is Bible the complete revelation and the whole truth from God?
Yes
No
Not Sure
  
Free polls from Pollhost.com
Is Harry Potter bad for kids?
Yes
No
Not Sure
  
Free polls from Pollhost.com
Are Santa Claus & Mickey Mouse bad for kids?
Yes
No
Not Sure
  
Free polls from Pollhost.com
Do pharmacists have the rights to refuse contraceptive prescriptions?
Yes
No
Not Sure
  
Free polls from Pollhost.com
Abortion: Where do you stand?
Pro-Life
Pro-Choice
Depend on the Circumstances
No Sure
  
Free polls from Pollhost.com
When does human personhood begin?
It happens at conception (the most common pro-life position)
It happens when blood first appears (a new interpretation based on the Bible)
It happens later in pregnancy (the most common pro-choice position)
It happens at 14 or 22 weeks gestation (two novel arguments)
It happens during childbirth (the traditional Jewish position)
Not Sure
  
Free polls from Pollhost.com
Who are Children of God?
All Jews (regardless of philosophy & lifestyle)
Devout & Orthodox Jews Only
All Christians (regardless of philosophy & lifestyle)
Born Again Christians Only
All Muslims (regardless of philosophy & lifestyle)
Devout & Fundamentalist Muslims Only
All faithful of Semitic religions only (Semitic Pluralism)
All Buddhists (regardless of philosophy & lifestyle)
All Hindus (regardless of philosophy & lifestyle)
All faithful regardless of religion (Universal Pluralism)
All righteous people excluding Homosexuals
All righteous people including Homosexuals
Any Tom, Dick & Harry including Criminals
Not Children but we are all God's Slaves
Not Sure
  
Free polls from Pollhost.com
Are people born Gay?
Aboslutely Yes!
Very likely Yes
Abosolutely Not!
Very likely Not
Not Sure
  
Free polls from Pollhost.com
My Photo
Name:
Location: God Inspired, Consensus Driven

WARNING: Blind obsession with prophecy can be perilous or even fatal, reader discretion is advised! Submitted to God as His worldly Activist on a non-exclusive basis since June 15, 2005 1:00 am ET. “La Bona” is a professional name inspired by God; it means "The Righteous", “The Virtuous” or simply “The Good” in Esperanto (a neutral international language). DivineTalk® is an Open Commentary Forum dedicated to God for His Children to engage in dialogue, discourse and debate on laws, standards and values on morality, lifestyle, ethics, business and just about anything else related to their life. God enlightened to have His Words improvised and updated with the prevailing circumstances so that the divine guidance, dogma and policy will evolve with time and stay relevant to His Children in the very era they live in as the way forward. La Bona is a Truth Seeker, Myth Buster, Freedom Fighter, Cyber Activist, Liberal Animal, Good Samaritan, Messiah Wannabe and in order to serve His Children of diverse backgrounds, La Bona is motivated and aim to eventually multitask as Divine Representative, Contemporary Prophet, Celestial Executive, Deity Clairvoyant, Holy Spiritualist ...

  • Write To Me
  • Submit A Story
  • Link To Me
  • Therapeutic Rants
  • Unchained Slave
  • Grumble Grouch
  • In Medias Res
  • Ha'emet: Truth and Peace
  • Martini Glasses
  • Your Sweet Bippy
  • Nova Vane
  • A Concerned Scientist
  • Knitting In Public
  • Reality Hole
  • Off My Blog
  • Chaos-In-Motion
  • Deliberate Chaos
  • The Eagle's Nest
  • To Everything a Time
  • Politics 101
  • Crown Heights; the View From Inside
  • Technorati Profile