Blogs 4 Brownback

July 17, 2007

Islam: Wrong on God, Right on Science

Filed under: Faith,Science — Sisyphus @ 10:13 am

While I think we can all agree that Islam is an immoral heresy, whose eradication is the sacred duty of every patriotic Christian, it is heartening to know that they are beginning to exhibit rifts with their idiot moonbat secularist Darwinist Helioleftist enablers:

In the United States, opposition to the teaching of evolution in public schools has largely been fueled by the religious right, particularly Protestant fundamentalism.

Now another voice is entering the debate, in dramatic fashion.

It is the voice of Adnan Oktar of Turkey, who, under the name Harun Yahya, has produced numerous books, videos and DVDs on science and faith, in particular what he calls the “deceit” inherent in the theory of evolution. One of his books, “Atlas of Creation,” is turning up, unsolicited, in mailboxes of scientists around the country and members of Congress, and at science museums in places like Queens and Bemidji, Minn.

At 11 x 17 inches and 12 pounds, with a bright red cover and almost 800 glossy pages, most of them lavishly illustrated, “Atlas of Creation” is probably the largest and most beautiful creationist challenge yet to Darwin’s theory, which Mr. Yahya calls a feeble and perverted ideology contradicted by the Koran.

In bowing to Scripture, Mr. Yahya resembles some fundamentalist creationists in the United States. But he is not among those who assert that Earth is only a few thousand years old. The principal argument of “Atlas of Creation,” advanced in page after page of stunning photographs of fossil plants, insects and animals, is that creatures living today are just like creatures that lived in the fossil past. Ergo, Mr. Yahya writes, evolution must be impossible, illusory, a lie, a deception or “a theory in crisis.”

While I disagree with him completely on religious issues, it’s good to know that true science is far from dead in the Muslim world. Islamists have taken a major step in the right direction. If we can just get them to accept Jesus and reject Mohammed, Christianity will have over 1 billion new members. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will become the most pious nations on the Earth. France will become a Christian nation again, and depraved Corsicans like Alizee will clothe themselves or suffer the just consequences of their harlotry.

It’s also good to see the secular humanists enjoy such little gratitude from the Islamists they bend over backwards to defend. Take THAT, moonbats! Your own allies despise you- why should real Americans care what you think?

It’s worth noting that despite this heartening article, the New York Times itself still falls into the category of the moonbat media:

In fact, there is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth.

Sure, New York Times. There’s no credible scientific challenge to your pet idiotic theories about monkey fornication. If one ignores the mountains of contrary scientific, Scriptural, and empirical evidence, there’s no credible challenge. There’s also no credible challenge to phrenology, except that there is. Morons.

(Hat tip to dadaclu, for sending me the link- and reading the New York Times so the rest of us don’t have to.)

50 Comments »

  1. “Sure, New York Times. There’s no credible scientific challenge to your pet idiotic theories about monkey fornication. If one ignores the mountains of contrary scientific, Scriptural, and empirical evidence, there’s no credible challenge. There’s also no credible challenge to phrenology, except that there is. Morons.”

    I won’t just blindly say that you’re wrong, but I will point out that the scientific community is very convinced that there is no contrary evidence to evolution. I’m not preaching anything, but I’d like to hear what (material) evidence you feel is contrary to the established theory of evolution. I realize you feel scripture contradicts evolution, but I’m not here to argue that. Please tell me what scientific evidence points away from the theory of evolution.

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 17, 2007 @ 11:00 am | Reply

  2. Please follow the link to Answers in Genesis, Adam. They can enlighten you far better than I can.

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 17, 2007 @ 11:02 am | Reply

  3. I’m glad to see that there’s at least a little enlightenment in the Muslim world – maybe they’ll also reject heliocentrism soon. I don’t see any hope for the Hindoos though.

    Comment by Helen Bock — July 17, 2007 @ 11:26 am | Reply

  4. Mr. Sissy Puss,

    I was beginning to read your fine article and saw this statement. While the entire essay is certainly clear and true as rain, I am troubled by this:

    “While I think we can all agree that Islam is an immoral heresy, whose eradication is the sacred duty of every patriotic Christian.”

    Shouldn’t even un-partiotic Christians, such as those living in the secular hells known as France or Denmark, who naturally HATE their own governments, and who are heart-broken that htey are not Americans, don’t they as well have a sacred duty to eradicate Islam?

    I ask this in all concern that we may be missing a ready source of cannon-fodder, er, volunteers in the never-ending war against the Islamo-Facists.

    Maybe we could consider them as wanna-be Americans and if they, say, donate to pro-American websites, then we could let them join the holy crusade.

    Comment by Happy Clam — July 17, 2007 @ 11:43 am | Reply

  5. “Shouldn’t even un-partiotic Christians, such as those living in the secular hells known as France or Denmark, who naturally HATE their own governments, and who are heart-broken that htey are not Americans, don’t they as well have a sacred duty to eradicate Islam?”

    True enough. Unfortunately, most of them don’t see it that way. Far too many continental Europeans would rather snuggle up to terrorists and coo “Kumbaya” into their ears as the terrorists detonate their suicide vests. All too rare are the brave continental Europeans willing to kill an Islamofascist for freedom. You almost always have to go to America (or Britain) to find courage like that. (To be fair, Eastern Europe has quantities of this bravery.)

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 17, 2007 @ 1:15 pm | Reply

  6. Muslims DO worship the God of Abraham, they do NOT worship Mohammed, because they feel that worshiping anyone else than God is idolatry (they agree with the Jews on this.)
    This is also the reason they see Jesus as a prophet, like Moses, not as a figure to be worshiped.

    You might try to do your homework next time, by the way, equating yourself with Muslim fundamentalists doesn’t really help your cause, contrary to what you believe, Europeans DO hate fundamentalist Muslims.

    Comment by Skeptic — July 17, 2007 @ 1:18 pm | Reply

  7. “Muslims DO worship the God of Abraham, they do NOT worship Mohammed, because they feel that worshiping anyone else than God is idolatry (they agree with the Jews on this.)”

    Yet they never shut up about Mohammed. Sure sounds like hero-worship to me. Considering that Jesus is Lord, to worship anyone else is quite idolatrous.

    “This is also the reason they see Jesus as a prophet, like Moses, not as a figure to be worshiped.”

    Well, then they’re just plain wrong. They should try reading the Bible.

    “You might try to do your homework next time, by the way, equating yourself with Muslim fundamentalists doesn’t really help your cause, contrary to what you believe, Europeans DO hate fundamentalist Muslims.”

    Sure they do. That’s why they harbor 500 million of them.

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 17, 2007 @ 1:21 pm | Reply

  8. I will point out that the scientific community is very convinced that there is no contrary evidence to evolution…

    I’m not preaching anything, but I’d like to hear what (material) evidence you feel is contrary to the established theory of evolution. … Please tell me what scientific evidence points away from the theory of evolution.

    Mr Nelson,

    I am flabbergasted that you could make such claims with a straight face. You sir are either woefully ignorant or an outright liar. But what I suspect is that you are trying to perpetuate the indoctrination of your naturalistic theology posing as objective science. Fortunately your absolutist assertions about contradictions to Evolution are easily debunked.

    There are so many holes in evolutionary theory it is hard to just pick a few to illustrate.

    Lest I get trapped by your semantics I will point out both contradictions in evolutionary theory.

    and contrary evidence supporting other theories here and, here.

    Take your pick.

    Reasoned men in the practice of science are no longer fooled by the continued shell game required to prop up the absoluteness primacy of your flawed theories.

    Scientists have already moved beyond that. You have been left behind as the science moves on without you. Stuck on dissproving the possiblity of a designer. The evidence of the probability for a Fine Tuned Universe has been demonstrated, and now we are looking to define the (possibly) discernable characteristics of the designer.

    Comment by Johnny D. Rotten — July 17, 2007 @ 2:16 pm | Reply

  9. Johnny D Rotten, every source you have cited is either endorsed directly or supports a biblically literalist interpretation of the Bible. None of the sources actually contain credible (by today’s standards) opposition to the theory of evolution. They use old, and now largely discredited, arguments, such as the radiocarbon dating controversy, molecular machines point, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics violation. Whether you like it or not, these arguments are old and falsified, and Answers in Genesis even asks opponents of evolution to NOT use these arguments for fear of its supporters making idiots of themselves. Also, your first source misquoted the hell out of Stephen Jay Gould!

    You may be misunderstanding my question. I asked for SCIENTIFIC evidence against evolution, and you provided none. Everything you cited was deeply religious in nature and provided no materialistic arguments to evolution. In essence, all your arguments are “this can’t be true because God has been said to have done this, this and this”. While I respect your interpretation of Scripture, I cannot take it as a credible argument to evolution, because evolution is about facts, not faith. Once again, I’m not suggesting your faith is incomplete or improper, just that you’re comparing apples to oranges by fighting evolution with Scripture.

    And finally, Intelligent Design is not science. While I will not comment on its intergrity or credibility, but by the very definition of science, it cannot be taught as science, mostly because it tries to shape evidence to a predetermined conclusion, where science takes evidence and leads to an unknown conclusion. Additionally, I support the teaching of ID, but only in religion class, where it belongs.

    Rotten, I appreciate your posts, but next time try linking from mainstream scientific sites, articles, and journals, and not sites that have an underlying religious agenda like Answers in Genesis or Icons of Evolution.

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 17, 2007 @ 2:49 pm | Reply

  10. Reading deeper into your DI article, I found some things that I felt necessary to explain. First, irreducible complexity.

    An example used is the eye: if you take just one of the many fundamental parts out, the whole organ ceases to function. Therefore, it is inferenced that this couldn’t have arisen naturally as a series of mutations over time. However, this argument assumes that “something came from nothing” instantly. This is not the case. Our eyes are incredibly complex, but there are much, much simpler “eyes” in animals, and the mechanics of a light-sensitive cell are not much more complex than that of a real cell.

    But even more, Irreducible Complexity basically says that something can’t come from nothing, for example, pots don’t make potters. Therefore, things must move on a trend of high to low complexity, with God at the top being the prime mover. But this simply raises more questions than it solves. Saying “God did it” is not a scientific argument, because it solves nothing, and in fact raises the unexplained material of an argument, effectively moving it backwards. Therefore, irreducible complexity, at its base, is not science.

    It should be noted that the article Rotten linked to on ID is quite old, and they have corrected themselves over many of the arguments in it, and actively plead that supporters do not use those arguments as they have now been thoroughly discredited. In fact, it actively helps Evolution, comparing it to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which was made archaic by Einstein’s theory of relativity. So just like gravity happens and and we observe its effects, but struggle to explain it, so do we know that evolution happens, we observe its effects, and are currently struggling to explain it.

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 17, 2007 @ 3:05 pm | Reply

  11. Reading deeper into your DI article, I found some things that I felt necessary to explain.

    No, please don’t. I’m a little tired today and your boring and pompous explanation is likely to put me right to … zzzzzzzz.

    Comment by Psycheout — July 17, 2007 @ 3:40 pm | Reply

  12. Ah, I see Psycheout. You can’t rebut me, so you insult me and dodge the question. Well, that just proves you know nothing at all.

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 17, 2007 @ 3:54 pm | Reply

  13. Izlam is rong about evrything, like Addam, the snotty little punk. Shutup, you clown. Why do we hafto put up wit crap like this?

    I dont trust the ny slimes. They stink.

    Comment by JOE — July 17, 2007 @ 4:45 pm | Reply

  14. “Ah, I see Psycheout. You can’t rebut me, so you insult me and dodge the question. Well, that just proves you know nothing at all.”

    No, we’re telling you that your’ rants are boring. Get to the freaking point or start your own blog.

    Comment by BJ Tabor — July 17, 2007 @ 4:56 pm | Reply

  15. “No, we’re telling you that your’ rants are boring. Get to the freaking point or start your own blog.”

    Ah BJ, you’re as refreshing as ever. Where do you get your material? I swear, you’re as sharp as a page of Oscar Wilde witticisms rolled into a point, dabbed in lemon juice and shoved into someonene’s eye. You must be a smart, smart boy. And to think, how courageous you are for anonymously insulting me over an internet blog. My goodness, what a man you are.

    See BJ, the difference between you and me is that I realize some points must be made with facts, which tend to take more than a couple of lines on a blog. See, when you learn to use things like “facts”, “ideas” (that are your own for once), and “proof”, you’ll realize that not everything can be summed up in one line. Don’t worry, you’ll learn someday🙂

    And JOE, I don’t even need to respond to dopes like you. So I won’t.

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 17, 2007 @ 5:54 pm | Reply

  16. Ah BJ, you’re as refreshing as ever. Where do you get your material? I swear, you’re as sharp as a page of Oscar Wilde witticisms rolled into a point, dabbed in lemon juice and shoved into someonene’s eye.

    You’re one to talk, Adam, aka Mr. Original. That’s at least the second time that you’ve used that joke you stole from Red Dwarf. It’s funnier when Ace Rimmer does it, believe me.

    Two can play at that game. When it comes to sharpness, I say, you’re as sharp as a bowling ball, son.

    Take my wife, please!

    If the choice is between dead and smeg, which do you choose, eh?

    Comment by Psycheout — July 17, 2007 @ 6:04 pm | Reply

  17. Psycheout, I have a newfound respect for you. Anybody who innately recognizes that line earns my eternal respect… at least in 90s British sitcom trivia. And yeah, you got me. I took the line right outta Ace Rimmer’s mouth.

    And finally, I have one thing to say to you: “Is this the product of a marriage ‘twixt man and gerbil?” LOL!

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 17, 2007 @ 6:13 pm | Reply

  18. Search engines can find anything, pal. Besides, I had a secret crush on Claire P. Grogan.

    Comment by Psycheout — July 17, 2007 @ 6:18 pm | Reply

  19. LOL

    Oh, by the way, I like your subtle reference to Groundskeeper Willy when you reference the French the way you do. And for the record, I hate most French Canadians. But mostly because they make out in public all the time. Ew.

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 17, 2007 @ 6:23 pm | Reply

  20. ” I swear, you’re as sharp as a page of Oscar Wilde witticisms rolled into a point, dabbed in lemon juice and shoved into someonene’s eye. ”

    Adam.

    Are you calling BJ a FAG? you had better watch your step and steer clear of the Oscar Wilde jokes. you can be “steered” in the right direction if you get me.

    Comment by Happy Clam — July 17, 2007 @ 7:30 pm | Reply

  21. Psyche, I’m surprised you can watch a show that confronts you with evolution in every episode.

    Comment by Salmo — July 17, 2007 @ 8:30 pm | Reply

  22. I read the Ny Times to stay ahead of the liberal plans. Adam Nelson, you are one bloviating idiot. If you can’t say things in a few sentences, they don’t merit saying.

    Comment by dadaclu — July 17, 2007 @ 8:49 pm | Reply

  23. I love Rimmer. And of course, Kuchansky.

    Comment by Pinko Punko — July 17, 2007 @ 8:56 pm | Reply

  24. Really? If something can’t be said in a few sentences it doesn’t merit saying? Last I checked the Bible is more than a few sentences long. Last I checked even Bush’s speeches were more than a few sentences. Last I checked there were these things called books that hold immense value that take more than a few sentences. Just because you don’t appreciate analytical detail that makes all the difference on so many subjects doens’t mean that it’s wrong/holds no value. You’re slacking attitude towards detail is what keeps you where you are.

    How’s eight sentences for you?

    Comment by La Mona — July 17, 2007 @ 9:01 pm | Reply

  25. “Are you calling BJ a FAG? you had better watch your step and steer clear of the Oscar Wilde jokes. you can be “steered” in the right direction if you get me.”

    He did that, thanks Happy Clam.

    Listen Adam, cut out these suggestions that I am gay. I can be a real hard ass when it comes to gays. You do want me to go off in your face over this, understand Adam?

    Comment by BJ Tabor — July 17, 2007 @ 9:43 pm | Reply

  26. Well this thread took an interesting turn.

    Comment by ChenZhen — July 17, 2007 @ 10:02 pm | Reply

  27. The Coming Authentication of Genesis!!

    On or before August 15, 2007, a book is scheduled to be
    published. It’s title is “Moses Didn’t Write About
    Creation!!”, written by Ephraim. The “Big Bang” and
    evolution theories, plus the doctrines of current creationist
    factions, shall be exposed as being in error.

    After fifteen years, the truth of Genesis will finally be
    available to the public, blowing all previous attempts to
    explain Genesis “out of the water”. This book will be the
    most notable biblical authentication since the Dead Sea Scrolls.
    It is the first and only book written that explains the difference
    between the “six days of Moses” and the “seven days of
    Creation Week”.

    It is also the only book to completely explain the events that
    lead to the Extra-Celestial Civil War, also known as “the
    war in Heaven”. Comprehensive coverage of the war is given,
    when it ended, and how it affected the ancient history of our
    universe.

    Finally, it explains the Messiahship of Jesus, and reveals how He
    was really half Judean (for royalty) and half Levite (for priesthood).
    It also explains to non-believers the sanctity of God’s marriage to
    Israel, and why Jesus had to die first before the gospel could be
    preached to gentiles.

    The ISBN is 1-4241-8220-4.

    Herman Cummings
    PO Box 1745
    Fortson GA, 31808
    Ephraim7@aol.com
    (706) 662-2893

    Comment by Herman Cummings — July 18, 2007 @ 3:19 am | Reply

  28. La Mona ,
    Are you writing a book here?

    Comment by dadaclu — July 18, 2007 @ 6:39 am | Reply

  29. “Listen Adam, cut out these suggestions that I am gay. I can be a real hard ass when it comes to gays. You do want me to go off in your face over this, understand Adam?”

    So I, uh, want you to go off in my face eh? No, I think I’ll pass on that. I’m flattered, but spoken for. You cn GO OFF on your own time.

    “I read the Ny Times to stay ahead of the liberal plans. Adam Nelson, you are one bloviating idiot. If you can’t say things in a few sentences, they don’t merit saying.”

    Have you read the Declaration of Independence? The Constitution? They go on and on to make sure that reconstructionist idiots don’t misinterpret the constitution or the laws of the land. It’s necessary. When you wake up from your Saturday-morning-cartoon reality you’ll understand.

    Smoke me a kipper, I’ll be back before breakfast🙂

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 18, 2007 @ 7:45 am | Reply

  30. “So I, uh, want you to go off in my face eh? No, I think I’ll pass on that. I’m flattered, but spoken for. You cn GO OFF on your own time.”

    Then you best back off on this gay thing or you will get an eye full from me. Be a man about it Adam and rise to the occasion and apologize. Show us what you got.

    Comment by BJ Tabor — July 18, 2007 @ 12:10 pm | Reply

  31. “So I, uh, want you to go off in my face eh? No, I think I’ll pass on that. I’m flattered, but spoken for. You cn GO OFF on your own time.”

    Then you best back off on this gay thing or you will get an eye full from me. Be a man about it Adam and rise to the occasion and apologize. Show us what you got.

    Comment by BJ Tabor — July 18, 2007 @ 12:10 pm

    ROTFL! You hear that Adam? That BJ’s gonna give you an EYE FULL, so watch out!

    Comment by ChenZhen — July 18, 2007 @ 1:09 pm | Reply

  32. If you send us an advance copy of “Moses Didn’t Write About Creation,” perhaps we’ll review it, Herman.

    Comment by Psycheout — July 18, 2007 @ 1:44 pm | Reply

  33. Dadaclu: No. Eight sentences hardly makes a book. I did start one once. Got to page 125, and lost it….😦

    Comment by La Mona — July 18, 2007 @ 2:42 pm | Reply

  34. OK BJ now I know you’re just pulling my leg. Only an idiot could throw in so many ejaculation and phallic references unintentionally.

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 18, 2007 @ 5:47 pm | Reply

  35. Unintentional or not, it’s damn funny.

    Comment by ChenZhen — July 18, 2007 @ 6:27 pm | Reply

  36. “OK BJ now I know you’re just pulling my leg.”

    Still jerking me around Adam. Apologize for calling me gay.

    Comment by BJ Tabor — July 18, 2007 @ 7:30 pm | Reply

  37. … oh boy, you’re serious. Are you really telling me that you’re so oblivious that you have no idea how many gay references you had in your comments? Oh boy, me calling you gay is the LEAST of your worries.

    And for the record, I never once insinuated that you were gay. No, you did that FAR more thoroughly than I could have. Maybe that’s the root of your blatant anti-gay attitude…

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 18, 2007 @ 7:50 pm | Reply

  38. Adam isn’t the world’s first liar, and not the last: “And for the record, I never once ..”

    The “record” clearly shows you made Oscar Wilde references when addressing Mr. Tabor. To associate him with the “archetype of gay identity” is a gross insult.

    You had better close your mouth around this and apologise.

    Comment by Happy Clam — July 19, 2007 @ 11:27 am | Reply

  39. “You had better close your mouth around this and apologise.”

    Oooh. A threat over a response-based forum. What a man you must be. I mean seriously, to demand that I apologise so forcefully like that… true courage here, folks. Actually, I’m being sarcastic. You’re a ridiculous little coward.

    I made an Oscar Wilde reference because he was a witty man who made very Swiftian comments. If it makes you feel better to jump to conclusions, then go for it. I understand that guys like you who throw out insults are just really insecure about themselves, and often their sexuality. Kinda like Clam and BJ.

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 19, 2007 @ 3:14 pm | Reply

  40. “I understand that guys like you who throw out insults are just really insecure about themselves,”

    It figures, I knew you didn’t have it to swallow like a man and apologize for this gay comment Adam. You’re the one coming up limp here.

    Comment by BJ Tabor — July 19, 2007 @ 6:07 pm | Reply

  41. Man BJ, enough with the phallic references. I’m not sure what kind of cravings you’re currently facing, but leave them off the blog. You might frighten Witch-Crockett!

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 19, 2007 @ 7:50 pm | Reply

  42. All right, the joke officially got old,

    Comment by ChenZhen — July 19, 2007 @ 7:53 pm | Reply

  43. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I agree with ChenZhen. He’s 100% right, 0% wrong. And I really like the header images he has on his site. You rock, dude!

    Comment by Psycheout — July 19, 2007 @ 8:06 pm | Reply

  44. LOL

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 20, 2007 @ 6:26 am | Reply

  45. What about when robots take over the world and turn us humans into energy sources?!?! They are going to start breeding camps and farm us like tuna. What will God do then????

    Comment by Jimmy — July 20, 2007 @ 6:56 am | Reply

  46. Well thanks Psycheout, but what was it that I was 100% right about?

    Comment by ChenZhen — July 20, 2007 @ 9:38 pm | Reply

  47. Why, about the joke being officially old, CZ. Adam knows no realistic bounds of acceptable behavior.

    Fortunately, there’s a new joke tonight.

    Comment by Psycheout — July 20, 2007 @ 10:12 pm | Reply

  48. I was directing that at BJ, though. Oh well, forget it.

    Comment by ChenZhen — July 20, 2007 @ 10:20 pm | Reply

  49. We as Muslims accept Jesus as one of the prophets besides Moses, Noah and Mohammed. And we believe that in very near future, Jesus will come back and will unite all faiths under one God one nation, that is the nation of Islam.

    Comment by Dr Conner — August 6, 2007 @ 7:04 am | Reply

  50. The book, “Moses Didn’t Write About Creation!” is now available
    at Amazon.com. Now all can read the truth of Genesis.

    Herman Cummings
    Ephraim7@aol.com

    Comment by Herman Cummings — August 15, 2007 @ 11:55 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: