Posted on 06/20/2007 5:24:39 AM PDT by spirited irish
If you think that mass murdering innocents somehow suggests they are NOT genuine Islamists, then I don't think you understand radical, jihadist Islam.
I'm old enough to remember (prior to the Iranian Revolution in '79, and still predominantly for sometime thereafter) when terrorism was primarily the domain of secular groups such as you describe. Terrorist acts then were generally carefully "calibrated" as to lethality in order to produce maximum publicity with the minimum "necessary" body count. The killing of dozens (let alone hundreds, let alone thousands) at a time was extremely rare and usually beyond what was intended.
Intentional mass casualty terrorism is ENTIRELY and explicitly a product of Islamist extremism. It is certainly not a counter indicator thereof!
As to your other point: Yes, we know there are primarily secular extremists, terrorists, strongmen, thugs, etc, who make a pretense of being Islamist Muslims. Saddam Hussein was an example over the final decade or so of his rule.
But yes, if someone is mistakenly of falsely included in class "X" then of course it is false to attribute to him or her the implications that follow from being a member of "X". That's trivial. Of course I mean to say that persons who actually are Islamists (or Muslims, or sincere and serious monotheists generally) are "creationists".
Well, YOU'RE saying that. BETTY BOOP keeps saying that. But I'M not saying that. Not in this connection at least.
I'm not evaluating. I'm just stating a fact. Islamists are creationists.
I'm just saying that Islamists are creationists. Obviously. Being theologically conservative. Accepting the Koran as literally true. The Koran clearly and unabiguously claiming that Allah is the One God and the Creator of all that is. They are creationists. To quibble about applying the noun "creationists" to Islamists is just silly/stupid/absurd.
Is my position clear yet?!
Seems that 100% sold out adherence to speciation and naturalistic evolution is some kind of litmus test as to what a *real* scientist is, and anyone who doesn't toe the party line is not a *real* scientist, and is just a mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging,.....(fill in the blank) creationist who wouldn't recognize *real* science if it hit him over the head, no matter what their credentials.
OTOH, it doesn't matter if you have no credentials at all; if you agree with the ToE as stated here, everything you say is unarguable, even if you don't really know what you're talking about; and you have the *privledge* of sitting in judgment on everyone who disagrees with you. .
Seems that stereotyping ALL creationists into the extreme, literalist most narrow definition of the term is another MO.
To all our friends over at DC: Hi y'all. Having fun?
LOL tacticalogic! Sounds right to me!!!
If the methodology assumes unchanging laws of nature, it is science, but then it departs from creationism.
Creationism assumes that any phenomenon could be the result of divine intervention. This is the defining difference between the two modes of thinking.Within recorded history, everything from the flight of an arrow through plagues, earthquakes and volcanoes, has been attributed to the action of divinities.
Starting from this assumption, it is impossible to discuss the past in any terms that imply unchanging laws.
Sorry if I seem upset. I'm not really. It's not even frustration. It's more a kind of amazed incredulity that there's actually an argument that's gone on message after message as to whether "Islamists" are "creationists". If I'm frustrated it's more with the incredible stupidity of the argument itself than any particular person. Maybe (probably) I'm the stupid one for still being in such a silly argument!
Maybe all Islamists are creationists, but so what?
Are all creationists Islamists?
The problem is, that, as has been pointed out to you before, creation is not limited to Christianity or Islam. There’s either the naturalistic view, or creation, and multitudes of people believe in creation without being terrorists.
The point you’re making is to try to equate creation with Islamic terrorists. *If you believe in creation, you’re no better than an Islamic terrorist*.
Whether you deny that’s your intent or not, that’s what’s clearly coming across.
Yes, your position is clear; loud and clear.
And scientists know that the laws of nature have never changed, how?
Creationists can still use science working with the laws of nature as they stand now. That's what scientists do What does it matter what the cause is? Science can't address the cause anyway, because it has no way of determining what the cause was.
One methodology is based on *assumption*, with no rational basis or evidence for it, and the other is based the cause being God. So how is working with a system with unknown causes and no basis for the assumptions made for it superior than working with a system whose cause is believed to be God?
By blatantly disregarding the Foundation of our Nation:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
==If you think that mass murdering innocents somehow suggests they are NOT genuine Islamists, then I don’t think you understand radical, jihadist Islam.
I think it is you who don’t understand modern, jihadist Islam. Islam was penetrated by the Communists in much the same way the penetrated Christianity via “Liberation Theology.” For a brief intro on the subject, I suggest reading the following (once you have digested that, let me know and I’ll send you links that go into this phenomena much more extensively):
http://www.worldthreats.com/russia_former_ussr/Terrorists%20In%20Muslim%20Diguise.htm
==Intentional mass casualty terrorism is ENTIRELY and explicitly a product of Islamist extremism. It is certainly not a counter indicator thereof!
If that’s the case, then why are 50%+ of all suicide bombers secular Communists and socialists? And while I strongly disagree with the author’s (liberal) conclusions, his data is crystal clear: these people engaged in what the Communists would call “Wars of National Liberation.”
Business Week (JULY 6, 2005)
What Makes Suicide Bombers Tick?
...”The presumed connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism is misleading...Here’s a summary of (Robert Pape’s) analysis, which is based on the 315 suicide terrorist attacks from 1980 to 2003:
Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers, a Marxist-Leninist Hindu group opposed to religion, committed the largest number of suicide attacks, 76. The Kurdish PKK, which used the tactic 14 times, is headed by a secular Marxist-Leninist, Abdulah Ocalan. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, another Marxist-Leninist group, and the al-Aqsa Brigade, which has ties to the socialist Fatah movement, account for a third of the attacks against Israel. Communist and socialist groups account for 75% of the attacks in Lebanon. Islamic fundamentalists, he concludes, were associated with about only half of the attacks from 1980 to 2003...
Pape argues that the common denominator among the bombers in 95% of the cases is that they’re nationalist insurgents with a secular, strategic goal: ousting the military forces of democratic countries from land the insurgents believe is theirs. The suicide terrorists, who account for about 5% of all terrorist incidents but about 75% of all fatalities, believe their land and way of life are threatened. The religions of the occupier and the insurgents invariably are different, Pape notes, but he contends that difference is merely a useful recruiting tool and isn’t at the root of the animosity.
Al Qaeda fits this pattern. Osama bin Laden’s opposition to the House of Saud stemmed from its decision to allow U.S. troops on Saudi soil. Bin Laden’s goal is not simply to kick the U.S. out of Saudi Arabia, a country that’s a Western construct, but rather from the Arabian Peninsula, which arguably stretches as far north as Iraq and includes Kuwait, Bahrain, and other countries in the region where the U.S. has troops....
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2005/nf2005076_7420_db056.htm
It's perfectly clear that you consider Islamists (of the jihadi, totalitarian, irredentist type) to be the epitome of what it is to be a creationist: theologically conservative, ignorant, literal readers of the Q'uran.
Of course, if these are the strict qualifications for being a creationist, then a whole lot of theologically-inclined thinkers who are not literal-minded in their engagement of Holy Scripture, and who actually read and reflect on these issues still have to be fitted into the procrustean bed of your "interpretation" of creationist.
You are of course entirely welcome to your opinion, Stultis.
==But yes, if someone is mistakenly of falsely included in class “X” then of course it is false to attribute to him or her the implications that follow from being a member of “X”.
PS Has the thought ever occured to you that it might be the other way around?
==Of course I mean to say that persons who actually are Islamists (or Muslims, or sincere and serious monotheists generally) are “creationists”.
Indeed they are. But the creationist Muslims that I’m aware of soundly reject terror and lay the blame for terrorism at the feet of the Church of Darwin:
http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm
http://www.harunyahya.com/terrorism1.php
I never said “science is fraud”, nor did I say that fraud was its dominant mode and I didn’t say that all scientists are backbiters. Those are all your words. Respectfully, I’m not interested in getting into some sort of prolonged “Hi I’m tit and this is my partner tat” exchange with you.
As to whether or not I’ve done any original research...I suppose that I’m expected to respond to that by saying “Them’s fightin’ words” and come back swinging with freshly inked copies of my CV clutched in my fists. But I’m really not interested in doing that, nor do I think that would advance the discussion on the board.
My credentials are what they are — speculate on them however you’d like. No one else on this board has been asked to post a resume justifying their qualifications for having an opinion, and while I have courteously answered tacticalogics’s request for further information about my background I think I’m about done on that point.
Now, on to more interesting topics than me:
1. Science does not deal with God.
Well, yeah, kinda. You know...since God created everything and all. OK, I’m being flippant and I shouldn’t be. I guess, js1138, there is little chance that we will come on to common ground on this point because your worldview is fundamentally different than mine.
2. Science deals with claims made about the physical world; science deals only with processes that it can observe using methodologies that it can access (something you said earlier, yes?):
That’s true for some things, but it’s a bit disingenuous to apply that to all fields of research — ESPECIALLY those involving evolution. Evolutionary processes are NOT directly observable.
Not only is it not observable, but its not even testable or repeatable — fundamental components to the scientific method. For example, while I can go out into a field and use statistical sampling methods to determine how much data I need to collect in order to represent the whole, I cannot do this for evolutionary processes. I can try to use some of the same tools — statistical sampling methods, models, biochemical analyses, etc. — but they’re all seriously compromised by lack of data. The fossil record is remarkably scarce.
Now, lack of data is a common problem in scientific research. When data is lacking, scientists will adapt by making assumptions. This is a standard practice, especially in dealing with models, and there are plenty of times that this works out just fine — for example, there are some really good predictive models that deal with crop yield, or hydrologic processes, or weather events.
But, again, evolution is different. With questions involving evolution there are so many gaps to be dealth with...in fact, more than gaps there are vast chasms in the fossil record...and so many resultant assumptions that must be made in order to complete any meaningful analysis that the lack of data issue is really not one that can be tiptoed gracefully around. It is commonly said that you can massage statistics to make them say anything you want them to — and that’s very, very true when you’re dealing with these kinds of analyses.
And so the question of how the assumptions are made to compensate for this lack of data does — and SHOULD — loom somewhat larger over the discussion than it might for other areas of scientific endeavor.
Because assumptions are loaded with subjectivity. And bias. The more that subjectivity and bias are injected into the analysis and into the interpretation of the results, the more that the personal worldview of the researcher comes to the fore and casts its shadow over the whole body of work.
So...it’s not really accurate to say that science research is focused on observables and that any dishonesty in findings will eventually come to light. It just doesn’t work that way — scientists have produced great things, don’t get me wrong, but let’s keep the lens clean and be humble and willing to admit it when we come to an area of scientific endeavor that is problematic.
And “evolution” is just very, very problematic.
Of course it's just an assumption. One formalized (but not invented) by Isaac Newton.
Between you and Newton as authorities on how to do science, I don't think it's a contest.
Speaking of the author connected to the second link, he just published a new book:
Atlas of Creation and its Effect in Europe
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly to debate whether Creation will be included in school curriculum
With the distribution of Mr. Adnan Oktar (Harun Yahya)’s Atlas of Creation in Europe, the continent’s materialists and Darwinists set off a serious panic among. They stated that Atlas of Creation, which was mentioned to resemble no other anti-evolutionist work, is more hazardous to their system of thinking than all previous anti-Darwinist publications. They were so upset they even set out to ban the book.
Undoubtedly, this panic is the greatest proof of just how important and accurate is the information that this book contains. Its solid scientific evidence, effectively refuting evolution, has helped many Europeans realize that they have been deceived for 150 years. In a recent poll held by French site, Science Actualités, 92 percent of those questioned replied that they believe in Creation, while those who still believe in evolution numbered a mere 5 percent.
Europeans have begun to understand that evolution was nothing but a tall tale put forward in the fairly ignorant scientific world of the 19th century; and they note that Creation has now been proven by solid evidence. This ideological –and intellectual—awakening engendered great unrest among materialists, atheists, and Darwinists.
One of the latest documents to reflect this unrest is the report prepared by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly’s Committee on Culture, Science and Education. The French socialist Guy Lengagne drew up the document named “The Dangers of Creationism in Education”. Consisting of 104 articles, its overall focus is on the recent growth and strengthening of belief of Creation throughout Europe, and the worry and discomfort it has engendered in certain circles. Twelve of the articles deal specifically with the works of Harun Yahya and the importance of his Atlas of Creation.
As the Washington Times stated in an article datelined 24th June 2007:
The report highlighted a recent Muslim creationist campaign by Turkish writer Harun Yahya, whose lavish 750-page Atlas of Creation has been distributed free to schools in France, Switzerland, Belgium and Spain.
The report cited University of Paris biologist Hervé Le Guyader, who called the challenge from Islamic thinkers “much more dangerous than the previous creationist initiatives, which were often of Saxon origin.”
In this report’s conclusion, 47 member states are called upon to act against Creation. Moreover, it states that Europe is in danger since belief in the theory of evolution is beginning to collapse.
This very report will be polled in the European Parliament Assembly on 26 June 2007, when recommendations will be set for the national education curricula of member countries. Although this resolution is not binding upon the member states, it’s highly important that it be in full accord with the Council of Europe’s basic values, including human rights, freedoms of opinion and democracy.
In all his works, Mr. Adnan Oktar emphasizes that the theory of evolution should be taught along with Creation, and students—and people in general—should feel free to choose for themselves among these ideas. This is the best approach for ensuring freedom of opinion and democracy. However some are incapable of replying scientifically to the facts stated in these books. Acting with a Dark Ages mentality, they try to suppress a book whose ideas they disagree with, to constrain others’ freedoms of thought and of opinion. Yet banning an idea can’t make it any less valid. Those who –advocate the theory of evolution, by attempting to suppress all opinions except their own, are in direct conflict with the basic values of the Council.
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation_II/atlas_creation_II_01.php
You claim to have a degree in biology?
Name one physical process required by evolution that has not been observed.
You have been fairly clear all along.. Actually everyone is a Creationist.. The Universe was created.. by someone, something, somehow, someway, sometime.. Duuugh, Its HERE.. How it got here is the question.. How it WAS created is the question.. not "IF"..
Pointed out to me? Pardon, but I hardly need instruction on such a point. (Although many a creationist here does.)
Just a few messages upthread, and repeatedly in this thread, I've pointed out that accepting a Doctrine of Creation, and therefore being a "creationist," is a characteristic of (serious) monotheists generally. In other threads I've pointed out that most evolutionists are creationists (although obviously not antievolutionary creationists). Even though the intended meaning should generally be understood in these threads, I nevertheless often use distinguishing terminology like "antievolutionary creationist" or "antievolution activist" so as not to taint or limit the term "creationism" or "creationist" with a too particular, narrow or anti-scientific a denotation.
There’s either the naturalistic view, or creation
Um, no. There are many who accept both naturalism (at least "operational" naturalism, i.e. naturalism adopted for the limited purpose of "doing science") and creationism.
and multitudes of people believe in creation without being terrorists
Well, DUH!
The point you’re making is to try to equate creation with Islamic terrorists. *If you believe in creation, you’re no better than an Islamic terrorist*.
First betty boop, then hosepipe and now you. I don't know if this is some kind of projection, weired and unnecessary defensiveness, or just mass insanity. But it's really, really, really bizarre.
I didn't ever, anywhere, say or suggest that just Islamists, or only Islamists, or particularly Islamists, or especially Islamists are creationists. In fact I said that ALL Muslims, and ALL Christians, and ALL monotheists (who follow through to the extent of accepting a monotheistic doctrine of creationism) are "creationists". I said dumb and smart Muslims, and dumb and smart Christians (and even the occasional non-religious "philosophical theist") are creationists.
Heck, it was someone else who started all this. I just responded -- in genuine amazement -- to betty boop's comment in #132:
Why on earth do you suppose the Islamofascists are "creationists?" Where is your evidence for this?
And bb was responding to -YYZ- who, in #17, only made an incidental point in way of arguing against stereotyping and pigeonholing creationists:
We’ve heard all this before and it’s still a load. A belief in evolution is not inconsistent with a belief in God, nor does it inevitably lead to a belief in humanism, communism, or whatever. The Islamist terrorists that we are fighting today are creationists - does that mean creationism is responsible for their murderous creed?
Please try to put your persecution complex aside long enough to read the above statement C-A-R-E-F-U-L-L-Y. Anyone who doesn't INSIST on being insulted will recognize that -YYZ- is saying that creationism should NOT be considered a term of opprobrium (just because some bad people happen to be creationists) just evolution should not be so considered (just because some bad people happen to be evolutionists).
But of course, just as you have with me, betty boop immediately missed the point, and indeed got it exactly backwards:
It seems you regard "creationist" and "creationism" as terms of opprobrium that can be applied willy-nilly to people you dislike.
Well, you know what, if people insist on being offended, and will turn your statements around 180 degrees in order to play the roll of drama queen cum martyr, what you gonna do? I suppose just shake your head in slightly bemused disbelief.
O.K... When animals evolved and started to believe in GOD...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.