Secret Dubai diary Intrigue and adventure in the United Arab Emirates





iPhone RPGs

Dubai Info

Best role-playing games
Spiderweb Software
for Mac & PC





18 February, 2007

Farewell, Darwin

The gulf between UAE public education and private education widens just a little more:

"According to Abdul Qader Eisa, Senior Supervisor of Biology at the Curriculum Development Centre in the Ministry of Education, the evolution theory is included in the curriculum for Grade 12 pupils in public schools but will be removed for the next academic year.

"Private schools are permitted to address the subject as a scientific theory only without rejecting creationism."


Leaving the doors wide open for some crackpot like Turkish creationist Harun Yahya to step into the void:

Harun Yahya aims to correct the "illusion of the evolution theory, especially since all over the world you can't find any academic material that is based on the fact of creation in the education system," Eti said.

Abul Hasan Al Masu'di and all your brethren: weep in your graves. "Modern"-day morons are trampling over your legacy.

Labels:

62 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

On the bright side; SD you were created by God therefore etisalat should not block you. They need to block all bloggers who evolved from monkeys :)

18 February, 2007 05:05  
Anonymous HY said...

This is the sort of crap I cannot stand.

NO one here has read any of the books by Harun, nor have they read anything abut the theory of evolution and the lies that have been printed in school books for generation.

The only reason you choose to “diss” this subject is because the word scientific is in front of one and the God in front of the other.

Let me leave you with this fact which I am sure no one teaches in the scientific books is that “Darwin’s original theory today are proven false” what they teach you now is not theory of Darwin but a different form of it.

How many here actually knew that?

18 February, 2007 09:06  
Anonymous Desert Orchid said...

I saw this story, and the thing that struck me was just how close the mad mullahs are becoming to the redneck Texans and christian fundamentalists they profess to hate. How long before we see bumper stickers in UAE saying "Allah hates fags"...

18 February, 2007 11:18  
Blogger S. said...

So God created everyone..? Including the kafirs, murderers, rapists, killers and thieves..?

Wow.. God is messed up. Cant even create a good human being.

a la Epicurus..

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

18 February, 2007 11:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well it is, afterall, only a THEORY. It's not the LAW of evolution because they have not managed to prove it yet. It's got some holes that best efforts from a lot of smart people have not yet plugged.

18 February, 2007 12:41  
Blogger S. said...

To anon@1241

Maybe the evolution theory has some holes plugged. I'd say it has a lot more than the case for a "God". The Creation idea takes its proof from texts and heresay. If God created it, who did he tell..? How did the writers of the creation myths know what/how he did it..? If he told them, then its hearsay. I could tell you that evolution is the way that life came about, why do you choose to accept an account from a person who was told by God (Is that 3rd party), rather than me.. (second party)..

18 February, 2007 14:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is always pleasing to observe that the creationists have no idea what the theory of evolution entails.

And that hy obviously means that anyone who read Harun's books in translation has not really read them.

18 February, 2007 15:27  
Anonymous Suburban said...

Desert Orchid,

I thought Exactly the same thing when I read this. you are right on.

How does this iniative mesh in with the goal of emiratization? It's one more step towards creating a workforce so inept they border on unemployable.

"sorry bob, we can't drill that deep gas well because our CEO thinks the world is 5000 years old so the geology is irrelivant and haram."

18 February, 2007 16:59  
Anonymous poo said...

Just in time for the fun... Printable disclaimer stickers for science textbooks. Hopefully these will start appearing in UAE schools soon.

via Boing Boing - Satirical science textbook stickers

18 February, 2007 19:27  
Blogger Hatem said...

Hmmm… I am thinking of sending a two-line email to etisalat linking to this particular post. I think that some of the few comments written until now are more than enough. Then, maybe someone else will write a new post called: Farwell, SD!

18 February, 2007 22:54  
Blogger secretdubai said...

You go right ahead Hatem. You be our Moral Guardian and set us all straight.

18 February, 2007 23:40  
Anonymous Rose in Dubai said...

Gosh, isn't Hate'm the perfect name for this person!
Personally I prefer the idea of a God that has been continually involved in the process of evolution, constantly creating a process of change and adaptation which allows all of her creations to flourish, than a big scary guy with a beard sitting up on a cloud 5 or 6000 years ago with a magic wand saying "boom! There it is, and if you change anything I won't love you any more, oh and by the way, I gave you humans a brain but if I ever catch you using it you'll go straight to hell"

19 February, 2007 08:27  
Anonymous HY said...

How many here know about the forgerie and outright lie that have been said to promote evolution?

Why dont they teach us that in the school books?

HY

19 February, 2007 08:34  
Blogger inmotion said...

This reminds me of that episode of Friends

Pheobe and Ross argue continuously all throughout the episode over the theory of evolution. He's for and she's not.

She gets him to cave in the end and its the funniest thing .

Having said that .. If we had evolved from apes (which is the simplest form of the evolution theory) that would knock down the idea that mankind was created as we are today right out of the water .. so where would that leave original sin ?

But if we were to believe that we were created as we are today .. where would that leave the apes and the chimps?

Donno what to do about it!

Thing is you gotta teach both!

Personally though I have a problem with having a chimp as a relative. I already have one of those in the family and I avoid all get togethers where he is at.

19 February, 2007 12:10  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For all those of you who think that creationsism and evolution are both theories of equal worth or that evolution is a big lie let me make one distiction between the two:

No matter how wrong evolution is ever proven to be, its dominance today is not based on prohibiting, browbeating or otherwise impeding anyone from attempting to disprove it.

Faith and science have rubbed against each other for 1000s of years. Important Muslim philosophers such as Averroes and Avicenna grappled with the inter-play between faith and the science of their day. They did so based on discussion, thinking out the issues, and investigating possible means of reconciliation between the two.

Like these men (and many other Muslims throughout the centuries) intelligent people are open to new ideas (even those they do not ultimately accept). Donkeys and the metally deficient, finding they do not possess the intellectual capacity to explain why they believe anything to be true or false, seek to prohibit anything they do not understand. Thankfully, Hatem, there have always been more intelligent men in Islam than donkeys.

19 February, 2007 12:34  
Blogger Al-Republican said...

SD-

I am glad you brought this topic up! This topic actually emphasizes how the Western World looks at Middle Eastern beliefs through their own prisms. And hence the misunderstanding.

Just to clarify to your kind self: Islam has taken a NEUTRAL stand on evolution. In this part of the World (and we were discussing these things way back in the 9th century) CREATIONISTS and EVOLUTIONISTS are NOT 2 different distinct schools of thought. In the Islamic world and sciences, Creation and evolution have BOTH a part to play.

If you ever actually read the books of Harun Yahya, you will see how he himself supports evolution to some extent. The debate amongst the Muslims has only been HOW FAR or how much of a role did evolution have in the making of man. Otherwise, evolution as such has never been disputed. Clearly, the Angels questioned God when He chose Adam as His Vicegerent on Earth (Chapter 2 of the Quran, introductory verses). They were basing their assumptions on observed patterns with similar creations.

The Qur'an actually talks of how Allah created the water molecule first and made all living things with that blueprint. Evolution, in an Islamic perspective, is best explained as a TOOL of God's Creation. Furthermore, when Allah in the Qur'an talks of the Creation of the Universe, He informs how it was made in STAGES with sets of laws governing its development.

Just thought I'd clarify this much. Having said all of this, I personally think there are too many loopholes in the "Adam descended from monkeys" theory. I think a better way to explain the evolution of modern-day man is by looking at the larger picture of monkeys and humans being both part of the HOMOERECTUS family. Meaning they share qualities, yes, but they definitely don't root from one another.

19 February, 2007 12:39  
Anonymous kochumanavalan said...

If monkeys turned into humans...what are those things swinging from tree to tree in the Amazon? When are they ever gonna catch up?

Just kidding. But be warned. Evolutionists are very sensitive people, and are quickly offended. Although it's called the theory of evolution, they still like to think of it as an established scientific fact, the way it's taught in schools (they swallow that wholesale). There is no room for any other point of view, which is why creationists are referred to as "morons", "mediaeval" and so on.

I especially chuckled with delight listening to David Attenborough's commentary in "Life on Earth", which went something like:

DA (conspiratorial whisper): "...then the fishies got fed up just swimming around, so they decided to grow legs...and after that, them froggies was tired of just hoppin around, so they decided to grow wings....”

I know I must be pretty naive to believe in the creation concept, but forgive me, guys, I'm totally incapable of the giant leap of faith that requires me to believe that there was this great big bang, you see, and then hey presto!...things just appeared and began falling into place. It's just too scientific for me.

Nevertheless, I hope this evolution thing really catches on, then I won't have to deal with Air Arabia...right now I just walk home if I can't get a taxi, but it's no good for really long distances. (Oops! Running low on Red Bull again…but take heart, there’s plenty of the other kind in my “Science” textbook…)


(Note to SD--not for publication: I tried posting this earlier, but it didn't seem to go through...so here it is again...in case both have come through, do you mind deleting the first one--and this note? Many thanks, and sorry for the trouble.

19 February, 2007 15:10  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amazing how many of the posters here believe in Creationism.
[Sarcasm] Lets hope that God creates something to rid ourselves of {Insert your pet problem}[/Sarcasm]

19 February, 2007 16:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People who come with this big bang rubbish are the most ignorant people ever. Its no different from voodoo. Like there was nothing, and then suddenly this explosion, and all the stars came from no where, and the gases, metals, solids, flesh, water, dark matter, internet and so on and so forth. Aboooouuuutttt. Ha, what sort of rubbish is that? Shuuuuttt uuuupp.

19 February, 2007 17:01  
Anonymous trend_setter said...

Also, here's a better quote from Attenborough (certainly don't remember the Life on Earth narration being that simplistic)

"My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy"

19 February, 2007 17:25  
Anonymous Susan said...

Anon 17:01,

>>People who come with this big bang rubbish are the most ignorant people ever<<

ROFLMAO!! Ok anon, if you're capable, which I doubt, rearrange the following words into a meaningful sentence:

Kettle; black; pot; calling.

(that ought to keep him/her busy for a week or so)

19 February, 2007 18:01  
Anonymous kochumanavalan said...

Anonymous @ 16:08--just tell me where you came from, man. Was it the monkey or was it the stork?

[Amazing how many (people) believe in Creationism...]

Oh, boo-hoo. Here we all are, nicely swallowing this whole evolution story, following conventional thinking all the way to hell and back simply because that's the way everyone else thinks, when some smartasses decide to think differently and challenge conventional thinking, scientific theory and whatchamacallit, and actually think differently from the way we do. Amazing!

19 February, 2007 18:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The criticism against evolution posted above provide the strongest proof as to why current scientific theories should be taught at school.

Evolution as a theory does not consist of stating that people come from monkeys; it has nothing to do with the big bang; it doesn't even have anything to do with whether God exists or not.

Science and the scientific method have given all of us enormous benefits: advances in medicine; technology; creature comforts; the ability to live well in a climate like the one in Dubai. This no one can deny.

The theories that have brought you these benefits are no more objectively true than the theory of evolution. Our understanding of why most things work is imperfect; yet from those imperfect theories we fly home to see loved ones and we live long lives with children who, not so long ago may have been decimated by diseases we have overcome.

Your hate-filled reaction towards a particular scientific theory seems to be spilling over into all science in general. Think of how ironic that is as you read this on your computer!

Science has no monopoly on truth. It does not pretend (except when distilled through 7 Days and around the table with your equally uninstructed friends) to explain everything about everything all of the time.

Science posits theories. Theories are imperfect attempts to explain things better than previous theories. That is all they are. Any of us who can provide a theory which is capable of proof which shows that the theory of evolution (or any current theory regarding electricity, quantum mechanics, medicine, economics) is false would win the Nobel Prize.

Unfortunately, for most of you who have posted against evolution so far, there are no Nobel Prizes for name-calling and knee-jerk reactions.

19 February, 2007 19:40  
Blogger rummyjohn said...

Lumping the Big Bang with Evolution is just ignorant. How about discussing the merits of a hypothesis, based on factual data collection and observations, which lead to a conclusion supporting or disproving the hypothesis?

I get the feeling [insert religious book here]-thumpers reject scientific (secular) theories on principle. Full marks for consistency is all I can say.

btw, it doesn't require a giant leap of faith to believe in the big bang, but graduate studies in theoretical physics would help in understanding it.

However, believing that the greatest construction project ever undertaken was completed in 6 days, on-schedule and on-budget, without quasi-slave labour imported from sub-continent (which obviously handn't been created yet), with enough time to put your feet up and enjoy a beer over the weekend, that, my friend, requires a giant leap of faith.

19 February, 2007 21:41  
Anonymous Passerby said...

No one of you has a clue where you might end up when your time expires?


About all of you are here talking in so much certainity as if you have witnessed the evolution.


I have witnessed the creationism when my little baby boy was born from 3 months old in his mother;s womb.


But I still YET have to see a Goat turning into a sheep.


@SD, Bashing one's country but stepping on the Religion of someone is another.

I am disgusted but I suugest you leave others religious sentiments to themselves and especially if that Religion is Islam, the final call.


Best Regards

19 February, 2007 22:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So the big bang doesnt require a maasive leap of faith eh? Yeah right. Shuuuuutttt iiiittt.

I'm sorry dont want to appear rude, but you just skirted round my questions. You dont prove the big bang by rubbishing a religious belief. Make your arguments stand on its merit. Go on boy, prove the big bang.

19 February, 2007 23:50  
Blogger secretdubai said...

Passerby: if esteemed muslim scientists such as Al-Masu'di recognised evolution in 900AD, I fail to understand why today's considerably less learned muslim, such as yourself, would be so arrogant and cretinous as to reject it.

Or are you calling Al-Masu'di a heretic?

And your child wasn't "born from three months old" whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, he grew from a fertilised egg into a zygote and into a foetus. Any muslim doctor could tell you that. And his growth from an egg is no pro-creationist argument whatsoever, is has zero bearing on this debate.

And to the final fkwit: as others have mentioned, the Big Bang has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. At least read up on them both in Wikipedia if you want to participate in intelligent discussion.

20 February, 2007 00:25  
Anonymous poo said...

rummyjohn @ 21:41
[...] However, believing that the greatest construction project ever undertaken was completed in 6 days, on-schedule and on-budget, without quasi-slave labour imported from sub-continent (which obviously handn't been created yet), with enough time to put your feet up and enjoy a beer over the weekend, that, my friend, requires a giant leap of faith.
ROTFLMAO rummyjohn that one just made my day! :)

And to the ones complaining about evolution, please explain away the following
1)If the world was created [insert your date from your favorite religious text] years ago. Please explain the presence of fossils that predate that age? And how come the [insert name of your favorite religious text] does not have any references to the Dinosaurs ? So we should just ignore the Mesozoic era?

2)So maybe all those fossils are fake. How come they get carbon dated back to way back then?

3)How is it that certain fossils contain DNA?

I understand that if you ignore carbon dating and DNA evidence you don't believe that these are valid techniques.

Its funny that the UAE government stipulates that all couples getting married there need to have a Thalassemia check before the marriage certificate is issued. Guess which one of the above techniques is used for that.

References for the uninformed

Thalassemia
Genetic disorders in the Arab world -- Al-Gazali et al.
Molecular Heterogeneity of Beta-Thalassemia in the United Arab Emirates
Thalassaemia screening: a laboratory perspective
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesozoic

And a thread like this will never be complete without a reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster

20 February, 2007 09:50  
Anonymous Bukowski said...

Here's a little quote from the www.harunyahya.com, proving conclusively that creationism is the more rational idea:

"Darwinism is an ancient shamanistic religion, built on insane and irrational superstitions and falsehoods. This idolatrous religion has been invented to confront Islam. According to the shamanistic religion of Darwinism, earth, water, rock and stone can feel, smell, hear and perceive colours."

Y'know, it's strange, but my copy of Origin of the Species must have had a few printing errors, because I don't remember that part of it at all...

Possibly the best argument comes from the late Bill Hicks, however, who said that the idea of an all powerful, all knowing God burying fossils just to MESS with your head is too paranoid to be comfortable...

20 February, 2007 09:50  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

The Qur'an actually talks of how Allah created the water molecule first and made all living things with that blueprint.

Eh? A water molecule consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen. By contrast, the blueprint for all living things is the organic molecule, which by definition must contain at least one carbon atom. A water molecule is not therefore an organic molecule, and cannot be considered to be the blueprint of all living things.

20 February, 2007 10:28  
Anonymous passerby said...

"if esteemed muslim scientists such as Al-Masu'di recognised evolution in 900AD"



What do you exactly mean by the term evolution?

If you mean water turning into Vapours, or a worm turning into a butterfly. Then so do I believe in evolution.

20 February, 2007 10:41  
Blogger S. said...

Ok, side topic, but isnt it wonderful that some people find it hard to believe in a "Big Bang" but dont find it far fetched when some dude sitting somewhere said "make it so" and it appeared out of thin air..? And where did "God" come from anyway..?


Rummyjohn, I have had discussions with creationists. They always have an answer. The answer I get for asking where fossils come from..? "The devil did it to confuse everyone"..

ROFLMAO

20 February, 2007 13:21  
Anonymous trend_setter said...

SD and other sane folk. There's no arguing with idiots. They just drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience.

20 February, 2007 13:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hope God creates a black hole that sucks all creationists in to itself.

20 February, 2007 14:05  
Blogger Al-Republican said...

Tim Newman-

Thanks for arguing just for the sake of argument. Could you kindly tell us why NASA is desperately looking for water in Mars? Because water is the FIRST sign of life! Yes, water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. But, the fact remains, ALL LIVING THINGS HAVE WATER IN THEM. The carbon molecular setup you talk about is a much later stage (there I am talking of your same evolutionary theories!). It's proper definition is under "organic" compounds. Graphite (CH3 if I recall my high-school chemistry properly) is an "organic" compound, too. But it sure isn't a living thing, Sir.

Try to transcend your idiosyncracies when you read anything related to Islam or any view that is against your dogmatic views. You will do yourself a favor.

SD-

May I just kindly add that Abul Hasan was actually a Mu'tazili. The Mu'tazilah actually had differences with mainstream Islam over a few beliefs that are the core of Islam. That besides the point, his work on evolution is synchronous with Islamic teachings. I would even say that had he heard what Darwinism was preaching today, he may have been laughing his head off too.

The development of a foetus into a full grown child is exactly what I mean by evolution being a tool of God. Dr. Keith Moore had based his entire findings on embryology on the verses of the Qur'an that explain the different stages of birth. An astonishing find for him that lead him to embrace Islam 20 years ago when embryology was still in its initial stages. I ask you to read his works on it.

This is exactly why Jesus' birth is a miracle! He was born WITHOUT a fertilized egg. The planets going around in a set path is also set by Allah and explained by us humans in terms of our understanding of God's Laws. Science will explain what God has created and even how it was created in some instance. Simple.

20 February, 2007 14:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, I have nothing against evolution. I have everything against the big bang.
Proooooovvvvvvvvvee iiitt. or at least try and rationalise it. A tiny explosion that became a big explosion that give birth to everything.
Eeh? You serious?

20 February, 2007 14:31  
Blogger rummyjohn said...

Anonymous 19 February, 2007 23:50 said

Go on boy, prove the big bang.

Thats big boy to you, sweetcheeks

What I do know is that the Big Bang theory is substantially sounder than anything that has preceeded it. Scientists have not disproved it. Nor have they fully explained it, such what came before the big bang and what comes after it (the big cruch theory)

In my opinion, the Big Bang is a scientific theory the entire relgious community can embrace, since it leaves plenty of room outside the singularity for God.

Believing in Evolution or the Big Bang doesn't necessarily preclude the existence of God. It "merely" seeks to explain the mind and methods of God.

Yes, Sacrilege, I know.

Especially if it turns out that God did actually author the systems of evolution, elemental fusion, gravity and all that other good stuff, but not in the sense creationists expect.

Scientific theories just point out that God may not have carefully mapped and planned the existance of every individual of every species on this planet, to say nothing of the innumerable inanimate objects that litter the universe. Instead it might turn out we're the unplanned outcome of a series of (sometimes conflicting) processes that follow (obey?) immutable laws.

Of course, at the end of the day, does knowing or understanding all of this make a difference to the person that you are? That carving- of-a-rib and blood-of-a-loin story may not lend itself to scientific veracity, but if it makes you comfortable with who you are, all strength to you.

(PS: Further arguments from the School of Oh-Yeah/Shuuut-Iiiit will precipitate a checklist of religious-theory cock ups that may cause anyone reading it to be struck dead by lightening)

20 February, 2007 16:02  
Anonymous poo said...

hydrophobic (graphite-CH3) and hydrophilic (graphite-COOH) are not the same as graphite as we usually know it.

20 February, 2007 17:26  
Anonymous kochumanavalan said...

Dear Anonymous@19:40--

"Your hate-filled reaction towards a particular scientific theory seems to be spilling over into all science in general. Think of how ironic that is as you read this on your computer!"

Not at all, my dear chap. No hate whatsoever. And certainly not towards science. How shall we explain ourselves? Let's put it in small simple sentences, to start with.

a) Hate: you are cordially invited to read through the posts above once again, as it appears you may have missed just a teeny bit. Yes, there has been a bit of unfortunate name-calling and unkind references. Yes, let's see:

"Crackpot"

"Modern-day Morons"

"dark ages"

"Wow.. God is messed up."

"so inept they border on unemployable." (Creationists do not deserve employment.)

"fkwit"

Err...who are these addressed to?
By who....?

That's hate, my friend. Hate, accompanied by it's twin brother "intolerance", and it's twin sister, "refusal to permit alternative viewpoints".

As I observed earlier, Evolutionists are a rather sensitive lot, and we must be careful not say anything that would ever so slightly offend them. Or else the name calling will start all over again. And the hate. And the intolerance.And so on.

b) The subject: It's all too easy to lose sight of the original topic when one is overcome with blinding emotion. So let's back-up slightly.

The theory of evolution.

Theory. Of. Evolution.

Theory.

Teach it if you have to.

Just tell them it's a theory.

Tell them what a theory is.

Tell them what a proven fact is.

Tell them what a dogmatic belief is.

And then tell them it's a theory.

Oh, and tell them it's about evolution (a slow process of change/adaptation over a period of time).

Change/adaptation.

Not origin.

Origin is different.

So don't get messed up.

And don't get mixed up.

When you write a book outlining
your observations and postulations about evolution, try giving it a name that matches the subject matter.

You could call it:

"The evolution of some species."

or "The glorious evolution."

Just don't get mixed up. Origin is not evolution. Evolution is not origin.

See, it's very simple.

And of course we understand you don't believe in God. So naturally we can expect sentences like these:

"...big scary guy with a beard sitting up on a cloud 5 or 6000 years ago with a magic wand saying "boom!..."

(It's understandably difficult trying to visualise an individual you don't believe exists.)

Or:

"However, believing that the greatest construction project ever undertaken was completed in 6 days, on-schedule and on-budget, without quasi-slave labour imported from sub-continent (which obviously handn't been created yet)..."

Now that's understandable too. I mean, he had this whole universe to create and he did it in six days? On budget and on schedule? Budget I can understand (perhaps there was a bit of flexibility allowed by the project promoters. Or perhaps he went back and asked for slight budget increase. You know, "Sorry Guv, but due to cost escalations we have slightly exceeded our initial estimates...by about 70 trillion gigajillion times..." ) I just hope he could do it by phone. Or else he'd have had to walk all the way to the promoter's office.

But schedule? Six days? For the whole universe? You know durn well he didn't have the subcontinental slave labour at his disposal (in fact, creating them was part of the project requirement). And there were no JCBs in those days. Not to my knowledge. No bulldozers. No graders. No loaders. No tippers.

Heck, even if there was, he didn't have a heavy plant operator's licence (because the Licensing Authority didn't exist). So he had to do everything by hand, you see. By hand. And you gullible idiots (Creationists) think he did it in six days?

When are you guys gonna get smart like me?

Evolution forever!

3 cheers for the glorious evolution!

20 February, 2007 18:38  
Anonymous Passerby said...

If the Planet Earth is closer to Sun by 0.00000001 MM, The Entire Globe will turn into ashes.


If the Planet Earth is Farther away from Sun by 0.0000001 MM, The Entire Globe will Freeze.


The above example is just out of Trillions of examples.

Any Secondary school knows that, Unlike any illitrate individual like myself.


Therefore, The Evolution is Damn smart to create by itself the Entire Universe in so much Precision and perfection.


But the only downsize is the Human evolution which has messed up.



and Oh by the way, Its Not the Educated one's who would disagree with the Existance of an Almighty One But also the Cavemen and solar eclipse worshippers.

20 February, 2007 20:33  
Blogger rummyjohn said...

kochumanavalan (if that is your real name)

First of all, the title of Darwin's book is: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Secondly, a theory (in the scientific form) is a proposed description or explanation of a model. It remains a theory until it is incontrovertibly proved (in which case it becomes a Law), or until it is disproved by even a single exception. Much harder to keep alive than a dogmatic belief, isn't it?

(Can anyone picture a guy in a robe holding Darwin's book in one hand, a fossil in the other, yelling "Burn the Witch"? From the answer, ironically, we may conclude that Evolutionists are already doomed to extinction)

20 February, 2007 21:17  
Anonymous Rose in Dubai said...

Passerby:
>>If the Planet Earth is closer to Sun by 0.00000001 MM, The Entire Globe will turn into ashes.
If the Planet Earth is Farther away from Sun by 0.0000001 MM, The Entire Globe will Freeze.<<

ROFLMAO!!! You great pillock!! You are quoting the Book of Moo!!!!! Google it!! I gotta go, if I laugh any more I will probably damage something permanently!!!!

20 February, 2007 21:29  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

Thanks for arguing just for the sake of argument.

I am not. I am arguing against your scientific nonsense.

Could you kindly tell us why NASA is desperately looking for water in Mars? Because water is the FIRST sign of life!

Water is required to sustain most advanced lifeforms, yes. I have never said otherwise. But this does not mean that water is the blueprint of all living things.

Yes, water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. But, the fact remains, ALL LIVING THINGS HAVE WATER IN THEM.

You've got this all wrong. It is carbon, not water, which forms the basis of all life forms, as it is the carbon atom which is present in all of the complex molecules which living elements need. No life form has ever been observed which was not carbon based, hence all life forms are described as Carbon Based. If anything can be described as the blueprint for all life, it is carbon, not water.

The carbon molecular setup you talk about is a much later stage (there I am talking of your same evolutionary theories!).

Eh? Sorry? Carbon molecules evolved? And they did so later than water molecules? What nonsense is this? Molecules don't evolve! Molecules form when two or more atoms combine in a covalent bond. The formation of molcules has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution and "stages".

It's proper definition is under "organic" compounds. Graphite (CH3 if I recall my high-school chemistry properly) is an "organic" compound, too. But it sure isn't a living thing, Sir.

That's right, graphite is not a living thing, despite it containing carbon. All molecules containing carbon are organic, and all living things are organic, but it does not follow that all molecules containing carbon are living. You are making an Association Fallacy.

Try to transcend your idiosyncracies when you read anything related to Islam or any view that is against your dogmatic views. You will do yourself a favor.

Try to argue chemistry after reading a chemistry textbook instead of the Koran. You will do yourself a favour.

21 February, 2007 10:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Try to read and understand the Quran. You will do yourself a favour

21 February, 2007 14:06  
Blogger Al-Republican said...

Tim Newman-

You are just being a joker now so I won't even bother, but thanks for admitting that all life forms have water. Call them carbon-based or whatever, but the point was made.

And I never said carbon evolved out of water. In any event, if anyone believes in evolution hook, line, and sinker it is you folks. My point was merely that water is the quintessential component and the defining characteristic of any living thing. So while a living thing can or cannot have any base element, it HAS to have the water molecule somewhere in its composition.

Finally, reflect on your own writing:

"That's right, graphite is not a living thing, despite it containing carbon. All molecules containing carbon are organic, and all living things are organic, but it does not follow that all molecules containing carbon are living."

So carbon-based objects are a SUB-SET of living things. Remember the very first sets you were taught in school (by none other than Darwin dearest) of LIVING vs. NON-LIVING? The core criteria was water NOT carbon. Have you not heard of non-carbon-based life? Great, now a "creationists" has to teach an "evolutionist" darwinism!

In case you are still finding it hard to understand please click here. (Wikipedia's definition of life)

Although I know why you are hell-bent on arguing this point... because those dirty towel-heads and A-la can never be right! hehe Joker!

21 February, 2007 16:32  
Blogger Hatem said...

Read this (page 30, article 72, item 2), or if you can’t read Arabic, then read this (page 30, article 72, item 2).

Of course I am not in the position to judge whether item 2 can be applied in you case or not, but I personally got offended several times from your / your commenters comments. If many people are having the same feeling, then this item 2 may be applied. I can also say that most of your commenters are anonymous or hiding behind nicknames thinking that this is how they freely insult the same people they meet everyday and smile to them.

You told me one day that I don’t have to read this stuff, but I find it hard to find someone giving me insults in public, while I pretend that I am not listening.

By the way, I am not your Moral Guidance, and I am not trying to set you all straight.

21 February, 2007 22:06  
Blogger secretdubai said...

Hatem, if you really found my post "grossly offensive" then by all means seek to have it blocked by the TRA.

It won't stop it being online for people outside the UAE, nor will it remove it from Google's cache even if I deleted it (which I won't).

If you find this blog so disturbing and offensive, why don't you just go elsewhere? There are thousands and thousands of muslim sites where you can discuss matters with likeminded people.

If free and open debate is so offensive to you that you feel the need to trawl through telco regulations to find subclauses it may breach, maybe you should question your motives for coming here at all?

21 February, 2007 22:15  
Blogger Hatem said...

There are thousands and thousands of Muslim sites where you can discuss matters with likeminded people.

I am not talking about discussions; I am not talking about Islam. I am talking about “thousands and thousands” of explicit insults by your anonymous commenters approved and welcomed by you to the people you guys are pretending that you like them when you meet them in reality.

I am talking about ethics, not religion. As you have already hinted, if I want to talk about religion, I talk with other Muslims. I won't convert you and you won't convert me. I know this fact since long.

Last time, I am talking about ethics. I hope you get it!!

22 February, 2007 00:00  
Blogger secretdubai said...

approved and welcomed by you to the people you guys are pretending that you like them when you meet them in reality.

I genuinely don't understand what you mean here.

My feeling is that the commentary in my blog makes you feel somehow angry and powerless because there is nothing you can do to shut it up or control it, hence your strange threats to bring in the TRA/Etisalat.

I also still fail to see any "grossly offensive" insults to you in this post and commentary.

What I do suggest is that you stay away. Read it if you will, but if you're getting upset, you have only yourself to blame. Coming to this website is a 100% voluntary act on your part. You choose to come here, you choose to read, you choose to express your view. Therefore any personal flak you get is a direct result of your own behaviour and actions - that goes for everyone here, including me.

I just don't understand why anyone would hang around continuing to get "insulted" and upset when they have no need to.

22 February, 2007 00:13  
Blogger Hatem said...

Therefore any personal flak you get is a direct result of your own behaviour and actions - that goes for everyone here, including me.

I have never meant myself in this, or any other previous post. I really care less if an anonymous (even with a nickname) gave me an insult to myself. He/she doesn’t know anything about me.

The offence what I mean is coming from the people who enjoy mocking and making fun of other nations, cultures, rules, regulations, religions, or beliefs. This includes you of course!

Think of it as someone is insulting your family, not you. If you get angry, you will know what I mean.

As for “Coming to this website is a 100% voluntary act on your part”, I will only say that when you publish some words on the Internet, then you make it loud and clear. I don’t have to turn away and keep going, when I know that someone is insulting me on my back; pretending that nothing has happened.

22 February, 2007 00:46  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

...thanks for admitting that all life forms have water.

Your reading comprehension is almost as bad as your chemistry. I admitted no such thing. I agreed that water is necessary to sustain most advanced lifeforms, but this is not the same as saying that all lifeforms have water: they don't. A single cell organism, for example, does not contain water. It contains plenty of carbon though.

My point was merely that water is the quintessential component and the defining characteristic of any living thing.

I know what your point is, and it is wrong. Carbon is the quintessential component and the defining characteristic of any living thing, not water.

So while a living thing can or cannot have any base element, it HAS to have the water molecule somewhere in its composition.

No, it doesn't. But it does need to have carbon.

So carbon-based objects are a SUB-SET of living things.

No, living things are a subset of carbon-based compoounds. You've got this completely backwards.

Remember the very first sets you were taught in school (by none other than Darwin dearest) of LIVING vs. NON-LIVING? The core criteria was water NOT carbon.

Erm, no. In my schooling I was taught that all known life is carbon based.

Have you not heard of non-carbon-based life?

Yes, but never outside the realms of science fiction. All known life forms that have ever been observed have been carbon based.

22 February, 2007 02:03  
Blogger rummyjohn said...

Al-R and Tim,

I think you boys are differing on semantics rather than science (or religion)

As Tim says, all known lifeforms are Carbon based. ie, all tissue, muscle and other viscera are made of carbon-based compounds.

(Some people argue viruses are non-carbon based lifeforms, but lets leave that alone for now since they do not contain Water either)

However (as Al-Rep has said) for life to exist, water is essential. Even unicellular organisms contain water (the cyctoplasm within the cell). Certain organisms can in fact survive without water in extreme conditions, but in this stage they are dormant and unable to perform any other functions of life. Once they replenish their water-stores, they become "alive" once again.

So at the end of the day, without carbon, we would not have lifeforms, without which there would be nothing having life, without which there would be no need for water :)

22 February, 2007 08:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agreed that water is necessary to sustain most advanced lifeforms, but this is not the same as saying that all lifeforms have water: they don't

Tim Newman.. You are such a doofus. You are arguing that there are life forms without water.

http://www.molepres.com/P5.htm

http://www.molepres.com/P6.htm

22 February, 2007 10:31  
Blogger Al-Republican said...

Timmy-

You are just being irritating now. So, OK, whatever pleases you.

Single-celled organisms DO have water in them (bacteria, fungi et al). If you are refering to Viruses or prions as single-celled "organisms", then please be informed that they are both classified as NON-LIVING and hence not even organisms. Again, you as an evolutionists should know this.

I take your point, and I have never denied it. All life forms are carbon-based. But, like I gave the example of Graphite (even diamond CH4, for that matter), you have numerous other examples of carbon-based coumponds that are NOT living. Which is why, water becomes key in identifying and categorizing living things.

Lastly, it's not just about science fiction. I don't know if you know that scientists have been successful to some extent to form nitrogen-based living cells. The only problem being that nitrogen is not as stable as carbon so it decomposes.

Meanwhile, NASA continues to look for water on Mars...

22 February, 2007 11:37  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

But, like I gave the example of Graphite (even diamond CH4, for that matter), you have numerous other examples of carbon-based coumponds that are NOT living. Which is why, water becomes key in identifying and categorizing living things.


So what? I can give you numerous examples of water-based compunds which are not living too. Water, for example. Or orange juice. The question here is not whether carbon or water is a guranteed sign of life, but whether it is carbon or water which is the "blueprint" for living things. My understanding is that organic chemistry, into which category all living things fell, was defined by the presence of a covalently bonded carbon atom.

BTW, the chemical formula for diamond is C (pure carbon) not CH4. CH4 is methane, a gas.

I don't know if you know that scientists have been successful to some extent to form nitrogen-based living cells.

Really? Care to link to an example of this non-carbon based life?

22 February, 2007 13:17  
Anonymous Rose in Dubai said...

Dear Hate'm,
Why is it so hard for you to accept that other people may have different ideas from you? Their different ideas may be to them just as dearly held as yours are to you. When people express those ideas they are not doing so to offend you, they probably couldn't care less about offending you. I know I couldn't. YOU are the being offended, you choose to take this on. And stop making the excuse that you are being offended on behalf of other who aren't even aware they are being offended - huh??? Can't you see how utterly ridiculous that is??
You know, some people choose to believe in God and some don't, some believe in evolution and some don't, just because their views are not yours doesn't mean you have to get offended. People don't have different views from you with the sole purpose of insulting you. That takes a really special level of paranoia!
And don't get offended with SD, if you read her original post without your blinkers on, you will see she is bemoaning the fact that the wonderful beautiful enquiring religion that Islam was is being taken over by rednecks and ignoramuses.

22 February, 2007 16:43  
Blogger Hatem said...

Rose in Dubai, do you think I got offended by your words?!! Really?!!
And that’s why I wrote my above comments to SD?!
And that’s the same reason I wrote my first comment because I had that “special feeling” that you are coming very soon to offend me! Then I made that ridiculous excuse that I am offended on behalf of the “unaware others” because I didn’t have the guts to say that you offended me!!
I am really impressed by you...really!!

22 February, 2007 21:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, well...i could start by referring to the Miller-Urey experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment) but I don't want to join the ranks of the wanna be scientists in this blog, who try to recall their high school/university classes/lectures on the topic (like myself).

So i will just ask one question : are "creationism" and "evolutionism" really conflicting ?
I mean both concepts play on a different level/realm : creationism is a litteral/philosophical form of interpretation of religious texts (like the rib event between Adam and Eve) and "evolutionism" is a scientific thesis based on scientifc assumptions.

Should both mix, I am not so sure. Just like the main religions in the world, promise their followers that they will go to heaven, if they lead a life without sin etc ...does that mean the science should try to prove the existence of heaven? Where would scientists start to prove or disprove that? I don't think both should mix.

N.B. men did not evolve from apes, no serious scientist will ever say that. Rather, men and apes have a common ancestor, which is something completely different.And hence men did not evolve from goats either...ah damn it, i could not resist the temptation to be a wanna be scientist...

22 February, 2007 21:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1714171,00.html

"There is an insidious and growing problem," said Professor Jones, of University College London. "It's a step back from rationality. They (the creationists) don't have a problem with science, they have a problem with argument. And irrationality is a very infectious disease as we see from the United States."

22 February, 2007 21:18  
Anonymous Rose in Dubai said...

Hate'm,

ROFLMAO!!! You are soooo funny!! You really should be on the stage!

23 February, 2007 10:29  
Blogger Al-Republican said...

Yes, Timmy, Diamond is pure carbon. I wanted to type C4 (or maybe it is C5, I dont recall properly). CH4 was a typo.

In any event, please try to understand my original post. You misunderstand my point about water. I simply stated that the Qur'an informs us that it is an essential makeup in living things and before any life form was created, water was a precursor to it.

The Qur'an doesn't use the word blueprint. I used it and you got way too semantic on it. I am guessing because it gave you the opportunity to bash Islam and A-la and all the towelheads out there, hehe.

25 February, 2007 13:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Al rebublican wrote,
" I simply stated that the Qur'an informs us that it is an essential makeup in living things."

and what's so revelatory about that?

A child who stepped on a bug would know as much.

07 March, 2007 05:17  

Post a Comment

<< Home



next issue is no. 12




Google Secret Dubai
iopBlogs.com, The World's Blog Aggregator
 Blog Top Sites

Powered by Blogger




StatCounter stats