vortexring

Quite a good article written in 2002 for you all to enjoy, unless of course you've already read it. Here's a couple of paragraphs: "Although genuine scientific achievement is rare in the contemporary Muslim world, pseudo-science is in generous supply. A former chairman of my physics department in Islamabad has calculated the speed of heaven. He maintains it is receding from Earth at one centimetre per second less than the speed of light. His ingenious method relies upon a verse in the Islamic holy book, which says that worship on the night on which the book was revealed is worth a thousand nights of ordinary worship. He states that this amounts to a time-dilation factor of 1,000, which he puts into a formula of Einstein's theory of special relativity. A more public example: One of the two Pakistani nuclear engineers who was recently arrested on suspicion of passing nuclear secrets to the Taleban had earlier proposed to solve Pakistan's energy problems by harnessing the power of genies. He relied on the Islamic belief that God created man from clay, and angels and genies from fire; so this high-placed engineer proposed to capture the genies and extract their energy." http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=4244 http://uniset.ca/terr/news/wp_islamlostitsway.html 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that's probably not true. Unless he was 10 at the time... Perhaps. Perhaps we went mental like David Shayler. But why do you think it's probably not true? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Listen to this; Pervez Hoodbhoy, who wrote the article 'Islamic Failure' said this: "A more public example: One of the two Pakistani nuclear engineers who was recently arrested on suspicion of passing nuclear secrets to the Taleban had earlier proposed to solve Pakistan's energy problems by harnessing the power of genies. He relied on the Islamic belief that God created man from clay, and angels and genies from fire; so this high-placed engineer proposed to capture the genies and extract their energy." Read the full article here: http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=4244 Bill, having a few Muslim mates who don't have creationist views doesn't exactly equate to a great deal. This is an issue. Surely these chaps must recognize it? edit: In fact, it's such a good article I'm going to post it. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

A 2006 poll of UK higher education students showed that less than 10% of Muslims accepted the theory of evolution. In Indonesia, Pakistan and Egypt, the proportion of the population that believes in Darwins theory of evolution is 2, 5 and 3% respectively. That, as I pointed out in my reply to Jakee above, must surely be a problem. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I pretty much agree; but there is something rather significant and disturbing about this. Islam, with it's creationist views, rarely acknowledges the theory of evolution, therefore cannot fully understand astronomy, anthropology, biology, geology, palaeontology, physics or zoology. So it's the social, political and cultural implications of such ignorance which is quite disturbing. Surely a society which does not promote specialists in these areas cannot expect to evolve into a competetive economy. In rejecting all this, they believe it demonstrates moral superiority over degenerate Western values. But it's readily apparant they're rejecting science itself, which is going to really help their future generations. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I see your point if you apply it to particular areas such as Pakistan and their Madrasses. But I didn't mention extreme Muslims. I meant just Islam in general, throughout the world. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Understood Steve. Still, I wonder: on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being somebody of complete and utter belief in their God, and 10 being complete and utter disbelief, would it be that the closer one comes to the end of the scale, the angry they're more likely to be at the other? Or would it be more likely for the 10's to be more angry than the 0's? And why? ...only my thoughts! Not questions aimed at anyone in particular. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

The Church of England expressed deep concerns last night about the spread of creationist views as it prepared to unveil a website promoting the evolutionary views of Charles Darwin. Anglican leaders fear that “noisy” advocates of a literal interpretation of the Bible - especially in the United States, where even the Republican vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, is a vocal supporter - are infecting the perception of Christianity worldwide. The Church will launch the website on Monday, a few weeks after the 150th anniversary of Darwin's first public proposal of natural selection and amid growing controversy over the teaching of creationism in schools. The Rev Professor Michael Reiss, a biologist and director of education at the Royal Society, provoked a furore this week when he called for creationism to be treated in science lessons as a legitimate “world-view”. Related Links Top scientist calls for creationism in schools Creationism in class is nothing to fear Is Dawkins God's revenge on Darwin? The Church of England weighed into the debate yesterday when a Church House spokesman admitted that the treatment of Darwin's theory of evolution by Victorian clerics was wrong. He said that science and religions were “perfectly compatible” and attacked creationism as a strand of Christianity that created a false impression of the Church as a whole. The Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, one of the inspirations for the website, said: “We felt there would be public interest, particularly because of the rise of creationism in the US. “Christian attitudes don't have to be either a complete swallowing of Darwin and everything that has been done in his name, on the one hand, and, on the other, the complete rejection of scientific method with a literal interpretation of the Bible. “A culture that doesn't have a great deal of historic understanding of the Christian faith can easily characterise all Christians as being like the most noisy ones.” A church spokesman added: “Creationism should not be taught as a scientifically based theory but could be included in discussion of the development of scientific ideas down the ages or in RE.” Rasmandala Das, of the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies, said that the Hindu approach was to teach all different views of the creation across the curriculum. Members of the humanist movement dismissed creationism as “simply wrong” but agreed that religious believers must be engaged by science teachers rather than ignored. Andrew Copson, director of education for the British Humanist Association, said that Professor Reiss was right to think it was better to take the opportunity to debate the issue than to belittle children by telling them: “Shut up, that's for RE. Should a teacher say, ‘Shut up, that's for RE'? Obviously not,” he said. “If a child raises it in a classroom you don't say, ‘Shut up'. You say, ‘That's not a scientific perspective.' It can be an opportunity to demonstrate what a scientific perspective is.” Tahir Alam, of the Muslim Council of Britain, expressed concern that there was a rising trend of intolerance towards religious beliefs and said: “Secular atheism is getting very dogmatic.” Mr Alam said of creationism in science lessons: “In any educational context, if children raise questions and have beliefs which are different to the teachers, people should not be dogmatic about not discussing it.” However, Rabbi Dr Tony Bayfield, head of the Movement for Reform Judaism, expressed doubts: “It would be as unacceptable for Judaism for schools to teach creationism in science lessons as it would be for them to teach the Dawkins secular fundamentalist view that Darwin and God are incompatible.” Quite an interesting report from 'The Times'. Whilst it's common for extreme American creationists to come under ridicule, it's rare we hear of Muslims being ridiculed for their equally extreme creationist views. Or is it just me? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Why is that then Steve? To convince themselves or because they simply find the notion of religion so ridiculous? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I've read through this thread and now I'm off to wander around the kitchen...this evening I had a seafood pasta mainly using fresh mussels & razor clams caught from the bay, with some scallops from the fishmonger, but it all doesn't compare to a quality medium rare steak!! Darius, if you like tomato juice, try squeezing half a lime into your glass with some cracked pepper and sea salt. Delicious. Orange cut marmalade! If I spread some on my morning toast my mood immediately brightens - seriously. And marmites a spread for the dead - it tastes of concentrated salt and possibly cat poo... Anyone still hungry?

Your analogy is as utter wank as your earlier reply which I pointed my answer out to you: ''I got as far as you claiming that I've an assumption that all religions are perfect and decided to end reading your pish right there and then. Because I didn't make that assumption. Behave yerself!' Stop trying to be what you perceive as manly - you're about as manly as a pussy in a cock contest. Apply yourself to the point - and then we can advance. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

It's nice to read a more mature and un-fuckin-baby-boy-like-reply. Well done. You've some good questions which I recognize. But see again my reply to your post number 24: 'I got as far as you claiming that I've an assumption that all religions are perfect and decided to end reading your pish right there and then. Because I didn't make that assumption. Behave yerself!' Hopefully that should be able to re-iterate my earlier points, and you'll also try and man the fuck up in regards to our said banter. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Well, it does when I'm busily picking flowers and plants in the garden centre, avoiding the Mrs like the plague! 'Bring out yer dead! Bring out yer dead!' Still, this reply never ceases to piss her off! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Fuck! Ya' reckon!!?

The classic dodge! Fuck off! Justify the utter pish you wrote earlier on the thread! Justify and explain your usual trolling nonsense. This is fucking hilarious. Look - do yourself a favour - go back and look at your wank original reply. And in fact, the one after that. Once you've applied yourself to this, feel free to get back to me. But do yourself a favour. Abstain from your typical and pathetic whine. It's un-manly. It makes me think less of you.

Bullshit. Do I need to bring up the recent thread where you threw all manner of ad homs at me for 3 pages before admitting that I was actually right? Fair enough - that's a good point, but as you know, I was happy enough to recognize when I was wrong. And I apologized. You never do. Ever. You'll lead the discussion onto something else; always avoiding the points I've directed at you. I'm so glad ya' do - if you take away my lump hammer, it also applies to you. Nope. I'm just the one who brings up things that you can't answer, and that really fucks you off. Not really. And you know that. Ok, after you've answered the questions I've asked yourself. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I've never attacked your points Jakee - I've only attacked your arrogant assumptions and misquotes. As you know. Although I'm delighted to read you believe I avoid answering difficult questions in regards to my posts. I welcome them. I've often had the pleasure of reading SC's reasoning on why my assertions are false, and then had constructive discussions, either publically, or privately. You, I'm afraid to say, (in fact I'm not) are the typical wee man with a bag of McCains on his shoulder. I enjoy your points, believe it or not, but what I don't enjoy is your attitude. For a start, it often clouds your point, and secondly, it makes me wish to introduce you to my 'bestfriend', a 2inch lump-hammer. You'd love 'im!

Agreed mate - by god I've Jacob Crackers crumbs spread around my feet needing a hoover... Seriously though - I'll be disappointed if it all turns into a rolling goatfuck and they assert they need funding for a machine 36 miles long, or what have you. Jeez. All they need to do is ask Nerdgirl - she'll know! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Your final question is foolish. Answer yourself again applying common sense and I might deem myself to refrain from fuckin' my old boots and pay attention to your rather silly replies.

I got as far as you claiming that I've an assumption that all religions are perfect and decided to end reading your pish right there and then. Because I didn't make that assumption. Behave yerself! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

You were upset when Diana died!? Ok - it's sad when anybody dies, but if you'd been with me and my mates we'd have soon cheered you up, besides making you breathe our old boots. My buddy pretend quoted the headlines from 'The Sun'. 'Dead As A Dodi....' As in Dodo? Ya get it?

Hey - that's your hoovering chores sorted! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Yeah,yeah, tell me something I don't know - besides, it's only through a mathematical chance of it not being zero. But I hope it happens; it'd be funny as fuck. Stepping out into the conservatory/driveway/backdoor with a morning brew and disappearing into the wild blue yonder with a loud SSSLURP!

I'll be fuckin' delighted that come Wednesday I don't end up being sucked into some wank continental blackhole. Besides, we were talking about this in work today. One of the guys asked exactly what was meant to be achieved by colliding these particles at speeds close to that of light? Answer: Imagine two mongs(retatrds/fools/dickheads,etc), facing each other in a large curved corridor. They're told that a few hundred yards ahead there is a free ice cream factory. They have twenty seconds to get there. Mongs sprint off; except, there isn't an ice cream factory, there is a wood chipping machine... Further to that, my mate also said; I wish my wife could suck as good as this black hole. In fact, she's probably better at sucking the fun out of life than the blackhole. Made me laugh! edit: At least the hoovering will get done... 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

But do thee? What if thine 6'5" student decided to raise his gargantuan hand and smite thee? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'