Darwin censored by the Turkish government's internet filter

[Terrywoodenpic]

So hang on, are you trying to say women only get raped, murdered, beaten and oppressed in Moslem countries?

Of course not. But some Muslim ones seem to try to Justify and institutionalise some of these things.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It's all very well pointing the finger at Islamic Fundies, and saying they prevent males being punished for their crimes, (Which is indeed, pretty **** poor) but Western Governments just hold up bits of Legislation, that claim to protect women from every kind of abuse they can think of, but every year the number of trafficked 13 year old East European prostitutes working here goes up. Every year there are thousands of rapes and serious assaults on these girls that go unreported, every year, the resources made available to enforce protective Legislation is reduced, 200-300 dead girls are pulled from the Thames every year. No one seems to care. Our legislative system makes virtually no difference at all to the levels of violent crime against women.
So I suppose pointing at Muslims and saying "Ooh, aren't they barbaric?" just means we don't have to look at the equally abusive and exploitative little loopholes our own systems use to enable these abuses to continue.

I rather think you need to give some references to support this. As they are certaily not what what I would recognise as facts. Were you to believe they to be true, what would you say is the group responsible.

 

[BadBeast]

I'd bet my left nut that men are responsible.

 

[Father Heathen]

No it isn't. The abuse of women is pretty much endemic wherever you go. The only thing that differs are the reasons that men use to justify it.

So the struggle for women's rights and equality is futile and the perceived advancements in such are an illusion?

 

[BadBeast]

So the struggle for women's rights and equality is futile and the perceived advancements in such are an illusion?

Of course not. That's ridiculous. But to lay the blame on Islam, or to point the finger at other cultures or groups too easily distracts us from addressing our own cultural issues. Or, in extreme cases, even admitting we have any issues.

 

[Father Heathen]

Of course not. That's ridiculous. But to lay the blame on Islam, or to point the finger at other cultures or groups too easily distracts us from addressing our own cultural issues. Or, in extreme cases, even admitting we have any issues.

But nobody claimed that misogyny was exclusive to Islam, nor has anyone claimed that it didn't occur within our own culture. Of course our society isn't perfect, but to suggest that the treatment of women here is even remotely comparable to many muslim countries is beyond ridiculous.

 

[BadBeast]

But nobody claimed that misogyny was exclusive to Islam, nor has anyone claimed that it didn't occur within our own culture. Of course our society isn't perfect, but to suggest that the treatment of women here is even remotely comparable to many muslim countries is beyond ridiculous.

There is no calibrating factor here to compare one injustice against another. A wrongness is a wrongness. It's magnitude is irrelevant. It's source is us. All of us. Only when we take responsibility for our own contribution to it's existence will things start to change.

 

[Alceste]

name me one country other than maybe someone islamic that teaches creationism rather than this notion of living things becoming something different altogether? as far as i know the answer is 0, so look who's talking about exploring both sides or at least giving students a chance to choose. who gets to say that Darwins theories are actually facts? atheists? and i'm talking about the same darwin that claimed that those of white skin are superior/the masters of black people and them having not fully evolved. in the modern world we call that racism, three cheers for darwin supporters.

How is blocking children from accessing scientific literature on the subject of biology "open"? How does that encourage them to study "both sides" of any issue?

 

[Alceste]

Source?

Pretty sure all road lead to Harun Yahya for eselam.

 

[Alceste]

to say that the theory of evolution is a joke has nothing to do with having or not having knowledge of the theory of evolution. as i said before, i may be no expert on evolution but i do know a few things. but i still think it is a joke. it was suggested by a primitive cave man how can people actually take him seriously?

Eselam, it's pretty obvious that you know nothing at all about evolutionary biology. From your comments, it is perfectly clear that all your information on evolution is coming from creationists like Harun Yahya who, like you, know nothing at all about evolution.

On top of that, you've just admitted that not only have you never read any credible material on the subject of evolution, you never intend to.

In contrast, most of us on "the other side", as you perceive it, HAVE read articles by Yahya, Denton, AiG and other prominent creationist propagandists. That's how we know it's baloney: We have read the creationist arguments, compared them to our scientific understanding of the world and concluded it's nonsense.

Isn't this exactly what creationists are always insisting we should be doing? Reading "both sides" and drawing our own conclusions? Yet here you are, complaining that nobody looks at "both sides" while at the very same time celebrating Turkey's censorship of "the other side", which you yourself have never so much as glanced at.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Eselam, it's pretty obvious that you know nothing at all about evolutionary biology. From your comments, it is perfectly clear that all your information on evolution is coming from creationists like Harun Yahya who, like you, know nothing at all about evolution.

On top of that, you've just admitted that not only have you never read any credible material on the subject of evolution, you never intend to.

In contrast, most of us on "the other side", as you perceive it, HAVE read articles by Yahya, Denton, AiG and other prominent creationist propagandists. That's how we know it's baloney: We have read the creationist arguments, compared them to our scientific understanding of the world and concluded it's nonsense.

Isn't this exactly what creationists are always insisting we should be doing? Reading "both sides" and drawing our own conclusions? Yet here you are, complaining that nobody looks at "both sides" while at the very same time celebrating Turkey's censorship of "the other side", which you yourself have never so much as glanced at.

This is a great example of the fact that not only are we not playing on the same field, or playing by the same rules - we're not even playing the same game.

 

[Mathematician]

If an idea has enough merit that you must resort to censoring it, you've done messed up.

 

[Alceste]

This is a great example of the fact that not only are we not playing on the same field, or playing by the same rules - we're not even playing the same game.

I guess not! Never read a single article on the subject of evolution but want to argue against it anyway? Why not simply accuse everyone else of never having read anything on the subject of creationism? Problem solved!

:thud:

 

[dust1n]

I always wonder how Darwin supporters reconcile the Black and Indian thing. Usually the excuses are "that was the mentality of the time" or something like that. So why not his other theories? And yes, it does in fact tend to be Atheists who say that Darwin's theories are "facts", as if the "evidence" is substantial and indisputable.

I almost vomited from the sheer ignorance.

EDIT: Okay, hold on.. I will actually have to jump into this conversation.

There is no such thing as a Darwin supporter. He wrote a book in the 1800's that had a few ideas in it that just so happened to be correct and proven after test after test after test. Darwin was a rascist... you happy? Science isn't about people.. it's about refined ideas that withstand empirical testing, a.k.a. the scientific method. Why not his other theories? Because if his other theories are proven wrong, than they are wrong. No one has ever claimed Darwin was right correct about everything single thing, and to suggest so is absolutely insane.

But since you are such an expert on evolutionary biology, perhaps, you can describe which of darwin's theories atheists often refer to as facts, outlay what that fact is, show what available evidence you can find on the subject that disagrees with your position, and then find evidence that discredits the opponents position, and evidence is usually a synonym for empirically sound statements and their statistical infallibility.

 

[dust1n]

you are spot on they actually do say that it was the mentality of the time to consider white man superior to black man, i guess it was during those same times when black men were so un-evolved that they had to keep them in zoos so the white superior folks could look at them from close up.

and the amount of indisputable "evidence" is amazing, don't know where you live but just the other day i saw a fly evolve into a dead fly. LOL

Yeah.. Europeans were racists a century and a half ago. What's that have to do with the CONCEPTS, SEPARATE FROM THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORTED THEM OR FIRST STATED THEM (and Darwin wasn't the first to speak of natural selection, btw)? Facts are not discerned as truthful by what other stuff was proposed the original inventors of a fact.

And don't pretend like Islam has been better as FAR AS RACISM is concerned.

But, I'm curious, really... what "indisputable 'evidence'" have you yourself examined, and what were the rebuttals, founded on empirical evidence, and how did you go about testing the reliability of these hypothesis?

 

[dust1n]

The problem with the word "Evolution" is that only part of it is an indisputable fact. Micro-evolution is a fact.

So is macro-evolution. Care to claim the biggest theories incorrect? How about the fossil record. No, let's really discuss macro-evolution here. What is wrong about it?

The "Theory" part is that all these micro-changes will cause drastically species, beyond just different breeds, which is the only kind of "Speciation" that has been actually observed.

That actually has nothing to do with the "theory" part. Speciation can be observed in millions of years of fossil records... and that's just the fossil records..

Once again, the "Species problem" comes into play.

No, it doesn't. And why would it come into play based on what you said?

It often becomes a mired semantics game with disregard to the actual observable results and measurable data. I have discussed this in greater depth on other threads.

Replying to the emphasized, your opinion is entirely incorrect. What claims for macro-evolution do you have a problem with, and why?

What there IS "tons of evidence" for is Epigenetics, which vindicates Lamarck more and more every day.

I can't really do anything to this other than :biglaugh:

And there are plenty of professional biologists who are anti-macro-evolutionists

Let's go through the list then... lead the way. And perhaps you can show us their own research in contrast to the other research and explain why the work of these plenty of 'pro' biologists who are anti-macro-evolutionists? A list will work for now, really...

, though they may not be the majority, they exist and they say the exact same thing I'm saying here.

So, back up your statements like they would. Let's see their tests that disprove various assumptions made in macro-biology...

 

[dust1n]

so if i say that a bear evolved into a whale how would my statement be wrong, i'm simply jumping some steps. i'm not an evolutionist so i don't know about all the mini changes that took place, but i sure as hell know that evolutionists them self don't know of those changes from the top of their head. so all you say is 'gradual changes over long periods of time.

Bears never evolved into whales. Perhaps even the most elementary search into evolution might clear some incredibly out-there misconceptions up with just an iota of effort or will.

 

[dust1n]

to the contrary, what i've said is in accordance to evolutionary belief that most if not all species will go through some changes some day whether it will be a full change or not i don't know, hence i made a full change example; lions, and a not fully change example; wings. i didn't say we'd become birds. you yourself said the following:
it's not about something changing into something entirely else, it's gradual changes,

You know there use to be dinosaurs that roamed the planet, right?

 

[dust1n]

Ain't science wonderful!
Clearly, gravity & evolultion share the status of being extremely useful,
yet we still have new things to learn & explore. We're so lucky.

I have noticed that science isn't really all that wonderful when you google search things to pull out of your *** regarding physics, then trying to imagine that they apply to evolutionary biology, all without even taking a science history class.

 

[dust1n]

Do I have to post all the Academic books that use the word Micro-evolution yet again? As for the mechanism, that would be the fact that most non-neutral mutations result in the destruction of the specimen, any "useful" traits would be counter-balanced by a deleterious effect. Anyways...I really should just make one link with the list of non-creationist science books that define Microevolution so I don't have to do this over and over again with those who aren't in the know. Feel free to write to their publishers and tell them they're wasting their time, let me know the response. If you want more, let me know. As for the definition of "Species", that's something I personally think needs to be redefined, otherwise there'd be no such thing as the "Species problem". I consider a "Species' as something with radically different genes, for example, wolves and coyotes are the same species. I'd even say that Camels and Llamas are the same, even though they're classed as different genuses.

Amazon.com: Cycles of Life : Exploring Biology : Microevolution: Biology: Movies & TV

http://www.amazon.com/Microevolutio...ZVTU/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1323788698&sr=8-7

http://www.amazon.com/Microevolutio...88/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1323788698&sr=8-11

http://www.amazon.com/Microevolutio...07/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1323788698&sr=8-13

http://www.amazon.com/Methods-Appli...04/ref=sr_1_28?ie=UTF8&qid=1323789682&sr=8-28

I don't disagree with 'micro-biology'. It, in fact, fits perfectly within evolutionary biology. However, it isn't impressive to be linked to books you yourself haven't read, do not own, and can not yourself source when trying to make an argument against such a heavily evidenced theory.