Richard Dawkins stumped hoax.

BountyHunterSAx · Post by **BountyHunterSAx** » 2008-09-11 06:15pm

"Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists' question (RAW FTGE)"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi36 ... re=related

Debunked Here:
http://skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm
By Dawkins himself

http://skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm
In more detail by Barry Williams.

I suppose it's old news to some, still I don't mind saying that I was *shocked* to find out just how low some creationists sink.

-AHMAD

PS: I checked a few times via the search feature, and could not find this, and as popular as it is on youtube.com I figured I'd post the thread. Sorry if it's old news.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-09-11 06:41pm

Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA.

Shaitan put them there, to confuse us.

Next!

BountyHunterSAx · Post by **BountyHunterSAx** » 2008-09-11 06:52pm

Want to hear something hillarious? Some Muslim pseudoscientists actually *did*. They've now been discredited, thank God, but this man supposedly theorized that the Qur'anic text was encoded into our DNA. The meaning of the untranslated pseudogenes and 'junk' DNA. Poor guy had doubtlessly never heard of mutation or else he'd have balked at his own theory.

Anyway, he quoted a verse of Qur'an "And we will show them our signs in the earth, the skies, and their own souls so that they will know it is the truth." (or words to that effect) in support of his theory. Many Muslims believed it to be true. Naturally his publication naturally didn't show any of the translation scheme that he supposedly was employing. I think there's a link to that hoax here... http://www.themodernreligion.com/misc/h ... an_dna.htm .

As a quick aside, it's rapidly being found that 'junk' DNA is actually anything but junk. As of 2005 the field of miRNA research has taken off with some scientists suggesting that much of what was previously termed junk in the UTR (Untranslated Region) may well code for miRNA s that are as of yet undiscovered. I can probably dig up the paper if anyone's interested in more details.

-AHMAD

BountyHunterSAx · Post by **BountyHunterSAx** » 2008-09-11 06:54pm

Ghetto Edit: I just re-read the context, my post doesn't apply to the area Dawkins was discussing, sorry. It deals with the UTR; whereas Dawkins was discussing the exonal region.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-09-11 06:59pm

There still *are* Muslim "scholars" (well, that's unfair, I guess if they are advertised as scholars I should take it at face value...) who insist that every scientific and technical advance of the last 1200 years was anticipated and described in the Q'uran, if only one knows how to tweak the text, to say so...

...fucking savages. Show them modern technology, and they go running to their book, to try and prove that it's the source itself...

BountyHunterSAx · Post by **BountyHunterSAx** » 2008-09-11 07:07pm

While I have no doubt that the Qur'anic text can be interpreted as a prediction of some modern scientific breakthroughs, (what you allege is said by Muslim scholars) I have *never* heard of someone claiming that the Qur'an is the source of that discovery.

It's a huge difference, mind you. The former is at best a reassurance of Qur'anic accuracy and at worst a linguistic game with intent to decieve. The latter is a blatant out-and-out lie. I might go so far as to claim that the Qur'an has never been the direct guiding force behind the discovery of a scientific principle.

Can you show evidence (a blog quote would be enough) of a self-styled Muslim Scholar claiming the Qur'an was the inspiration or source of a scientific discovery?

-AHMAD

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-09-11 07:13pm

How you see one as an out-and-out lie, and the other as something else, is kind of baffling to me.

I recall seeing a story on the topic at MSNBC.com; I'll see if I can extract it from their archives.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2008-09-11 07:14pm

Some of the scientific 'predictions' people draw from the Qur'an are pretty fucking funny. I was the recipient of a hilarious islamic handout last year, and the shit in there (in the vein of 'this work kinda means this, which is sorta a kind of texture, which if you close one eye is kinda like this other thing, ergo QUR'AN PREDICTS SCIENE'. Funny stuff, but it's sad people take it seriuosly.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-09-11 07:19pm

It's tragic, more than funny.

Particularly when you consider that the same people who perpetrated the Q'uran, were at least for a time the leaders in advancing mathematics, astronomy, and medicine...

...until their science began to look like it might conflict with their holy book, at which point science was tossed out on its ass.

Hillary · Post by **Hillary** » 2008-09-12 05:44am

Stark wrote:Some of the scientific 'predictions' people draw from the Qur'an are pretty fucking funny. I was the recipient of a hilarious islamic handout last year, and the shit in there (in the vein of 'this work kinda means this, which is sorta a kind of texture, which if you close one eye is kinda like this other thing, ergo QUR'AN PREDICTS SCIENE'. Funny stuff, but it's sad people take it seriuosly.

Basically, people want it to be true - so desperately want it to be true that they'll grab on to anything that supposedly supports their case. Rather akin to the current political campaigning, tbh, where both sides will seize on anything that can be even slightly construed to support their case or "prove" the other side is unworthy.

And that's the most worrying thing. It works extremely well in convincing the general public, both in politics and the religious war against science.