The articles you posted are quite old and I have seen them in the past - they actually - Use outdated numbers - infact many of them have been improved to show far better odds - At the end it is just estimations and I dont't pay too much attention to it, sort of like Drakers equation.
His second article is in fact a refutation to some concerns that have arisen afterwards. I don't believe I have seen anything with better variables 'numbers'.. in which case I say why favor one theory over another if they are all of same caliber?
What methods do you think should be employed to prove or disprove a theory? science in general isn't built to 'prove' any theory rather disprove the alternative, and I think using math a science dealing with the logic as well as sciences of matter, energy the laws that govern our universe are a strong contender for this sort of a theory... many are rejective of arguments from design, what possible reasons could there be to reject disputations from math and probability?
On a further note, if something is improbable, so improbably - and not impossible - and then you have evidence of it occuring - then you cannot deny the evidence on the basis it is "improbable". The Universe is around 13-15 billion years old, with Earth only coming in the last 4-5 billion years (to give you an idea of the timescale). The probability game seems to confuse me alot, because just a look at the fossil record, the DNA, the extreme similarities in many species (such that, you have useless characteristics of say a Cat, like the raising of the back of your hair in fear, which a cat can use to make himself look bigger, or your tailbone) and so much more - it is quite a broad topic which does deserve atleast consideration. I think however,
I assure you if there were 'evidence' the term used to describe it wouldn't be a 'theory' by defintion, a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.
I believe Dr Mullan, has expanded on variables that work even against his own research to accomadate a wider view which is one of the things he was remonstrated for, if you can call adding more varibles to solidify your work a flaw, as well using various resources in his paper, the first model of the oldest known fossil, time considered when living conditions on earth themselves are sufficient to 'foster life' . With such papers as his, as well others that arise, I prefer a thorough probe of same gauge, rather than a repudiative 'dated model' --evolution itself is very dated and asks one to take rather large leaps of faith.
Knowing what I personally know of mutations, DNA breaks, jumping genes as well as current modes we have on inserting large genomic segements into DNA ergo liposomes/ Ecoli bacteria etc to turn a theory with some gaps into accepted palpable knowledge. I have to concede in the end it comes down to a permutation.. we have exchanged one theory for another but without enough substantive evidence to sustain it and each in this case is entitled to his
beliefs --
with people like Harun Yahya, and darwinism-watch websites, which just state alot of "bad" science, convinces people. I mean, today it is strange, that a qualified scientist - is stating "Why arn't monkeys giving birth to humans now then?" - It really is bizarre, you have to question the motive...
I haven't brought Harun Yahya at all into this, anymore than I have lesser scholars to make a case for Islam. I assay work seeking established scientests not just for credibility but because I personally like to get a more microscopic view of a professional capacity.. as to why something is impossible or improbable or the reverse etc. You don't usually get that from lay folks no matter how well meaning their work is usually superficial even if not entirely incorrect!
My example was not actually, to argue for evolution (even though I accept it), infact I could have used any arguement - My point was someone could make a factual mistake which if refuted does not leave room for arguement. Personally, I have read quite alot into evolution, to me it is a fact of life just like gravity - and my view is shared by all scientists who do not use "bad science" to negate it - even theistic scientists who accept it is true. At one point, when you study through it, it seemed just lying to myself to deny it being true. But, if you believe a religion to be true, you should know it would not contradict science. I would rather not go into a debate if evolution is true or not - because it is such a topic that - I would rather you read some books on it. I myself was against evolution for several years, but it was all based on bias material - I never was objective on the issue.
I don't wish to bring evolution into this any more than you do, as I have given it more time than it actually deserves on this forum-- my problems with evolution are well autonomous from religion.. I have already covered my objections on threads that deal with that subject matter ad nauseam.
Bringing 'all scientests' into it, seems to me a bit delusive to me... to begin with, taking a survey of whom belives in what is already a slanted approach by way of logical fallacies using both an appeal to authority and making an argument by generalization... I have no doubt you have deeply researched the matter, but consider that others, may have spent an equal time researching drawing a completely different conclusion.
Of course this all depends on what your definition of evolution is? whether it is a mere adaption say as your lower esophagus becomes more columnar than squamous with repeated insults, or whether you are speaking of actual
speciation.. Many things are related that is a fact, we share fifty percent of our genes with bananas, I don't think, it is a distant relative of mine... this is the formula for our universe, the same way I use twenty six letters of the alphabet to make seemingly endless words..
As for Deedat, yes their was live debates. But usually, live/public debates - are often the ones most scrutinised for errors. This is usually that those who participate are not always the best. Did you ever get to see Nadir Ahmed against Sam Shermoun live debate at a University? Nadir Ahmed was very poor and could not represent Islam properly - and In that debate I would have to confirm that Sam Shermoun did win that debate (Nadir ended up in adhominem and non-relevant arguements, basically showed up as someone who could not defend Islam).
I didn't see the particular lecture you speak of, but have seen many of deedat's work with such folks as Jimmy swaggart and anis sharoosh who by the way was recently arrested for assault of that alone doesn't detract from his credibility.. I think it depends on how well studied and familiar the debater is with other scriptures and I believe Dr deedat is extremely well learned. May Allah reward him and grant him heaven's high meed for his great efforts, as I personally have learned alot from him!
You can look up criticisms of Deedats arguements - they are in masses I am sure - and make your conclusion if you will use this as dawah to christians. Personally, I found, if the people are learned in the religion, not to do so. It is like, someone using Robert Spencers arguements on muslims, it may convince those who do not know alot about Islam (or, at the very least, unable to defend against the claims), but to a learned muslim he would just be laughing.
I never looked to use his material for da3wa, I personally (and this is just me) don't think that da3wa comes from a debate, but he has certainly done an excellent job refuting and explaining many arguments leveled against Islam and that is usually what I seek to watch his lectures for me, I have browsed some of the arguments on the web against Dr. deedat, I found them very pedestrian at best. My personal favorite scholar would be sheikh sha3rawi, who doesn't speak English and had no interest in converting anyone.. and that is usually what I seek, to learn Islam better rather than highlight the deficiencies found in other religions..
personally I find that to be more a christian approach to belief than an Islamic one.. it seems to me by landslide that evangelists of all denominations seek character assassination, blackwash of prophet Mohammed P and the Quran etc, than deal with a very fundamental problem with theirs.. the 'man/god who went to nunciate his birth to a woman, after impregnating her with his person, leaving the universe behind to show up in the little town of nazerth, pray to himself in the garden of Gethsemane, da*n the earth he created for not bearing the fruit of his choosing, while leaving behind all the cosmos only to die on the cross while somehow sustaining all the laws of the universe, night and day, the seasons, the rising and setting of stars in their orbit to save man kind who are later to drink his blood and eat his flesh and still maintain that they are all one in the same 'person'-- to be quite honest, I don't see how anyone can get past that point to take it to a level more inscrutable and lose at such a debate?... at the very crux there is a major leap of faith that I have to assume and for everything else to be true, I personally can't get past it. I don't think even an uneducated Muslim can falter far behind from intellectionthat appears to me very dark and medieval at the base level!
Personally, people should keep their dawah to the religion of Islam itself and not dwelve in attacking other faiths or going into their books. Most people arn't learned enough in those to make universal arguements - I believe even Yusuf Estes once questioned on it, being quite learned in Christianity, decided not to attack the bible, because he has learnt that it is not the correct way.
agreed as per my last statement!
This for me is sufficient proof that what am following is correct.
