Comments on: Beetle Larvae http://islamicpolitik.com/2005/12/beetle-larvae.html An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come Mon, 08 Feb 2010 00:58:27 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: be humble http://islamicpolitik.com/2005/12/beetle-larvae.html/comment-page-1#comment-214 be humble Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:51:00 +0000 http://islamicpolitik.com/2005/12/15/beetle-larvae/#comment-214 I think that’s a good point, we don’t adopt this way of thinking for anything else in life so why should we adopt it for the way we came into existence?
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Shaykh Rattle 'n' Roll http://islamicpolitik.com/2005/12/beetle-larvae.html/comment-page-1#comment-213 Shaykh Rattle 'n' Roll Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:40:00 +0000 http://islamicpolitik.com/2005/12/15/beetle-larvae/#comment-213 Big Mac

You said:

When you see these coins you will conclude that someone intentionally placed these coins there. How is it possible the exact amount would fall out of pocket and land on this cross? However, you must see by now that there is every possibility that this occurred.

You are saying that we should believe that the £1.22 arrived by chance. I agree it could have. It is a possibility.

By continuing that line of thought, we could say that it is at least a possibility that your message came onto our blog by random chance.

It is at least possible that random static electrical signals were propagated along an Ethernet cable (just by chance), then formed themselves into a sequence of perfect TCP/IP packets (just by chance), arrived at blogger.com (just by chance) and replied to a subject being discussed (just by chance), oh and did so in the English language (again, just by chance).

Right.

Sure.

That leaves us with a problem: Either I’m writing a reply (NOT by chance) to a bunch of random static, or you do really do exist and you really did leave that message.

I’ll leave it to you to make up your own mind.

Reply – Quote
]]> By: Babs-M http://islamicpolitik.com/2005/12/beetle-larvae.html/comment-page-1#comment-212 Babs-M Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:16:00 +0000 http://islamicpolitik.com/2005/12/15/beetle-larvae/#comment-212 Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth and in the alternation of the night and day are indeed signs for men of understanding! [Translation of the Meaning of the Qur'an 3:190]<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('212','Babs-M'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('212','Babs-M','Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth and in the alternation of the night and day are indeed signs for men of understanding! \n\n[Translation of the Meaning of the Qur\'an 3:190]'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth and in the alternation of the night and day are indeed signs for men of understanding!

[Translation of the Meaning of the Qur'an 3:190]

Reply – Quote
]]> By: the traveller http://islamicpolitik.com/2005/12/beetle-larvae.html/comment-page-1#comment-211 the traveller Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:52:00 +0000 http://islamicpolitik.com/2005/12/15/beetle-larvae/#comment-211 Interesting discussion...heres a little mind teaser for everyone..rationalise why it is that man thinks rationally...indeed it is clear design in line with mans purpose which is to rationalise the creators existence through reflecting on the beetle larvae, and thus submit to this creators system to achieve the tranquility 'be humble' alludes to in his post.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('211','the traveller'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('211','the traveller','Interesting discussion...heres a little mind teaser for everyone..rationalise why it is that man thinks rationally...indeed it is clear design in line with mans purpose which is to rationalise the creators existence through reflecting on the beetle larvae, and thus submit to this creators system to achieve the tranquility \'be humble\' alludes to in his post.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Interesting discussion…heres a little mind teaser for everyone..rationalise why it is that man thinks rationally…indeed it is clear design in line with mans purpose which is to rationalise the creators existence through reflecting on the beetle larvae, and thus submit to this creators system to achieve the tranquility ‘be humble’ alludes to in his post.
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Jacare http://islamicpolitik.com/2005/12/beetle-larvae.html/comment-page-1#comment-210 Jacare Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:27:00 +0000 http://islamicpolitik.com/2005/12/15/beetle-larvae/#comment-210 Big Mac, you made the point yourself in your comment with your analogy. Even if the person didn`t have the intention to give 1.22 pounds, he still did, ie he was the cause for the 1.22 pounds to be present next to the cross. Those 1.22 pounds didn`t appear by magic out of nothingness, there was a cause to their presence next to the cross. Likewise, something or somebody must have intentionally or non-intentionally caused our existence. Now, because of our limitations, we cannot preceive that Creator, we just know that a Creator must exist. Furthermore, we cannot know whether this Creator created us intentionally or randomly unless that Creator decides to tell us. By the way, I would like to add that the existence of a Creator of the Universe cannot be proved with science, because science is only limited to what is experimentally testable, which is not the case of that Creator. Remember in your science labs at school where you had for each experiment aims, method of investigation, results and conclusions. This is known as the scientific method of thinking (in philosophy, empiricism). Instead, we need to use the rational thinking process whose criterion is ration (ie reality). For example, the scientific method of thinking can tell you what are the chemicals used in a painting, their proportion, discus about the reflection of light on it, etc. but it cannot tell you if that painting was painted by a painter. The fact that we know that there was a painter who painted that painting is understood through the rational thinking process. Likewise, the rational thinking process tells you that when you hear a knock on the door, that noise was created by somebody or something that hit the door. Scientific thinking process only will tell you how the knock noise propagated through the air and at what speed. To sum it up, science explains the how of things but not the fundamental why. Science tells you how gravity works but it doesn`t tell you why gravity exists. Also, I would like to refer you to that interesting piece of news. http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=12430&TagID=2<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('210','Jacare'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('210','Jacare','Big Mac, you made the point yourself in your comment with your analogy. Even if the person didn`t have the intention to give 1.22 pounds, he still did, ie he was the cause for the 1.22 pounds to be present next to the cross. Those 1.22 pounds didn`t appear by magic out of nothingness, there was a cause to their presence next to the cross. Likewise, something or somebody must have intentionally or non-intentionally caused our existence. Now, because of our limitations, we cannot preceive that Creator, we just know that a Creator must exist. Furthermore, we cannot know whether this Creator created us intentionally or randomly unless that Creator decides to tell us.\nBy the way, I would like to add that the existence of a Creator of the Universe cannot be proved with science, because science is only limited to what is experimentally testable, which is not the case of that Creator. Remember in your science labs at school where you had for each experiment aims, method of investigation, results and conclusions. This is known as the scientific method of thinking (in philosophy, empiricism). Instead, we need to use the rational thinking process whose criterion is ration (ie reality). For example, the scientific method of thinking can tell you what are the chemicals used in a painting, their proportion, discus about the reflection of light on it, etc. but it cannot tell you if that painting was painted by a painter. The fact that we know that there was a painter who painted that painting is understood through the rational thinking process. Likewise, the rational thinking process tells you that when you hear a knock on the door, that noise was created by somebody or something that hit the door. Scientific thinking process only will tell you how the knock noise propagated through the air and at what speed. To sum it up, science explains the how of things but not the fundamental why. Science tells you how gravity works but it doesn`t tell you why gravity exists. \nAlso, I would like to refer you to that interesting piece of news.\nhttp:\/\/www.khilafah.com\/home\/category.php?DocumentID=12430&TagID=2'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Big Mac, you made the point yourself in your comment with your analogy. Even if the person didn`t have the intention to give 1.22 pounds, he still did, ie he was the cause for the 1.22 pounds to be present next to the cross. Those 1.22 pounds didn`t appear by magic out of nothingness, there was a cause to their presence next to the cross. Likewise, something or somebody must have intentionally or non-intentionally caused our existence. Now, because of our limitations, we cannot preceive that Creator, we just know that a Creator must exist. Furthermore, we cannot know whether this Creator created us intentionally or randomly unless that Creator decides to tell us.
By the way, I would like to add that the existence of a Creator of the Universe cannot be proved with science, because science is only limited to what is experimentally testable, which is not the case of that Creator. Remember in your science labs at school where you had for each experiment aims, method of investigation, results and conclusions. This is known as the scientific method of thinking (in philosophy, empiricism). Instead, we need to use the rational thinking process whose criterion is ration (ie reality). For example, the scientific method of thinking can tell you what are the chemicals used in a painting, their proportion, discus about the reflection of light on it, etc. but it cannot tell you if that painting was painted by a painter. The fact that we know that there was a painter who painted that painting is understood through the rational thinking process. Likewise, the rational thinking process tells you that when you hear a knock on the door, that noise was created by somebody or something that hit the door. Scientific thinking process only will tell you how the knock noise propagated through the air and at what speed. To sum it up, science explains the how of things but not the fundamental why. Science tells you how gravity works but it doesn`t tell you why gravity exists.
Also, I would like to refer you to that interesting piece of news.
http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=12430&TagID=2
Reply – Quote
]]> By: be humble http://islamicpolitik.com/2005/12/beetle-larvae.html/comment-page-1#comment-209 be humble Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:49:00 +0000 http://islamicpolitik.com/2005/12/15/beetle-larvae/#comment-209 What you just said is like saying that all the rulers in the muslim lands have such oppresive policies becuase there is a few mutations in their genes. I really wish that was the case but unfortunately genes do not dictate the way you think and the actions that you choose to perform based on your concepts and previous information. The action of a baby sucking is directly linked to its organic needs and hence is instinctual. But the larvae's actions appear to have nothing to do with their organic needs, except right at the end, you realise what they've been trying to do. Only actions that are directly linked to the organic needs or instincts are instinctual. so running up a stalk does not count because this action does not result in the needs being satisfied it is just a random action. So these are not actions like the sucking of babies. Also your theory doesnt make sense because after the first negative mutation all those larvae would die cos they would be on the stalk doing nothing hence that negative mutation would be lost from the gene pool. The only possible explanation is that somehow something "programmed" these larvae to behave the way they do and that of course is their creator.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('209','be humble'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('209','be humble','What you just said is like saying that all the rulers in the muslim lands have such oppresive policies becuase there is a few mutations in their genes. I really wish that was the case but unfortunately genes do not dictate the way you think and the actions that you choose to perform based on your concepts and previous information. The action of a baby sucking is directly linked to its organic needs and hence is instinctual. But the larvae\'s actions appear to have nothing to do with their organic needs, except right at the end, you realise what they\'ve been trying to do. Only actions that are directly linked to the organic needs or instincts are instinctual. so running up a stalk does not count because this action does not result in the needs being satisfied it is just a random action. So these are not actions like the sucking of babies. Also your theory doesnt make sense because after the first negative mutation all those larvae would die cos they would be on the stalk doing nothing hence that negative mutation would be lost from the gene pool. \n\nThe only possible explanation is that somehow something \"programmed\" these larvae to behave the way they do and that of course is their creator.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> What you just said is like saying that all the rulers in the muslim lands have such oppresive policies becuase there is a few mutations in their genes. I really wish that was the case but unfortunately genes do not dictate the way you think and the actions that you choose to perform based on your concepts and previous information. The action of a baby sucking is directly linked to its organic needs and hence is instinctual. But the larvae’s actions appear to have nothing to do with their organic needs, except right at the end, you realise what they’ve been trying to do. Only actions that are directly linked to the organic needs or instincts are instinctual. so running up a stalk does not count because this action does not result in the needs being satisfied it is just a random action. So these are not actions like the sucking of babies. Also your theory doesnt make sense because after the first negative mutation all those larvae would die cos they would be on the stalk doing nothing hence that negative mutation would be lost from the gene pool.

The only possible explanation is that somehow something “programmed” these larvae to behave the way they do and that of course is their creator.

Reply – Quote
]]> By: Big Mac http://islamicpolitik.com/2005/12/beetle-larvae.html/comment-page-1#comment-208 Big Mac Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:22:00 +0000 http://islamicpolitik.com/2005/12/15/beetle-larvae/#comment-208 Possible answer:

A generation of mutated larvae are born. These mutated larvae have a random gene that inclines them to climb up the first stem they see. There’s no benefit in this so it is seen as a negative mutation but nevertheless it is just an instinctual inclination (the same way a new born baby knows to suck its mother’s breast)!

Millions of years later, another mutation occurs in the larvae – this time they develop a gene that inclines them to huddle together (the same way penguins form a triangle to protect them from the cold wind).

Millions of years later another mutation, then another mutation. Finally, we have the current series of steps. There was no intention for these steps to be there nor was there any intelligence behind it. It was just a random set of mutations… then after all this had happened we have two sets of larvae: the original type with no mutations and the new X-men type larvae.

Due to harsh changes in the climate all the original larvae die off. However, the mutated larvae survive. In hindsight, it appears that there is some form of intelligence behind this elaborate strategy but in reality it just happens to end up this way due to chance.

I know this sounds complicated so let me give you an analogy. Imagine you draw a small cross on a footpath in a forest. Next to the cross, you write please leave £1.22 if you see this cross”. The following day, I’m walking along the forest footpath and accidentally drop a £1 coin, a 20p coin and a 2p coin out of my pocket and they land on the cross. When you see these coins you will conclude that someone intentionally placed these coins there. How is it possible the exact amount would fall out of pocket and land on this cross? However, you must see by now that there is every possibility that this occurred.

Reply – Quote
]]> By: Jacare http://islamicpolitik.com/2005/12/beetle-larvae.html/comment-page-1#comment-207 Jacare Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:58:00 +0000 http://islamicpolitik.com/2005/12/15/beetle-larvae/#comment-207 Well anonymous, if you see a Christmas present under your Christmas tree at home, you will know for sure that somebody, or even something, had to put it there. That present didn`t appear out of nothingness with no explanation. That somebody could have been Santa, as it could have been your mum or even your next door neighbor. You have no clue on who is that somebody, what is his/her/its essence, but you know for sure that the somebody?something that placed the present under the tree must have existed at that point in time. Likewise, something must have been the cause of our existence and the existence of the Universe and everything it contains. It is absolutely non-sensical to say that the Universe created itself out of the blue. If it didn`t exist initially, then how did it get the will and even the power to decide to create itself. This is one of the reasons why Muslims are convinced of the existence of a Creator. A priori, we don`t know much about its essence except that this Creator is infinte, unlimited and independent of any need. This is because if that Creator was limited and therefore dependent on somebody/thing `s existence, then that Creator must have been created too. And then if the Creator of that Creator was also limited and dependent, then this 2nd Creator must have been created by a 3rd Creator, resulting in an infinite regression, meaning that you always end up going back into the creation of another Creator and therefore a 1st Creator didn`t exist in order to start the whole thing. This is why the ultimate Creator must have been unlimited and self-dependent. I hope it makes sense.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('207','Jacare'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('207','Jacare','Well anonymous, if you see a Christmas present under your Christmas tree at home, you will know for sure that somebody, or even something, had to put it there. That present didn`t appear out of nothingness with no explanation. That somebody could have been Santa, as it could have been your mum or even your next door neighbor. You have no clue on who is that somebody, what is his\/her\/its essence, but you know for sure that the somebody?something that placed the present under the tree must have existed at that point in time. Likewise, something must have been the cause of our existence and the existence of the Universe and everything it contains. It is absolutely non-sensical to say that the Universe created itself out of the blue. If it didn`t exist initially, then how did it get the will and even the power to decide to create itself. This is one of the reasons why Muslims are convinced of the existence of a Creator. A priori, we don`t know much about its essence except that this Creator is infinte, unlimited and independent of any need. This is because if that Creator was limited and therefore dependent on somebody\/thing `s existence, then that Creator must have been created too. And then if the Creator of that Creator was also limited and dependent, then this 2nd Creator must have been created by a 3rd Creator, resulting in an infinite regression, meaning that you always end up going back into the creation of another Creator and therefore a 1st Creator didn`t exist in order to start the whole thing. This is why the ultimate Creator must have been unlimited and self-dependent. I hope it makes sense.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Well anonymous, if you see a Christmas present under your Christmas tree at home, you will know for sure that somebody, or even something, had to put it there. That present didn`t appear out of nothingness with no explanation. That somebody could have been Santa, as it could have been your mum or even your next door neighbor. You have no clue on who is that somebody, what is his/her/its essence, but you know for sure that the somebody?something that placed the present under the tree must have existed at that point in time. Likewise, something must have been the cause of our existence and the existence of the Universe and everything it contains. It is absolutely non-sensical to say that the Universe created itself out of the blue. If it didn`t exist initially, then how did it get the will and even the power to decide to create itself. This is one of the reasons why Muslims are convinced of the existence of a Creator. A priori, we don`t know much about its essence except that this Creator is infinte, unlimited and independent of any need. This is because if that Creator was limited and therefore dependent on somebody/thing `s existence, then that Creator must have been created too. And then if the Creator of that Creator was also limited and dependent, then this 2nd Creator must have been created by a 3rd Creator, resulting in an infinite regression, meaning that you always end up going back into the creation of another Creator and therefore a 1st Creator didn`t exist in order to start the whole thing. This is why the ultimate Creator must have been unlimited and self-dependent. I hope it makes sense.
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Anonymous http://islamicpolitik.com/2005/12/beetle-larvae.html/comment-page-1#comment-206 Anonymous Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:02:00 +0000 http://islamicpolitik.com/2005/12/15/beetle-larvae/#comment-206 Oh my Gosh! Xmas presents under my Xmas Tree - must be Santa!<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('206','Anonymous'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('206','Anonymous','Oh my Gosh! Xmas presents under my Xmas Tree - must be Santa!'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Oh my Gosh! Xmas presents under my Xmas Tree – must be Santa!
Reply – Quote
]]> By: screaming banshee http://islamicpolitik.com/2005/12/beetle-larvae.html/comment-page-1#comment-205 screaming banshee Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:40:00 +0000 http://islamicpolitik.com/2005/12/15/beetle-larvae/#comment-205 Yeh your right actually... but i bet the larvae would do a better job in ruling than all of our current leaders! Your post reminded me of something i saw a while back- i posted it on my blogspot- <a href="http://damasio-orbit.blogspot.com/" title="planet of the apes" rel="nofollow">damasio-orbit.blogspot.com</a> If you're into wildlife then i think you'll really like this!<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('205','screaming banshee'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('205','screaming banshee','Yeh your right actually... but i bet the larvae would do a better job in ruling than all of our current leaders! Your post reminded me of something i saw a while back- i posted it on my blogspot- <a href=\"http:\/\/damasio-orbit.blogspot.com\/\" title=\"planet of the apes\" rel=\"nofollow\">damasio-orbit.blogspot.com<\/a>\n\nIf you\'re into wildlife then i think you\'ll really like this!'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Yeh your right actually… but i bet the larvae would do a better job in ruling than all of our current leaders! Your post reminded me of something i saw a while back- i posted it on my blogspot- damasio-orbit.blogspot.com

If you’re into wildlife then i think you’ll really like this!

Reply – Quote
]]>