Controversial Islamist author slams Darwin

I'm not 'backing you up' See that is where you go wrong in these debates. You see it as yourself vs whoever else, but the rest of us only ever try to put the thruth across. I wasn't posting that to agree with you so much as just to confirm the facts. You should try it more often, but I don't expect too much.

to be honest im sure you were psoting around to actually prove me wrong lol, i dnt even take part in these debates anyway! this and the mother teresa are the only debates iv actually took part in, the rest i leave up to whoever wants it.

and this wasnt even a debate anyway! i agreed witht he evoultion thing and it all kicked off from there!! u mentioned condoms, and i said yea i agree with that, but they are not 100% effective and then got attacked even more!

anyway i had found the 85-90% fact on wikipedia, bu then i remember that you people dnt accept that as evidence.

Taken from the New York Times which is quoting the current issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association.

Full article here:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...57C0A96E948260

so we have two reports, both not giving the same numbers, the AMA has said servial time to treat this all with caution, so which one do we believe? or maybe there both right?

Showing your knowledge of science, huh? You can't have two reports stating different results and both of them are correct.

The report also states:

So this is the one to be taken seriously, for heterosexual intercourse. If you read the entire report it calculates the odds of infection based on different risk categories.

learn to sense sarcasim! it also states that during the investigation that not all these calculations proved right for all averages. maybe i read it wrong i dnt know, ill re-read

#simple fact is that there is many different reports giving us many different numbers, the generally accepted number is 85-90%, good but not good enough

Generally accepted means **** all when the facts contradict it. It doesn't matter what most people think, what matters is what is true. What is true is what is backed by evidence and can be proven by facts.

yes i agree, but the FACTS are that this is one study that is given these facts, are they are as with everything questionable, so even though these fndings are great and everything, it will take futhur results like these in order for them to become more accepted in the wider community, its take more than one study.

as you can see from this article you have told they are advising caution with these results, that they may not be true for all partys, indeed some people are at more risk than others,

its giving the same message that i have stated in this thread, always wear a condom when having sex, and they advise against having sex with a person infected.

Ugh, I think I'll ignore most of the replies here, as it's gone off on a tangent to the main topic after like 5 seconds, and not even an interesting or new tangent, just the same damn discussion we've had a million times before. And also I'm just going to assume everyone is going to adopt their usual positions and refuse to concede an inch as usual, so arguing it is pretty much a pointless exercise. Although I would like to reiterate that I still think that the condescending and insulting tones and language used mostly in these debates by the atheists against the theists (although I'll admit sometimes its vice-versa too) is not only unnecessary but downright antisocial, disrespectful, and surely not particularly conducive to a reasoned argument.

Anyways, on the main topic, I think that the guy claiming that Darwinism is the root of all evil is just as ridiculous as the claim that religion is. Any over-broad, absolutist claim like that is clearly just arrogance and stubbornness ... which actually are probably two of the traits that could escalate into the committing of "evil" acts ... actually, I'm going to say that I don't think "evil" is as easily definable as all that, and often a desire to flush out something that someone considers evil is going to be one of the major causes of harm. So to conclude ... anyone who thinks that they have the solution is often more likely to be a cause of problems.

Like the guy who wrote the book. Claims that science doesn't have the monopoly on truth (which may be true ... scientific knowledge is only really possessed by us in the context of our limited understanding and resources of experimentation), but then impliedly claims that he has the monopoly on truth? Bit hypocritical.

Yeah, I might be rambling a tad ... I'm ASTONISHINGLY sleep deprived at the moment

By the by, it doesn't seem to say anything about his interpretation of the creation story in any detail ... does anyone know if it differs materially from the Christian view of creationism?

Off topic a little, but this comment intruiged me ... would it really be such that without organised religion, people would inevitably become atheists? Or would the questioning nature of humans lead to a people following a more individualised spiritual path, seeking to find the answers to the bigger questions themselves?

Basically, without outside influence, is human nature to believe there's no more than what our senses tell us? Or do we instinctively believe that there's something bigger?

I know there's not gonna be a real answer to this, just got me thinking a bit