GREAT idea, Pamela. The statistics you amass will be very useful in shredding the moral equivalency arguments so beloved by the innumerate Left. These are the numerically challenged for whom a single act of violence by some crazed fanatic on the Right is no different from the thousand acts of violence over the same time period from the jihadists. The same people unable to discern the difference between a dollar in your pocket and a million dollars in the bank - after all, aren't they both denominated in dollars?

So, let the accumulation of the statistics commence! Don't forget to name names, and to include supporting data.

What happened in a local diocese in 1878 is hardly representative of Christendom at large. Some small sects of Christianity (Seventh Day Adventists?) also resist treating diseases with drugs, and the Amish don't use electricity because it's the handmaiden of the Devil. None of these represent the larger frame of reference of Christianity today, so cherry picking them to make a point won't wash.

Good post.

Indeed. To see how bad the problem is, check out http://www.consang.net/index.php/Global_prevalenc... . Places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have an incidence rate of cousin marriage that exceeds 50%. Presumably this has been going at least since the time of Mohammad, which would be more than 50 generations ago.

Exactly so. Islam claims credit for a lot of things that they simply appropriated from the cultures they conquered. Unfortunately, Muslims are brainwashed to think that somehow Islam should be given credit for a prior invention made by a pagan or infidel who was forced to convert to Islam under penalty of death. Somehow it is thought that the supposed enlightenment afforded by Islam made the invention possible. Until recently there was no one to challenge this belief among the Muslim faithful, but with the Internet it is no longer possible to keep their heads buried in the sand.

Then get off the Internet, shut off your computer, and stop bothering us. I'm sure you'll be much happier.

"There is not one science fact that goes against what Islam says. To guess everything 1400 years ago, even about things unseeable by the human eye, and get them all correct is impossible, which is enough proof that he is a prophet" -- ibnsana.

You have it right - it was impossible, as you say, to "guess everything" 1400 years ago and get them all correct - which is exactly why it was not done, your fantasies notwithstanding. To think otherwise is a serious misreading of both history and your own texts.

You have a pretty restricted and unsophisticated view of science, ibnsana, that reflects essentially no education in science whatsoever. There are plenty of science facts that go against Islam's fairy tale version of the world. You should not go around making statements about that which you obviously know very little. Apparently your radius of information only extends far enough to encompass enough like-minded and similarly ill-educated people to feed and reinforce your prejudices.

A little test, just from physics, a rather substantial part of "science" - Could you please point me to where in the Qur'an it mentions the concepts underlying:

1. Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity, either Special or General
2. Clerk Maxwell's Electromagnetic Theory, which explains light and radio waves
3. Either Erwin Schroedinger's or Werner Heisenberg's formulations of Quantum Mechanics, which account for the structure of matter
4. Richard Feynmann's Theory of Quantum Electrodynamics, which accounts for how electric and magnetic fields interact with matter
5. Ludwig Boltzmann's Statistical Mechanics, on which the laws of thermodynamics rest
6. The Standard Model of elementary particle physics by Julian Schwinger And Murray Gell-Mann , which accounts for all the known types of elementary particles (electrons, protons, neutrons, antiparticles, etc.)

The things listed above describe the physical foundations of all other sciences, like astronomy, chemistry and biology. I'm sure that others here could expand on this to include facts from some of these other disciplines, including even social sciences like sociology and psychology.

BTW, if you decide to answer, you can save you and me some nasty words if you would avoid spewing "it's only a theory" crap. If you wonder why I would say this, before replying go to a dictionary and look up the word "theory" and ponder the meaning of how it is used in science, and how this differs from popular usage.

Good luck!

(Oh, and also BTW, the people listed above are roughly equally divided between Christians and Jews. Not a single Muslim among them. And no, they did not draw their inspirations from some imagined Islamic source. Whatever inspiration they might have had they all acknowledge as having come from the Greeks, from the time of Pericles and Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle, from the Golden Age of Athens predating Islam by a thousand years. Islam had absolutely nothing to do with these discoveries.)

Well, I had a comment all ready to go, but the session timed out and when I relogged back in all the comments had disappeared! But I'll toss the comment in anyway and hope it finds the right target.

"There is not one science fact that goes against what Islam says." -- ibnsana, in a comment somewhere near the top of this comment stream (ID isn't letting me reply.)

You have a pretty restricted and unsophisticated view of science, ibnsana, that reflects essentially no education in science whatsoever. There are plenty of science facts that go against Islam's fairy tale version of the world. You should not go around making statements about that which you obviously know very little. Apparently your radius of information only extends far enough to encompass enough like-minded and similarly ill-educated people to feed and reinforce your prejudices.

A little test, just from physics, a rather substantial part of "science" - Could you please point me to where in the Qur'an it mentions the concepts underlying:

1. Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity, either Special or General
2. Clerk Maxwell's Electromagnetic Theory, which explains light and radio waves
3. Either Erwin Schroedinger's or Werner Heisenberg's formulations of Quantum Mechanics, which account for the structure of matter
4. Richard Feynmann's Theory of Quantum Electrodynamics, which accounts for how electric and magnetic fields interact with matter
5. Ludwig Boltzmann's Statistical Mechanics, on which the laws of thermodynamics rest
6. The Standard Model of particle physics, which accounts for all the known types of elementary particles (electrons, protons, neutrons, etc.)

The things listed above describe the physical foundations of all other sciences, like chemistry and biology. I'm sure that others here could expand on this to include facts from some of these other disciplines, like biology, and I'll even be generous and include some of the social sciences like sociology and psychology.

BTW, if you decide to answer, you can save you and me some nasty words if you would avoid spewing "it's only a theory" crap. If you wonder why I would say this, before replying go to a dictionary and look up the word "theory" and ponder the meaning of how it is used in science, and how this differs from popular usage.

Good luck!

(Oh, and also BTW, all the people listed above were either Christians or Jews. Not a single Muslim, zero, zilch, zip, nada, among them.)

Good, ipsofacto (your limerick from way above)! Didn't George Gamow also quote that in his book "One, Two, Three...Infinity" from about 50 years ago? I seem to remember seeing it there. (Wonderful book, by the way, for anyone wanting a really good introduction to science. It was written for young people and included discussions of infinity, imaginary numbers, the creation of the solar system, nuclear synthesis in the sun, and much else, all done with superb illustrations in such a way that any ten-year old could understand the underlying ideas.)

Indeed.