Mecca: Secrets of the Ka'ba

[Mr Rayon]

I've just come across this very interesting video on youtube.

Is everything this guy saying true?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixfk4LsKWnw

 

Also is it true that Neil Armstrong became a Muslim? This all sounds really crazy to me.

[swansont]

I'd venture a guess that almost nothing the guy says is true. (other than the general statement that the earth emits radiation. All macroscopic objects (anything with a temperature) emit radiation.)

 

This would be an example of why one requires evidence to back up claims, rather than just saying "yes, it's true," or "scientists have confirmed this," or relying on appeal to conspiracy. And the more outlandish the claim, the more rock-solid and voluminous the evidence needs to be. It's also an example that shows pandering to the credulous works, since people who want to believe will do so unquestioningly.

[ydoaPs]

He said that the rock was the oldest on earth and they confirmed it by examining the place the rock formed. And then he said that they proved that it was not from our solar system? What?

 

Which is true? I'm thinking neither.

[rigney]

If a universal GOD exists, of which I'm beginning to believe does; I want to thank him for my focal ignorance. I have just spent the better part of an hour trying to understand some of the most provocative commentary in memory, thanks to "Voltman". Everyone should have a copy of this and decide their own conclusion. But, if "HE" is there watching, it must be comedic for him to see such schism. Watch each facet of the link! Educational. Thanks again Voltman, I would have likely never seen it..

 

Edited December 14, 2010 by rigney

[Marat]

The problem with all vague and symbolic language is that it has such a broad potential for reference to things in the outside world that you can informally relate it to almost anything, with the result that the language of the text can be made to seem to have described or predicted something independent of it. Remember that in cases like this we have several degrees of vagueness which all magnify each other in their interaction so that our rules for 'accurately' fitting the text to what we think it predicts or describes become so loose as to be empty of restrictions. First the language of the text is itself open to various constructions; then its relation to the object it is to describe or predict is variable; and finally the aspects of the object selected to 'prove' the relation are variable. It becomes like the famous prediction of the Oracle of Delphi, who said to a general about to attack an enemy force defending from behind a river, "If you cross the river, a great army will be destroyed," so he attacked but then found that it was his own army which was destroyed.

 

The predictions of Nostradamus can be made to work in the same way as the statements of the Koran can be fitted into some relation with the truths of modern physics. It's a pretty loose fit to get from "I swear by the stars positions, and that is a mighty oath," to anything about black holes.

[rigney]

The problem with all vague and symbolic language is that it has such a broad potential for reference to things in the outside world that you can informally relate it to almost anything, with the result that the language of the text can be made to seem to have described or predicted something independent of it. Remember that in cases like this we have several degrees of vagueness which all magnify each other in their interaction so that our rules for 'accurately' fitting the text to what we think it predicts or describes become so loose as to be empty of restrictions. First the language of the text is itself open to various constructions; then its relation to the object it is to describe or predict is variable; and finally the aspects of the object selected to 'prove' the relation are variable. It becomes like the famous prediction of the Oracle of Delphi, who said to a general about to attack an enemy force defending from behind a river, "If you cross the river, a great army will be destroyed," so he attacked but then found that it was his own army which was destroyed.

 

The predictions of Nostradamus can be made to work in the same way as the statements of the Koran can be fitted into some relation with the truths of modern physics. It's a pretty loose fit to get from "I swear by the stars positions, and that is a mighty oath," to anything about black holes.

 

Most religious formats leave me cold. To make claims that one of our most famous astronauts, Neil Armstrong has converted to Muslim religion because of something he may have said in a speech at Purdue University, is truely sad. I didn't hear a thing. And Steven Hawking? For either of these brain trusts to be used as a crutch by any religious group would be ludicrous. Then, would it really matter if either or both of these gents converted to Muslim or another faith? Hell No! Religion and Science are totally opposite venues. But does such a difference mean there can't be compatibility, compromise? Only in the mind of idiots! Edited December 14, 2010 by rigney