Your classification of the descendants of the 3 sons of Noah is incorrect.
There was no classification of the descendants of the three sons of Noah. If you are referring to my use of Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid, that was independent of the three persons named. How is it that you continually assume the most pedestrian interpretation of comments that are displeasing, while assuming that your own must be considered in the highest possible spirit of dispassionate scholarship?
In terms of the scripture they do not represent races, but rather lineages. Both the Semitic people & the Europeans for example are Caucasian.
The moment you represent a "lineage" as Caucasian, you have fallen back into the rut. Any amount of hair-splitting between
Lineage and race fails to conceal that ultimately this is a regression to the concept of races per se, which is thoroughly discredited.
When you say "racial stereotyping", don't you mean "racial classification" instead? Seeing as how I never stereotyped any race in any of my posts on this thread. Racial classification still exists today on the basis of skull structure & other physical traits.
No. I meant stereotyping. The concept of racial classification was born out of stereotyping, and not the other way around. Race was never a scientifically valid premise; it was generated by prejudice and bigotry.
It is not necessary for you or for anyone else to use pejoratives about a race to be considered to be resorting to stereotyping, the unscientific mistake of using race as a method of classification itself is an act of stereotyping.
There is no validity to cranial measurements as a criterion for racial classification. This is 19th century thinking, thoroughly discredited today. Where are you getting this information?
Take the ancient Semitic people as an example, their languages such as Hebrew, Arabic, & Phoenician & their culture were extremely similar. Isn't it a fact that sister languages for example originate among people with common heritages, provided those people are the original speakers of that language?
Your mistake is to assume that language is different from culture. Language at that period was intimately associated with a culture, unlike today when a citizen of India and a citizen of China both speak English, without sharing a common culture. That was not common in, say, the tenth century. So considering a common culture, and considering that variations evolved, it is possible and natural to map different variations of a root language among these cultural variations. All this still has nothing to do with race. People of the same family, expanding into a group of families, further expanding into a tribe, do not constitute a race,they continue to be a tribe. Tribes expand and become extended groups sharing pastureland, hunting territories or arable land; some tribes 'civilise' themselves by building villages, towns and then cities. They are still not a race.
Then is it ridiculous to assume that Semitic people share common origins?
No, it is not ridiculous to assume that SOME speakers of Semitic languages have common origins. It is ridiculous to assume that ALL speakers of Semitic languages have common origins. Pure lines of descent exist - for horses, dogs and cattle.
I could even show you the family tree of the last Prophet (May peace be upon him) going all the way back till Shem if your are interested.
Since you seem to be ignorant of such things, and are picking up your information from a combination of popular encyclopedias and journalists' speculations, you should be aware that such family trees are of no scientific value. They are just records which attract faith and belief. I have a family tree of my in-laws which goes back 400 years; my own, from the evidence documented by record-keepers at Gaya and Puri, goes back 20 generations, some 600 years. Are you seriously suggesting that these constitute some scientific body of evidence?
You should be aware that one of the main purposes of these family trees is to trace descent from a mythical scriptural personage, or to divinity. Try not to thrust this in our faces as any kind of scientific proof. The Japanese imperial family traces its descent from the gods, the goddess Amaterasu, to be specific. She is herself second generation divinity; there is a total of six generations of divinity before the first 'human' manifestation, the emperor Jimmu. The first twenty-five generations are half-mythical figures; nobody is sure that they existed. The Rajput tribes, descended from the Scythians, the Parthians and the Kushanas, were accommodated within Hinduism by sleight of hand. Their family trees originate with the Sun God, the Suryavanshi 'lineage', as no doubt you would prefer, the Moon God, the Chandravanshis, and the Fire God, the Agnivanshis.
There is neither any evidence of Noah himself, except through the evidence of the Septuagint, nor is there any evidence of his three sons and their 'lineages'.
Lol, that was a nice attempt at mocking me, sadly it didn't work. I understood that you were speaking metaphorically.
It was not an attempt at mockery, it was self-defence. If someone can assume that the metaphor 'a flood of people' refers to a physical flood of waters, self-defence is definitely called for. Read your earlier comment, if you want some more LOLs.
Why do you assume that religion & science can never be compatible with each other?
The two are founded on different principles, one on irrational faith in an invisible deity, the other on demonstratable principles of hypothesis, tests and proofs, guided by peer review. You may try reading up on the scientific method, and for the social sciences, Karl Popper explains the differences between the scientific method applied to the natural sciences and its application to the social sciences.
Islam claims to be the true religion, up till today, I have never seen anyone prove it wrong, irrational, or illogical.
If you had ever thought about the subject, no religion can be 'proved' wrong. It cannot be proved irrational or illogical, because it does not pretend to rationality or logic in the first place. If you can believe in angels, and in God dictating his thoughts, you can believe anything. Proving that these beliefs are irrational then becomes impossible.
However, you being a non-believer will naturally not accept that & for me to convince you otherwise would require a debate resulting in further deviation from the subject of this thread.
The subject of this theme was the Indus Valley Civilisation, and the efforts of the remainder of Pakistan to prove that it has some mystic rights to the whole caboodle, through a series of attempts, mainly centred on genetic descent, which also have to be reconciled with the predilection of some Pakistanis to claim descent from distinguished foreigners. The thought has occurred that the fate of the undistinguished foreigners deserves more exploration. What happened to the riff-raff?
If you aren't in the mood to discuss with me, then you may leave. I seriously don't care. You claim that religion & science are irreconcilable, why is that so? In order for you to make such a claim, you better have a thorough understanding of all the religions practiced today. This discussion seems to be gearing more towards a theist vs atheist kind of argument. Lets just agree to disagree at this point. I believe in my religion, & I accept scientific studies as well provided they have been thoroughly researched & accepted as facts within the scientific community. I don't think of religion & science as being polar opposites. In fact I assure you that any Muslim you speak to will for the most part hold my point of view. Muslims don't think that Islam has been disproved by science, in fact they think that both science & religion complement each other. Remember the ancient Arab & Persian Muslim scientists & scholars, they were Muslims & their scientific accomplishments are acknowledged up till now.
First, this is a public forum, not your proprietary vehicle for propagation of your own beliefs. Once you put up your beliefs and views, you will receive responses. It is not for you to decide who should leave and who should not.
Second, you are precisely correct in your surmise that this is about theism and atheism. It is. Theism and scientific enquiry do not coexist, for the reasons frequently explained, the two are based on opposing principles.
Third, your citation of Arab and Persian scientists and scholars in no way distinguishes them from primitive Christian scientists and scholars, or ancient Hindu scientists and scholars, and their existence in no way makes invalid the proposition that science and religion are irrevocably opposed. Primitive science existed, as did primitive medicine and technology. They are not comparable with the application of the scientific method, which is defined very precisely, and was never known in such terms by primitive scientists. The existence of primitive scientists merely shows that through assiduous effort, often duplicated and messily achieved, scientific, medical and technical progress could be furthered. Much of this, considering modern methods, was accidental or fortuitous.
Fourth, it is not the business of science to disprove religion, whether Islam or any other. The two simply do not relate. You are making the mistake of personifying religion and personifying science; it is not that the two are fighting a duel. A religious person can be an excellent scientist, but only on condition that his religion stays outside the laboratory door. Failing this, we will have ludicrous situations like the nuclear scientist who claimed that he could generate energy from djinns.
Once again, for me to accept your point of view, you are going to have to prove that Islam is false. You did call our beliefs irrational & illogical. In fact, you have made it abundantly clear that in your point of view science & religion can never co-exist. Look at the quote of one of your posts below.
What is the mystery about? I claim that ALL religion is irrational and illogical. Science and religion cannot coexist.
That does not mean that religion is false. You apparently cannot figure out the difference.
I doubt that you know enough about the Quran to declare it illogical or irrational. The Quran even contains verses relating to human development in the mother's womb.
[We] then formed the drop into a clot and formed the clot into a lump and formed the lump into bones and clothed the bones in flesh; and then brought him into being as another creature. Blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators! (The Holy Qur'an, 23:14)
The above verse is just an example, I could give you more examples & a detailed explanation too, but I am in no mood to do so. Besides, I am certain that you aren't going to believe my explanation anyway. For a person who considers another individual's beliefs as illogical, don't you think you are being illogical yourself by strictly adhering to the view that religion & science are incompatible?
This isn't about the Koran, it is about all scripture. And yes, I reiterate, all scripture is irrational and illogical. Quoting stray verses and making dubious connections does not alter the situation. There are far more insightful passages in other scriptures, the question of the nature of the universe and the atomic composition of matter that occurs in the Upanishads. The Upanishads remain irrational due to their dependence on religion, and so do other scriptures.
Once again, I understood that the word "flock" is being used as a metaphor. I am not an expert on Christianity, but I do know what their beliefs comprise of having read the Bible myself. I found flaws with Christianity, but if other people do believe in it then I have no say in what they choose to believe. All men & women are free to believe whatever they want, it's not our right to stop them regardless of how much we disagree.
Once again, I was defending against your interpretations.
While it seems wholly pretentious to sit in judgement on Christianity, it is possible on completely different grounds to consider that religion is orthogonal to science.
You need to prove to us that science & religion (especially Islam) can never be compatible. Only then can this debate go any further. Your denial of the possibility that a religion may be true or that it could ever conform to established scientific facts, theories, or discoveries is illogical in my opinion.
The bookshelves are full with books explaining in detail why science and religion are incompatible. Read them. Your opinion is formed by your knowledge. Expand your knowledge and you may find out what is and is not illogical. It is not for me to educate you beyond this.
