this is bullshit ,, reminds me of religious talk ,, everything should be based on facts only ,, if its not totaly proven , it will be a theory,,, meanning that it could be right or wrong ,
I was watching a new documentary on reverse evolution. This theory suggests that apes came from human. When human misused the intellect they gradually became apes and monkeys. I am wondering if its fact or fiction?
That is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.
Evolution by natural selection explains the process very clearly: it describes how less complex organisms evolve into more complex organisms.
For a species to undergo reverse evolution, some form of selection/mutation process would have to favour that path. But it can't favour it because it can only build upon complexity. When we read the human genome, no such thing is present.
2) Reverse evolution simply isn't the mechanism that drives life here on Earth.
The best example are Cave Salamanders which have migrated into caves that are completely dark. Yet they are born with eyes similar to ours, but since eyes are useless in complete darkness, a beneficial mutation has caused a layer of skin to grow over their eyes so that they don't get infected. But this is not reverse evolution, because evolution is building upon, not going backwards.
ROFLMAO at 3:07 facts could be wrong but theories are not. Which idiot made this vid. When theories becomes established facts it does not matter what u call them they remain fact. Whereas theories take u turn or nullified or thrown away. Islam does not dismiss evolution within creation's adapting to changes. infact this theory used to be called Mohammedan theory 2 centuries before Darwin. but Darwin's version of evolution is a fantasy and will remain that way. browse latest discoveries 4 answers
for example gravity can be calculated/measured so it's a fact. That indian guy talking isn't wrong when he says that evolution is still a theory in all books, the scientists in your video stated it is a theory. Many theories have been disproven and no scientist can say for a fact that the THEORY of evolution is absolutely untenable, that's why it's a theory. Evolution seems like a great explanation, but is limited in what it can explain. Many scientist converted to islam, go see why.
@cedarchik88 You can't measure gravity,gravity is a property of matter.You are talking about Gravitational coefficient/acceleration due to gravity?You can observe gravity at work.Evolution has also been observed in E.Coli,flowers,Stickleback fish,lizards,lab mice.DNA research confirms that humans and apes have common ancestors.Remains of human ancestors have 99.5-99.9 % genome similarity with us.I don't understand why people speak language of science and neglect theory and evidence.
Evolution is NOT a theory, evolution is a FACT, and there is another unknown FACT about evolution, watch my video and it is according to western scientists not uneducated Muslim imams: Evolution was an Islamic Theory Before Darwin was Even Born: /watch?v=Ugu3cZN-3jU
A scientific theory is just a scientific theory! There is no such thing as 'Islamic theory'. The word is a misnomer... The Greeks centuries before Islam had the concept of evolution however Darwin was the first to explain and detail the phenomenon using natural selection.
So did Aljahiz in his book (The Animal) 1000 years before Darwin. Did you wonder why western scientists from Darwin's time called evolution (Mohammedan Theory of Evolution)?
Come on, you think I made such big claim without checking wikipedia? of course I know about Greeks thoughts but they were very primitive to Muslim scientists. Did you know that Aristotle believe in spontaneous generation of life that Quran refuted? Did you watch my video on evolution? I also have a special one for Aristotle, please watch it: Craig Venter and Richard Dawkins Vs Mythical Characters: /watch?v=UYO9AuEhFwo
So you do understand the iterative process of the progress of science! Then its quite disingenuous to assert that evolution is relegated to what Muslim evolutionists postulated! The Greeks had inklings of evolution and the knowledge was built upon that. Even Darwin made mistakes and was incorrect in his theory. We understand it better today because of the accumulation of evidence. The point being science isnt the domain of any particular religion neither is it dependent on it.
The point is Islam is not just compatible with evolution but actually Muslim scientists brought evolution to the west, this video is a lie presenting the opinion of one Muslim and he is not a scientist or even near, Muslim scientists contributed a lot to the theory of evolution, way more than most people know.
Again you used a misnomer there is no such thing as a 'Muslim Scientist' its a scientist who happens to be a Muslim but religion itself has had no contribution in the progress of science. No scientific discovery ever is attributed to any religion! Secondly the video is not a lie because a majority of Muslims do reject evolution because it undermines the ludicrous concept of special creation of 2 individuals 'Adam & Eve' by God which is also the Islamic narrative!
Its irrelevant to your assertions! You are correlating religion with science and endorsing the former because of the latter and that's nonsensical! To illustrate this take the fact that all the recent advancement in science and progress in technology has been made by atheists or scientists that do no profess any religious beliefs... would that be an argument in favour of non-belief?
Science of Evolution, Science of Atomic structure... There needs to be a line drawn between Theory and Science. Theory is a scientific method, it is not the science itself... Theory is a test of scientific discovery. Theory is the means to finding the answer.
Scientists need to discontinue the term Theory after the Theory process has proven the science to be legitimate.
Is there such thing as the Theory of Science? Theory of math? The Theory of history? Are those theory's? not anymore.
Yeah that is right without a theory you cant go to a fact. But u misunderstood what Zakir Naik is saying. He is basically saying it has not been a fact, in that it is not solid in information. The scientist themselves said, it can be changed. A fact is more established. Zakir Naik is trying to say, that there is no reason in arguing about evolution since its like using facts to write a story in how people want it to be shown. He further says that there are no links between fossils.
Facts supports or discredit a theory. So far all facts and evidence support the theory of evolution. What the scientists said was that if a new piece of evidence were to be uncovered that does not support the theory then the theory would need to be revised but that has not been the case. Zakir rejects evolution on the pretence that its a 'theory' rather than a 'fact'! So either he is genuinely ignorant of science or he is deliberately lying and misrepresenting reality.
@kakamana1000 Zakir is discreditng evolution because he believes that we did not come from monkeys, and there is tons of evidence that goes against it. For example there is no linking fossils of humans and the other species that turned into humans (i..e neandarthal man). secondly most mutations are detrimental to species. There is like a 1/1000000 chance that a mutation could be beneficial even if it was over millions of years. He does not discredit the whole of evolution.
Evolution does not state we came from monkeys! It posits that modern day apes and humans have a common ancestor. This very same evidence that supports evolution also supports this proposition. The evolution of homo sapiens is a subset of the evolutionary theory not excluded from it! In regards to the evidence that supports the theory I would recommend the book 'The greatest show on earth' by Richard Dawkins. (btw most mutations are neutral and not detrimental!)
@kakamana1000 true, sorry, we dnt come from apes. Nor have we evoved, thts what his saying. oh really, most mutations are neutral. thts cool. is it neutral because it is fixed, before the mutation is shown on the phenotype or what?
...and he is wrong to say that because the evolution of humans is a demonstrably true. He is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts! Yep most mutations are biologically neutral, neither beneficial not detrimental.
@kakamana1000 Well I cant speak much because i havent studying evolution in depth, to say which fossils prove what. I honestly think that humans have the ability to adapt to their environment, a gift given by God. I do not believe that humans came from a different species.
But in terms of science i cannot back my knowledge with confidence because i havent learned evolution to an extrreme in-depth. Let me ask u a question, do u believe in a creator of the world?
So why would you argue about something that by your own admission you are not proficient in? I would again urge you to read the book I recommended to familiarize yourself with the subject. The ability to adapt to different environments is not just exclusive to humans, every species could do it within certain parameters.
Well it depends on how you define the 'creator' but to answer your question I presently have no affirmative belief in the deity of any "revealed religion".
kakamana1000 thanks for your valuable contribution,but dont let this guy zakhir nalayak represent the majority of good people of india,He is a muslim who imports weird culture and ideas into india(shame being indian)and twists stories from koran to make it look right.
He's not representing India, he is strictly Muslim. Judging by your response, you don't have a subtle view of Islam or the Quran. Zakir Naik is one of the few people in the world who have extensive knowledge on comparative religion, primarily Hinduism. You should be proud he is Indian. This video manupulated and twisted stories. Zakir Naik was referring to evolution of Human beings, not evolution in general. The maker of this video is openly dihonest.
There is no difference between 'evolution in general' and 'evolution of human beings'! They both fall under the same scientific theory! There's nothing to be proud of an intellectually dishonest lying charlatan!
@kakamana1000 There is. Evolution is a natural process that has scientific substantive proof. However, the biological evolution of Humans from Apes is still a theory. When Zakir Naik, was referring to evolution, he was being specific to human evolution from apes. I don't mean to target you, but you really didn't consider the context of Naiks discussion. You very conveniently cherry-picked scenes, and are therefore dishonest yourself.
No there is not! You really need to get yourself educated! The evidence for evolution is one and the same for human evolution! The video did outline the scientific use of the word theory. Its sad that it does not fit your bronze age religious scripture, but for that I could only say tough! Reality does not change if you wish to ignore it...
One and the same for human? I don't even know if your blowing smoke up my behind. What the word theory embodies means nothing in this little discussion. Human evolution from apes is a theory.
Im trying to educate you but apparently in vain! Evolution itself is a 'scientific theory' that is supported by a huge volume of evidence for varying fields like genetics, Paleontology, comparative anatomy, fossils etc Human evolution from apes is a subset of that theory and iis supported by the exact same evidence. I would suggest you read the book 'The Greatest Show on Earth' by Richard Dawkins to understand what the evidence is and how it applies to human evolution!
@crabbit87 my friend, theory in science is very different than how normal people view theories, which makes science difficult for the general people to comprehend
My I say, that all I've seen in this video Is people saying oh, theory really means fact and fact can be proven as not really a fact after all!
w.e I still haven't seen your proof evidence clone a human show a talking ape clone an animal and prove that animal is a cloned being If the theory of evolution is true we are no different from animals and we can be copied If that is true again make a clone of a real human being.
Here is a nutshell explanation of human cloning and its feasibility with current technology and prohibition by law:
en(.)wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Human_cloning
If you want to educate yourself about the evidence that supports evolution I would recommend the book 'The Greatest Show on Earth' by Richard Dawkins.
Is gravity still a theory...? Or is it not a LAW and FACTUAL...? Atoms are now facts, real and no longer theories. If some scientists wish to imply that Atoms are still theories and misconstrue the English Language.., go ahead & jerk-off with their misconception.
Evolution have always been a theory and shall remain a theory to mislead the masses. Plain & simple. And.., I WILL NOT be mislead with this garbage theory.
Laws are just mathematical equations that are universally applicable. The law of gravity just states the equation for what rate an object will fall in a vaccume. The theory of gravity explains what gravity is, just as string theory explains what string theory is, atomic theory explains about atoms, and the theory of evolution which explains evolution by natural selection.
Those so-called 'scientists' with their comments would be better-off being politicians. The way they spin & manipulate words about science and scientific findings can leave the most seasoned politicians simply aghast..!
And..., the atomic theory was once a theory but is now a FACT..! String or S-Theory is today still a theory until one day be proven as fact. But..., Evolution Theory was once a theory and today STILL a theory and have never been empirically proven as FACT...!
Troll away you damn fool...! You will have to troll hundreds of my comments to-date. I will put damn scumbags like you in your proper place (in the putrid cesspool) at every opportunity I get in response.
You have no understanding of what a scientific theory is and what it implies. 'Atomic theory' still is and would always be a scientific theory. Educate yourself before making ignorant assertions.
Atomic theory is not a fact, there is no such thing as 'fact' in science. String theory will never be called anything but string theory, the theory of evolution will never be called anything but the theory of evolution.
There is no higher standard of scientific recognition than being a theory. Theories are a collection of observations that eventually lead to a conclusion. There are different stages of which a theory is valid, and funnily enough evolution is probably as valid as one can be.
@surecorrect How do you expect to prove something that happens over thousand of years, although micro evolution has been proved, anyone denying evolution is simply denying the truth
I am a Muslim, I do believe that Allah created everything, but I also believe that evolution was part of his creation, for it does mention it in the Qur'an with the mention of he is our Rabb, our evolve unto perfection. So the idea of evolution does not bother me. I do believe that Allah created Adam from dirt. And what do you think we are made from. so this is accurate as well. The Qur'an does not give time lines so I have no problem with 1.4 billions years of evolution.
LOL, so a person with a decent education assaults be with belittle comments. I do have a decent education and have a Technology degree. I really don't have any problems with evolution. But there are things that make you wonder when you think about how long creatures have been on earth, and then wonder about evolution of those same creatures. I'll give you an example, the ant I know of fossil records of an ant 92 million years ago, and they are still the same today.
CONTRADICTIONS IN THE QURAN: WHICH CAME FIRST HEAVEN OR EARTH?
/HEAVEN 79:27-30 Are you a more difficult creation or is the heaven? Allah constructed it..He raised its ceiling and proportioned it...And He darkened its night and extracted its brightness..And AFTER THAT He spread the earth (ALLAH SPREADS THE EARTH AS IF IT WAS FLAT)
/THE EARTH: 2:29 It is He who created for you all of that which is on the earth. THEN He directed Himself to the heaven, and made them seven heavens (7 HEAVENS!)
@DictaduraNo123 the Qur'an does say the earth is a spear and even mentions or cylindrical orbits. Does not mention it was flat as you add. For that matter, all early Muslims knew the earth was round because of the Qur'an and calculated the circumference of the earth. Where do you think the math came from to calculate this. Algebra is an Arabic word.
@kakamana1000 The Qur'an is full of Scientific information and non of it is refuted. Yes, when you read English translation you can have very narrow interpretations. But in the Arabic when the science becomes developed enough to understand what the Arabic means. The Qur'an makes many claims on in Science that can only be understood when the science develops enough. It is the many pieces as a whole that makes it a marical not that somebody observed it before.
ABSURDITIES: "STARS WERE CREATED AS MISSILES TO DEFEND THE HEAVEN FROM DEMONS TRYING TO LISTEN TO THE DIVINE ASSEMBLY". BUT STARS ARE HUGE SUNS, THE QURAN IS VERY UNSCIENTIFIC.THE "LOWER HEAVEN" IS "ONE OF THE 7 HEAVENS"..HA HA, 37:6-8
We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars,
(For beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious evil spirits,
(So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side
@yahya ABSURDITES: SELON LE CORAN LES ETOILES SONT DES LAMPES ET PAS D'ENORMES SOLEILS. ELLES SONT AUSSI DES PROJECTILES CONTRE LE DIABLE. REMARQUEZ QUE LE CORAN DIT QU'IL Y A 7 CIEUX, 41:12, ENCORE UNE FAUSSE CROYANCE DE L'ANTIQUITE, ET "LES ETOILES SONT DANS LE CIEL LE PLUS PROCHE"
67:5 Nous avons effectivement embelli le ciel le plus proche avec des lampes [des étoiles] dont Nous avons fait des projectiles pour lapider des diables et Nous leur avons préparé le châtiment de la Fournaise
@ya ABSURDITIES: "STARS WERE CREATED AS MISSILES TO DEFEND THE HEAVEN FROM DEMONS TRYING TO LISTEN TO THE DIVINE ASSEMBLY". BUT STARS ARE HUGE SUNS, THE QURAN IS VERY UNSCIENTIFIC.THE "LOWER HEAVEN" IS "ONE OF THE 7 HEAVENS"..HA HA, 37:6-8
We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars,
(For beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious evil spirits,
(So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side
@yahy ABSURDITIES: ACCORDING TO THE QURAN THE STARS ARE "LAMPS" AND NOT HUGE SUNS. THEY ARE ALSO MISSILES AGAINST THE DEVIL. NOTICE THAT THE QURAN SAYS THAT THERE ARE 7 HEAVENS, ANOTHER ANCIENT, FALSE BELIEF PROVED WRONG CENTURIES AGO, 41:12, AND THAT STARS ARE LOCATED IN THE CLOSEST HEAVEN.
67:5 And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire
Yet with all of this 'alleged' scientific information in the Quran no one ever discovered anything of any scientific merit from reading it! I wonder why that is...
@yahyai ACCORDING TO THE QURAN THERE IS A PLACE WHERE THE SUN SETS AND RISES AS IF THE EARTH WAS FLAT, 18:83-90
They ask thee concerning Zul-qarnain...We gave him the ways and the means to all ends.One (such) way he followed, until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! ...Then followed he (another) way, until, when he came to the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom.....
CONTRADICTIONS IN THE QURAN: MAN WAS CREATED FROM?
/WATER: 86:6, 25:54 And it is He Who has created man from water...
/A CLOT: 96:2 Has created man from a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood)
/CLAY OR MUD: 15:26 And We did certainly create man out of clay from an altered black mud..32:7 qui a bien fait tout ce qu'Il a créé. Et Il a commencé la création de l'homme à partir de l'argile See 38:71
/DUST:3:59, 30:20 And of His signs is that He created you from dust
@DictaduraNo123 You don' t see that these are the same? Man is created from water and earth. We are mostly water, and the same elements the earth is made up of. Dust and clay is the same matter, they are elements of the earth. and the clot is the part of the steps of embryology.
@yahyaiphillips BLA BLA BLA..YOU ARE A TYPICAL MUSLIM. YOU WANT PEOPLE TO ACCEPT YOUR CONFUSED INTERPRETION AS THE TRUTH OR WE ARE SIMPLY "IGNORANT". PLEASE, ADMIT IT, YOUR QURAN IS FULL OF CONTRADICTION AND EXPRESSES ITSELF IN A VERY UNSCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE. WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE THAT MAN WAS CREATED FROM CLAY, DUST, WATER, A CLOT....ETC? NONE. THIS IS A TOTTALLY PRIMITIVE,UNSCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION, MORE LIKE A FAIRY TALE
@DictaduraNo123 I don't care what you believe, but what you say can be said about you. You want me to believe your confused interpretation as the truth or am I simply "Ignorant" Yes, you are ignorant when you use arguments that can be expressed in the exact same way back to you. You understanding of the Qur'an and the language is very little and inaccurate, you will believe what you wish to believe, and I don't care what you belief. You belief does not affect me.
@yahyaiphillips OF COURSE, EVERY TIME THE QURAN SAYS SOMETHING STUPID, CRUEL OR UNSCIENTIFIC WE HAVE TO ACCEPT YOUR SENSELESS "EXPLANATIONS" JUST TO MAKE THINGS AGREE. BUT ADMIT IT, THE QURAN HAS NOTHING SCIENTIFIC. IT CLEARLY DESCRIBES THE EARTH AS FLAT AND IT IS FULL OF ABSURDITIES
I must smile about all these stupid reactions of some poeple
Who is the Sience and what is sience they even not know , but they talk about it.
Brothers and sisters , sience is from Who and where ?
Understand that a little thinking, is already a sience and theorie is not a fact eyt untill it is not proven. Human Evolution is never proven. Where you find that stupid Proof ?? Did you know that and proof that or what kind of theorie etc ?
OOHhhh... Professors in Sience even can't proof that.
I've never heard so much wishy washy waffle in ages - and yet they talk of blind faith!
Stick to the facts - firstly a fact is important and not the least important - that is unless you have very little fact to support your stance!
And to derive a theory - you must have observation, analysis and then a derived theory. But lets understand that there is a difference between a law and a theory, which is simply an explanation put forward.
Facts support a theory. A fact does not have any predictive utility on its own! Its just a piece of data. Thats why in science a theory is strongest construct.
The first thing I learned at university, was that all science is, is the analysis of data.
Observation, analysis, theory...
Without facts - what is your theory (explanation) based on!!! ridiculous! There is no conclusive evidence for the evolution of man. This ridiculous Darwinian theory has been continuously regurgitated over the past 150 years - but where are we? playing with the goal posts of definition and quantization does little to make a case - b/faith?
You should have also learned at University that a scientific theory has to be falsifiable otherwise it does not qualify as a theory! The 'ridiculous' theory of evolution has NEVER been shown to be so in 150+ years. All the data all the evidence supports the theory. We can make an assertion based on evidence, faith is an assertion based on no evidence! So a scientific theory is anything but blind faith. That idiocy is the exclusive domain of religion!
I just saw this - its just another plainly ridiculous attempt to redefine the goal posts of critique. Falsifiability? LOL, what evidence proves evolution? there is nothing of substance and nothing that warrants a statement or conclusion to pre-claim a position of falsifiability
You sum it up perfectly when you use the term making up 'assertions.' That's all the 'theory' of evolution has, is and will be. An assertion, based on nothing more than a chosen & conveniently defined belief
Hilarious cop-out! I asked you to provide facts, not to evade the issue by defining my question as an opinion and not fact!
What evidence proves evolution - can you answer that factually and logically? simply?
The answer is not Richard Dawkins - he's an arrogant prat, who regurgitates the same old spiel of 1+1=3?? I've heard him umpteen times, watched him on the 'God delusion' and always thought - 'very confident, unrelenting, talks like there's no question - but no substance.'
I'm not interested in 'extreme' materialist sales men, with their anti-religious, condescending, superior agenda. Nor with their unrelenting, illogical barking - the world has enough of those already at both ends of the pole. Richard Dawkins is the champion propagator, not the explainer of the atheistic evolutionary 'ideology,' he may be 'their' champion, but he has nothing of substance to put forth.
It is my opinion, but one based on the facts that I see!
Richard Dawkins may well be an 'arrogant prat' (not to say that he is) but that does not discredit the scientific evidence he presents because they are not based on his opinion but independently verifiable facts. Newton was not a very pleasent person but that does not discredit his theory of gravity! Now, if you still want to educate yourself and learn about the evidence supporting evolution, I can suggest reading material. If not, your willful ignorance is not my problem!
Independently verifiable facts? please, are you claiming there are clear facts that chart & prove an unbroken chain of man's evolution from a single cell to an ape, through finally to a human being? Well if so then please prove it! But please, the commonly peddled 'formulas' of 1+1=3 do not constitute anything more than conveniently derived explanations 'theories,' supporting a chosen belief. I'm talking of clear facts, not conjecture with excuses and dynamic goal posts
We clearly know gravity exists - its 'tangible,' can & was observed by Newton, those before him & those after him, with observations & calculations subsequently derived. Funny you mention Newton - as good as his theory is, it is now known to be flawed. Yet interestingly, in the context of this discussion, what is the strength of evolutions basis in comparison?
Its very ease to make statements that dismiss and condescend, yet they do nothing to address the real questions!
Yes, the evidence supporting evolution is independently verifiable from various fields of science including but not exclusive to paleontology, genetics, molecular biology, archaeology, phylogeny, comparative anatomy etc! Creationists' dismissal of evolution is based on ignorance. Ignoring the evidence, like you are doing when presented with reading material, does not make it go away!
Once again you have demonstrated an utter lack of understanding of science and its principles which doesn't surprise me anymore at this point in our discussion. We have NEVER observed gravity (yet). When something falls to the ground what we observe are the effects of gravity. So that too is an inference! We don't know what causes gravity. The current 'theory' is hypothetical particles know as gravitons. Evolution has much more evidence supporting it than Gravity does!
Newtons theory, although not entirely wrong, does not explain all the data (light, black holes) and hence is replaced by Einsteins General Relativity. Science is an ongoing endeavor as its concerned with understanding the natural world around us and creating a workable, self consistent and coherent model of it and that is why its the most successful enterprise for gaining knowledge we have.
Where did my comments and questions go? not into a black hole I hope, but I'll reiterate the questions I have been asking, in fact been asking from the beginning:
You state that there is a multitude of evidence throughout different fields of study that 'prove' evolution, and that ignoring it is ignorance, so once again I ask you where and what is it?
Is there clear FACTUAL evidence that demonstrates a continuous link charting evolution of man back to an ape, then to a single cell?
Is there even fossil evidence that demonstrates this declared evolution within the 'animal and species' world? evidence that links,charts and proves evolution on the 'physical' 'macro' level, let alone the micro level. I believe we both know there is no such evidence, and the Cambrian explosion impedes such suggestions - so on what basis are they peddled?
Apart from the evidence being contrary to the claims, we have issues of scientific impossibilities that arise with such stances
Questions of the type, which came first? the chicken or the egg?
How do you explain cell construction through evolution - when all its elements need to be present simultaneously to exist and function? How do you explain DNA's evolution, when DNA is fundamental to the formation of proteins, yet it needs protein to function???
How do you explain a claim of the random formation of cells, protein formation - the correct formation of left handed amino acid chains?, DNA sequencing etc etc
All of which would of had to have occurred not only in contradictions to their own laws of existence, but randomly, simultaneously and perfectly over and over - despite scientist calculating the mathematical impossibility of it occurring?
Rather than you levelling accusations of ignorance, try addressing the factual and viable questions that arise with such claims.
Declarations and dismissals, do little to detract from the obligation to prove claims - something that isn't encouraged!
All your comments are still here so am not sure what are you trying to imply?
I have repeatedly pointed you towards reading material that outline the evidence that support evolution...yet you keep ignoring it! I would suggest again to educate yourself before making ignorant claims. Your assertions are based on your ignorance of evolution eg 'charting evolution of man back to an ape' - man did not evolve from apes but modern day apes and man share a common ancestor!
Yes evolution has been observed both on the micro and macro level so again it comes back to your ignorance of it and an utter refusal to learn!
You make the same assertions that have been refuted and answered multiple times eg 'How do you explain cell construction through evolution - when all its elements need to be present simultaneously to exist and function?' - modern day cells are far more evolved and complex than their ancestors!
The theory of evolution is the best explanation we have to account for the evidence. No piece of data has ever contradicted or refuted the theory yet. All of the predictions of evolution are vindicated. If you suggest the theory is wrong then you have to explain the evidence that stacks up supporting the theory and no counter explanation has ever been forthcoming! For instance how else would you account for atavism in species other than common ancestry?
I would suggest again you educate yourself on the subject before making assertions that only display your ignorance. If you are so averse to reading I could suggest information from youtube. The 'Made Easy' series by potholer54 would be an excellent start:
/watch?v=wg1fs6vp9Ok&
Also the 'Foundational falsehoods of creationism' series by AronRa:
I would once again ask you to answer the pressing questions that clearly have a basis, rather than continuously avoid them by levying dismissive accusations of ignorance, and stressing that I should go and read. Its a poor tactic, that only serves to highlight your inability to answer and willful avoidance to answer anything. If you don't like that, I suggest you don't go around levying ridiculous claims and charges - you only end up setting yourself up.
Are you retarded? You have been asking me to provide evidence that support evolution and I have done so both by suggesting reading material and providing links to relevant videos but rather than educating yourself on the subject and dispelling your ignorance you choose to revel in it! Well thats your prerogative and I have stated before your willful ignorance is not my problem. Whats apparent is that youd rather be a troll then engage in any discourse so in that case... goodbye!
These scientist can put forward their explanation of what theories are,however lets dispense with the silly dismissals that seek to claim it is all irreproachable, or the definitions that seek to make the same claims. Lets rather have someone explain how we have factual evidence to prove the explanation of evolution is correct and a fact - an explanation of what observations and analysis of facts have clearly shown man to have evolved and how indeed life formed from a single cell?
The scope of this video was to make the distinction between fact and theory in science. If you are looking for the evidence that supports the theory of evolution I would recommended the book 'The Greatest Show On Earth' by Richard Dawkins.
My ignorance happens to be willful? well, and how exactly is that?
You seem to be full of convenient conclusions, and very thin on actual fact. What your video poorly proposes is that the theory of evolution is an irreproachable fact - without being a fact. Its seeks to pass off a theory - which is simply an explanation - derived on information which is not conclusive, as unquestionable - as religion once was. Such dismissals are common place, in the avoidance of hard critique.
You are unaware of the evidence that conclusively support evolution, you are unaware of what a theory means in science and how it has practical and predictive utility that facts do not, that is ignorance... and to hold on to that after being pointed towards evidence makes it willful!
My video makes the distinction of what a theory in science means and its relevance. The theory of evolution would never be called a 'fact' in science because that is how science works!
hey mr ...bring us the muslim scientist not the atheists......and by the way it will always remain a theory...even tho this never proof theory to be fact..
@kakamana1000 what reality u r talking about ? come to the real discussion if u want reality...answer me my questions if u think your view points r the truth...
LETS ME PROOF BEING MUSLIM AND ISLAM FROM YOUR OWN SCIENCE....
Tell me....WHATS BIG BANG ? and when did u discovered it...
I'd save you your proof! Heaven and Earth were NOT joined together (as the verse claims). Earth did not even exist at the time of the Big Bang, it formed independently billions of years after the event. So the verse is wrong and restating a creation myth that was held by cultures and religions before Islam too. Finally if the Quran did have information about the Big Bang then why didnt any muslim discover it? Thats the reality I am talking about...!
@kakamana1000 i didnt asked u to tell me about the verse...just explain to me the big bang....and leave the verse to me for proofing...1st let me hear from your own words the creation of the universe..so explain the big bang theory not your ideas...
If that's the verse you were going to use then as I said dont even bother! The verse is wrong if it's describing the Big Bang theory as ive just shown. Secondly proving scripture through science would only work if that particular discovery was made from the scripture in question. The fact remains that no scientific discovery of any merit was ever made from reading any holy book! Thats why I keep pointing out you have no grasp of reality.
For your information I was born and raised as a muslim!
You did not answer my point that if these alleged 'facts' were in the Quran all along why didnt any muslim discover even one of them? Why did the 'atheists' have to do it? I repeat again no scientific discovery of any merit was ever made from reading ANY holy book (including the Quran)!
You need to educate yourself on what a theory means in science!
Did anyone else realise how stupid that woman at the beginning sounded. How can she say facts are the least important. Doesnt that just mean that in regards to evolution, science is just doing guesswork, and not actively engaging in trying to found out the truth.
She was describing the hierarchy in science and in that regard 'facts' are the least important things because they dont have any predictive utility! An apple falling to the ground is a fact but it does not have any predictive utility however the the theory of gravity that explains that fact does! And that's used to calculate gravity's effects its strengths and its applications! Science used that theory to put man on the moon....what has religion ever achieved?
@kakamana1000 Well for one, i cannot comment on what other religions have achived in regards to science. However, islam was the first to prove many scientific "theories" as you call them 1400 years ago. For instance, Islam knew of the healing and antiseptic properties of Honey, and a special chemical in the wax used by bees over 1400 years ago in the Quran. The Quran also stated that the world was round rather than flat, as was only recently discovered(recent being 500 years ago).
There is no such thing as 'Muslim science'! A muslim stating an observable phenomenon is doing so using the scientific method and not religion... Other cultures knew of the beneficial properties of substances like honey because its demonstrable the Ayurveda of the hindus for example. Eratosthenes was the first person to prove the earth is round and also the first to calculate its circumference. Both instances predate Islam!
@kakamana1000 Okay, can you point me in the direction of the proof which shows that Eratosthenes proved the world was round first? And okay, ill agree with you on the Ayurvedic arts which proved the honey thing.
@kakamana1000 Please dont take this the wrong, way, im not trying to prove your views or religion or whatever wrong, im just replying to your question, of how Islam has contributed to this world.
@kakamana1000 Funny how U think Islam(the message/religion from God) was Invented but existed way before Prophet Muhammad came n restore the religion of Abraham!! Idiot!!
My comment was specifically concerning the theory of evolution which the original comment incorrectly attributed to Islam! It is a scientific concept and has no affiliation to any religion. Moreover it negates special creation that religions promote and Adam being the first created man which all Abrahamic religions believe in! I suggest next time read the comment properly before making silly comments because otherwise you end up looking like a fool!!!
Actually get it right if you want to point out someone else's mistake. Koran was plagiarism of Christian and Jewish faiths. Both of which were themselves plagiarism or Mesopotamian myths. Hence for so many errors, misconceptions and ridicules "scientific evidence". They copy each other without having proper knowledge, making hundreds of claims, by today standard we know are false.
That's called projection and wishful thinking...neither of which is impressive in the least! If that indeed was the case Muslims had a 1400 year head start to state these 'truths' yet they were not able to even in a single instance!
amm, well, not necessarily. I lack knowledge on the Islamic history, so I won't say that they did. but the facts that were mentioned in the Quran, the motion of the sun, and it's movement towards a fixed point for eg, Muslims never said that it wasn't true!...we just didn't have any independent evidence to show that it is the case, see for yourself.
Are you for real ? The Qur'an mentions numerous times that the Sun and the Moon travel in an orbit, but does not mention once that the Earth does too. This is consistent with the beliefs that were prevalent prior to the 16th century that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Qur'an 36:38, Qur'an 91:1-2-1, Qur'an 35:41, Qur'an 40:64, Qur'an 21:33.... etc... etc..
Please, spare us this ridicules nonsense, this is just embarrassing even to read.
There's a diffrence between what a verse implies, and what you as a person infer from it. You cannot know what allah implied, you can only know what you, logically infer. But then again, you need to acknowledge that your inference can easily be biased. but tell me this, if it truly implies this, how come none of the early scholars who made tafsir, actually interpreted it as such?
No, it is not implied. Instead I argue, that since you know that in the past many people believed this, that the Qur'an must mean this to, but this is your personal bias. None of the early scholars thought it believed that.
why would you think it meant that, and then move to disbelieve because of that "different" opinion? No offense; but It sounds to me, that you're having emotional problems and that you desire to leave Islam, and that therefor you're simply looking for these rational justifications to do what you emotionally desire.
I left faith in exchanged for actual knowledge since I was 14. My wife and my children are religion free. I encourage them to read about it due its influences on culture, arts, architecture etc. but that's as far as it goes.
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is, than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. That's why they call it faith, because it's not knowledge, and my emotional desire is to gain as much of it as possible, not from Koran tho.
and I have faith, and it does not contradict with my actual knowledge. infact my faith encouraged me to look deeper into the material reality for there are the sign posts towards the supernatural. but anyway, if you dont see them, then it's your own life, and you have the right to live it the way you want. but i should say this tho, life is given once, and we all have to die someday, make your decisions carefully:)...and gudluk with your life, sir:)
here are the verses: And the sun runs his course for a period determined for him: that is the decree of (Him), the Exalted in Might, the All-Knowing.(36:38)
It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day: Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to Law).(36:40)
see tafsir ibn-ekathir on these verses, he never said that sun does not move at all, even when science wasn't there!
Evolution was an Islamic theory before Darwin was even born, it was called Mohammedan theory of evolution, I proved that beyond any doubt in my video: /watch?v=Ugu3cZN-3jU
a quick note on your problems with science within Qur'an: well, we find it AFTER science discovers it because before, we don't have any explanation for the verse!...for instance, Quran speaks about a different life form, "the Jinns", it might seem a fairy tale right now, but someday when science will be able to demonstrate with solid proof, the existence of other, extra dimensions and the living beings in them which live parallel to our dimensions, next comment plz
How are you so sure that science would be able to demonstrate Jinns in the future? And how is that assertion any different to anyone suggesting when science would in the future be able to demonstrate fairies, unicorns (or any such nonsense) that would vindicate our beliefs?
Its intellectually dishonest to assert Quran (or any other religious book for that matter) contains any scientific truths because nothing of any scientific merit was ever discovered form them!
how are you so sure that they won't?...Im sure because it's already in theoretical physics!...look for "string theory" "parallel dimensions" "parallel universes"...who saying "non-sense" now?
im sorry but i STRONGLY disagree. have you ever read the Quran, or are you just making claims out of thin air? Quran was the first book on earth which asserted that mountains have got roots, it was the first book which mentioned "evaporation" and the complete water cycle, nxt comment
I was born and raised as a Muslim and I have read the Quran. All of the things you have mentioned in the Quran has been taken from knowledge of the Greeks...
Furthermore the discovery of none of those phenomenons is accredited to the Quran!
I agree string theory does suggest parallel universes and dimensions. However, Jinns have no evidence for them as Quran does suggest they occupy our physical realms!
mashAllah, very well brother, very well. i had a hint about it before but, i really wonder why!...anyway, on your second point, string theory is still just clever mathematics. they suggest that we could one day, if they really exist, talk to them by the use of gravity waves, made up of gravitons. possibilities are still open, never underestimate science. i for sure believe in jinns. Quran never speaks of anything unscientific. science will follow the truth.
the first book which told us that the universe was once a single entity before it was separated, then it was just scattered matter within spacetime, then the heavenly bodies were made out of it. the first book to claim that the universe is expanding! the first book to tell us about the different stages about embryology, the first book to tell us about the separation of sweet and salt waters...the list goes on!
It is debatable that the Quran does indeed mentions those phenomenons! Most of them (embryology for instance)) were known to the Greeks much before Islam and in those cases Quran makes the same mistakes as they did. Furthermore the discovery of none of those scientific discoveries is accredited to or made by reading the Quran! Not even a single one! Retrofitting science to vague verses is done by all religions! Do you know the Bhagwat Geeta allegedly speaks of multiple universes...
and the other theories that you cite are quite different from the theory of common ancestor!....gravity for eg, is a theory to explain why things fall!...newton said it was some invisible force between everything that contains mass!...Einstein said it was because the warps in space-time, today string theory says that it's because of movement of tiny strings contained between quarks!...we still DONT KNOW what causes gravity!...lol.
You are still making the fallacy of Theory being inferior to Facts in science, which is not the case. Gravity is a law but we dont really have a conclusive theory of it yet. We have models to explain it though. However evolution is a theory that is backed by facts and evidence. The origins of life is not within the scope of evolution to explain it only deals with the diversity of life.
im sorry buddy, im not the one making a fallacy here. i wonder what's that hard to understand in it. you still have not put my argument down. please dont use the word evolution, it's a bit misleading. macro and micro evolution are correct, demonstrable, falsifiable and testable theories, and i accept them. i have problems with the theory of common descent only, it's a vague historical theory. which does not explain "the nature of physics", or "the physics of nature".
i mean c'mon!...the similarities in our genetic makeup could also strongly propound that all the life forms were created by the same creator! why can't it be?...and just visual similarities in fossil structures between primates and human beings, I don't think necessarily mean that we had a common ancestor with them!...we could discuss that in depth if you like anytime. next comment
The same genes same designer argument is falsified by atavisms! Why do chickens have genes to make teeth? when insects dont? Why do whales have the genes to make legs and we have the genes to make tails? The only explanation for this phenomenon is common decent!
this is bullshit ,, reminds me of religious talk ,, everything should be based on facts only ,, if its not totaly proven , it will be a theory,,, meanning that it could be right or wrong ,
MegaYiwen 3 weeks ago
I was watching a new documentary on reverse evolution. This theory suggests that apes came from human. When human misused the intellect they gradually became apes and monkeys. I am wondering if its fact or fiction?
DesiLeaks 1 month ago
@DesiLeaks
It's wrong. But I'll go along with it...
That is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.
Evolution by natural selection explains the process very clearly: it describes how less complex organisms evolve into more complex organisms.
For a species to undergo reverse evolution, some form of selection/mutation process would have to favour that path. But it can't favour it because it can only build upon complexity. When we read the human genome, no such thing is present.
ElDuorPaso 1 month ago
@DesiLeaks
2) Reverse evolution simply isn't the mechanism that drives life here on Earth.
The best example are Cave Salamanders which have migrated into caves that are completely dark. Yet they are born with eyes similar to ours, but since eyes are useless in complete darkness, a beneficial mutation has caused a layer of skin to grow over their eyes so that they don't get infected. But this is not reverse evolution, because evolution is building upon, not going backwards.
ElDuorPaso 1 month ago
ROFLMAO at 3:07 facts could be wrong but theories are not. Which idiot made this vid. When theories becomes established facts it does not matter what u call them they remain fact. Whereas theories take u turn or nullified or thrown away. Islam does not dismiss evolution within creation's adapting to changes. infact this theory used to be called Mohammedan theory 2 centuries before Darwin. but Darwin's version of evolution is a fantasy and will remain that way. browse latest discoveries 4 answers
DesiLeaks 1 month ago
for example gravity can be calculated/measured so it's a fact. That indian guy talking isn't wrong when he says that evolution is still a theory in all books, the scientists in your video stated it is a theory. Many theories have been disproven and no scientist can say for a fact that the THEORY of evolution is absolutely untenable, that's why it's a theory. Evolution seems like a great explanation, but is limited in what it can explain. Many scientist converted to islam, go see why.
cedarchik88 2 months ago
@cedarchik88 You can't measure gravity,gravity is a property of matter.You are talking about Gravitational coefficient/acceleration due to gravity?You can observe gravity at work.Evolution has also been observed in E.Coli,flowers,Stickleback fish,lizards,lab mice.DNA research confirms that humans and apes have common ancestors.Remains of human ancestors have 99.5-99.9 % genome similarity with us.I don't understand why people speak language of science and neglect theory and evidence.
lokenath123 2 months ago
Evolution is NOT a theory, evolution is a FACT, and there is another unknown FACT about evolution, watch my video and it is according to western scientists not uneducated Muslim imams: Evolution was an Islamic Theory Before Darwin was Even Born: /watch?v=Ugu3cZN-3jU
helasmoh 3 months ago
@helasmoh
A scientific theory is just a scientific theory! There is no such thing as 'Islamic theory'. The word is a misnomer... The Greeks centuries before Islam had the concept of evolution however Darwin was the first to explain and detail the phenomenon using natural selection.
kakamana1000 3 months ago
@kakamana1000
So did Aljahiz in his book (The Animal) 1000 years before Darwin. Did you wonder why western scientists from Darwin's time called evolution (Mohammedan Theory of Evolution)?
helasmoh 3 months ago
@helasmoh
Emmm check up on your history... the Greeks philosophers (eg Aristotle) precede the Islamic era...!
en(.)wikipedia(.)org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought
kakamana1000 3 months ago
@kakamana1000
Come on, you think I made such big claim without checking wikipedia? of course I know about Greeks thoughts but they were very primitive to Muslim scientists. Did you know that Aristotle believe in spontaneous generation of life that Quran refuted? Did you watch my video on evolution? I also have a special one for Aristotle, please watch it: Craig Venter and Richard Dawkins Vs Mythical Characters: /watch?v=UYO9AuEhFwo
helasmoh 3 months ago
@helasmoh
So you do understand the iterative process of the progress of science! Then its quite disingenuous to assert that evolution is relegated to what Muslim evolutionists postulated! The Greeks had inklings of evolution and the knowledge was built upon that. Even Darwin made mistakes and was incorrect in his theory. We understand it better today because of the accumulation of evidence. The point being science isnt the domain of any particular religion neither is it dependent on it.
kakamana1000 3 months ago
@kakamana1000
The point is Islam is not just compatible with evolution but actually Muslim scientists brought evolution to the west, this video is a lie presenting the opinion of one Muslim and he is not a scientist or even near, Muslim scientists contributed a lot to the theory of evolution, way more than most people know.
helasmoh 3 months ago
@helasmoh
Again you used a misnomer there is no such thing as a 'Muslim Scientist' its a scientist who happens to be a Muslim but religion itself has had no contribution in the progress of science. No scientific discovery ever is attributed to any religion! Secondly the video is not a lie because a majority of Muslims do reject evolution because it undermines the ludicrous concept of special creation of 2 individuals 'Adam & Eve' by God which is also the Islamic narrative!
kakamana1000 3 months ago
@kakamana1000
Well, it's obvious that you didn't watch the video.
helasmoh 3 months ago
@helasmoh
Its irrelevant to your assertions! You are correlating religion with science and endorsing the former because of the latter and that's nonsensical! To illustrate this take the fact that all the recent advancement in science and progress in technology has been made by atheists or scientists that do no profess any religious beliefs... would that be an argument in favour of non-belief?
kakamana1000 3 months ago
Science of Evolution, Science of Atomic structure... There needs to be a line drawn between Theory and Science. Theory is a scientific method, it is not the science itself... Theory is a test of scientific discovery. Theory is the means to finding the answer.
Scientists need to discontinue the term Theory after the Theory process has proven the science to be legitimate.
Is there such thing as the Theory of Science? Theory of math? The Theory of history? Are those theory's? not anymore.
JahElJah 4 months ago
Yeah that is right without a theory you cant go to a fact. But u misunderstood what Zakir Naik is saying. He is basically saying it has not been a fact, in that it is not solid in information. The scientist themselves said, it can be changed. A fact is more established. Zakir Naik is trying to say, that there is no reason in arguing about evolution since its like using facts to write a story in how people want it to be shown. He further says that there are no links between fossils.
shiney94 4 months ago
@shiney94
Facts supports or discredit a theory. So far all facts and evidence support the theory of evolution. What the scientists said was that if a new piece of evidence were to be uncovered that does not support the theory then the theory would need to be revised but that has not been the case. Zakir rejects evolution on the pretence that its a 'theory' rather than a 'fact'! So either he is genuinely ignorant of science or he is deliberately lying and misrepresenting reality.
kakamana1000 4 months ago
@kakamana1000 Zakir is discreditng evolution because he believes that we did not come from monkeys, and there is tons of evidence that goes against it. For example there is no linking fossils of humans and the other species that turned into humans (i..e neandarthal man). secondly most mutations are detrimental to species. There is like a 1/1000000 chance that a mutation could be beneficial even if it was over millions of years. He does not discredit the whole of evolution.
shiney94 4 months ago
@shiney94
Evolution does not state we came from monkeys! It posits that modern day apes and humans have a common ancestor. This very same evidence that supports evolution also supports this proposition. The evolution of homo sapiens is a subset of the evolutionary theory not excluded from it! In regards to the evidence that supports the theory I would recommend the book 'The greatest show on earth' by Richard Dawkins. (btw most mutations are neutral and not detrimental!)
kakamana1000 4 months ago
@kakamana1000 true, sorry, we dnt come from apes. Nor have we evoved, thts what his saying. oh really, most mutations are neutral. thts cool. is it neutral because it is fixed, before the mutation is shown on the phenotype or what?
shiney94 4 months ago
@shiney94
...and he is wrong to say that because the evolution of humans is a demonstrably true. He is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts! Yep most mutations are biologically neutral, neither beneficial not detrimental.
kakamana1000 4 months ago
@kakamana1000 Well I cant speak much because i havent studying evolution in depth, to say which fossils prove what. I honestly think that humans have the ability to adapt to their environment, a gift given by God. I do not believe that humans came from a different species.
But in terms of science i cannot back my knowledge with confidence because i havent learned evolution to an extrreme in-depth. Let me ask u a question, do u believe in a creator of the world?
shiney94 4 months ago
@shiney94
So why would you argue about something that by your own admission you are not proficient in? I would again urge you to read the book I recommended to familiarize yourself with the subject. The ability to adapt to different environments is not just exclusive to humans, every species could do it within certain parameters.
Well it depends on how you define the 'creator' but to answer your question I presently have no affirmative belief in the deity of any "revealed religion".
kakamana1000 4 months ago
@kakamana1000 Hey, apparently some archaelogists discovered giant human fossils which I heard will disprove evolution. Have you got any news of that?
How do you refute this claim?
Ganstaz003 4 months ago
@Ganstaz003
...by claiming poe's law on you! :p
kakamana1000 4 months ago
@kakamana1000 By claiming poe's law on me?
Ganstaz003 3 months ago
kakamana1000 thanks for your valuable contribution,but dont let this guy zakhir nalayak represent the majority of good people of india,He is a muslim who imports weird culture and ideas into india(shame being indian)and twists stories from koran to make it look right.
MsArzoo1 4 months ago
@MsArzoo1
He's not representing India, he is strictly Muslim. Judging by your response, you don't have a subtle view of Islam or the Quran. Zakir Naik is one of the few people in the world who have extensive knowledge on comparative religion, primarily Hinduism. You should be proud he is Indian. This video manupulated and twisted stories. Zakir Naik was referring to evolution of Human beings, not evolution in general. The maker of this video is openly dihonest.
ThaDonBigaveez 4 months ago
@ThaDonBigaveez
There is no difference between 'evolution in general' and 'evolution of human beings'! They both fall under the same scientific theory! There's nothing to be proud of an intellectually dishonest lying charlatan!
kakamana1000 4 months ago
@kakamana1000 There is. Evolution is a natural process that has scientific substantive proof. However, the biological evolution of Humans from Apes is still a theory. When Zakir Naik, was referring to evolution, he was being specific to human evolution from apes. I don't mean to target you, but you really didn't consider the context of Naiks discussion. You very conveniently cherry-picked scenes, and are therefore dishonest yourself.
ThaDonBigaveez 4 months ago
@ThaDonBigaveez
No there is not! You really need to get yourself educated! The evidence for evolution is one and the same for human evolution! The video did outline the scientific use of the word theory. Its sad that it does not fit your bronze age religious scripture, but for that I could only say tough! Reality does not change if you wish to ignore it...
kakamana1000 4 months ago
@kakamana1000
One and the same for human? I don't even know if your blowing smoke up my behind. What the word theory embodies means nothing in this little discussion. Human evolution from apes is a theory.
ThaDonBigaveez 4 months ago
@ThaDonBigaveez
Im trying to educate you but apparently in vain! Evolution itself is a 'scientific theory' that is supported by a huge volume of evidence for varying fields like genetics, Paleontology, comparative anatomy, fossils etc Human evolution from apes is a subset of that theory and iis supported by the exact same evidence. I would suggest you read the book 'The Greatest Show on Earth' by Richard Dawkins to understand what the evidence is and how it applies to human evolution!
kakamana1000 4 months ago
@kakamana1000 Thank you for agreeing that Evolution itself is a scientific theory, and not fact. ;)
ThaDonBigaveez 4 months ago
@ThaDonBigaveez
So you learnt nothing from the video!!!
kakamana1000 4 months ago
Wait so theory has two meanings?
crabbit87 5 months ago
@crabbit87 my friend, theory in science is very different than how normal people view theories, which makes science difficult for the general people to comprehend
SShamit1 4 months ago
My I say, that all I've seen in this video Is people saying oh, theory really means fact and fact can be proven as not really a fact after all!
w.e I still haven't seen your proof evidence clone a human show a talking ape clone an animal and prove that animal is a cloned being If the theory of evolution is true we are no different from animals and we can be copied If that is true again make a clone of a real human being.
nolovenohate 5 months ago
@nolovenohate
Cloning humans is technologically feasible. However its legally prohibited on ethical grounds.
kakamana1000 5 months ago
@kakamana1000 where's the proof? show me it :) please and thank you.
nolovenohate 5 months ago
@nolovenohate
Here is a nutshell explanation of human cloning and its feasibility with current technology and prohibition by law:
en(.)wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Human_cloning
If you want to educate yourself about the evidence that supports evolution I would recommend the book 'The Greatest Show on Earth' by Richard Dawkins.
kakamana1000 5 months ago
@nolovenohate take a look at your own religion,its MONO-THEISM,lol. Theism=Theory ,lol. Stupid religionists.
PAULOcbi 4 months ago
That "surecorrect" guy is quite the imbecile.
MrBrational 5 months ago
@kakamana1000
And you think you have the understanding?
Is gravity still a theory...? Or is it not a LAW and FACTUAL...? Atoms are now facts, real and no longer theories. If some scientists wish to imply that Atoms are still theories and misconstrue the English Language.., go ahead & jerk-off with their misconception.
Evolution have always been a theory and shall remain a theory to mislead the masses. Plain & simple. And.., I WILL NOT be mislead with this garbage theory.
surecorrect 6 months ago
@surecorrect
Laws are just mathematical equations that are universally applicable. The law of gravity just states the equation for what rate an object will fall in a vaccume. The theory of gravity explains what gravity is, just as string theory explains what string theory is, atomic theory explains about atoms, and the theory of evolution which explains evolution by natural selection.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 6 months ago
Those so-called 'scientists' with their comments would be better-off being politicians. The way they spin & manipulate words about science and scientific findings can leave the most seasoned politicians simply aghast..!
And..., the atomic theory was once a theory but is now a FACT..! String or S-Theory is today still a theory until one day be proven as fact. But..., Evolution Theory was once a theory and today STILL a theory and have never been empirically proven as FACT...!
surecorrect 6 months ago
@surecorrect
You're a cretin. For insulting me for no reason I'm going to troll you on every video you comment you thick dipshit.
UnknownUserName4267 6 months ago
@UnknownUserName4267
Troll away you damn fool...! You will have to troll hundreds of my comments to-date. I will put damn scumbags like you in your proper place (in the putrid cesspool) at every opportunity I get in response.
Bring 'em on..., FOOL....!
surecorrect 6 months ago
@surecorrect
You have no understanding of what a scientific theory is and what it implies. 'Atomic theory' still is and would always be a scientific theory. Educate yourself before making ignorant assertions.
kakamana1000 6 months ago
@kakamana1000
You need the education..., you arrogant but ignorant dude.
surecorrect 6 months ago
@surecorrect
As I suspected you are a troll with nothing substantive to say other than hurl abuse when shown to be pathetically ignorant.
kakamana1000 6 months ago
@kakamana1000 I guess he didn't watch the video. If he did, he didn't listen. If he listened , then he is just a complete crackpot.
MrBrational 5 months ago
Atomic theory is not a fact, there is no such thing as 'fact' in science. String theory will never be called anything but string theory, the theory of evolution will never be called anything but the theory of evolution.
There is no higher standard of scientific recognition than being a theory. Theories are a collection of observations that eventually lead to a conclusion. There are different stages of which a theory is valid, and funnily enough evolution is probably as valid as one can be.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 6 months ago
@surecorrect How do you expect to prove something that happens over thousand of years, although micro evolution has been proved, anyone denying evolution is simply denying the truth
OmgItsNikoZ 6 months ago
I am a Muslim, I do believe that Allah created everything, but I also believe that evolution was part of his creation, for it does mention it in the Qur'an with the mention of he is our Rabb, our evolve unto perfection. So the idea of evolution does not bother me. I do believe that Allah created Adam from dirt. And what do you think we are made from. so this is accurate as well. The Qur'an does not give time lines so I have no problem with 1.4 billions years of evolution.
yahyaiphillips 7 months ago
LOL, so a person with a decent education assaults be with belittle comments. I do have a decent education and have a Technology degree. I really don't have any problems with evolution. But there are things that make you wonder when you think about how long creatures have been on earth, and then wonder about evolution of those same creatures. I'll give you an example, the ant I know of fossil records of an ant 92 million years ago, and they are still the same today.
yahyaiphillips 7 months ago
CONTRADICTIONS IN THE QURAN: WHICH CAME FIRST HEAVEN OR EARTH?
/HEAVEN 79:27-30 Are you a more difficult creation or is the heaven? Allah constructed it..He raised its ceiling and proportioned it...And He darkened its night and extracted its brightness..And AFTER THAT He spread the earth (ALLAH SPREADS THE EARTH AS IF IT WAS FLAT)
/THE EARTH: 2:29 It is He who created for you all of that which is on the earth. THEN He directed Himself to the heaven, and made them seven heavens (7 HEAVENS!)
DictaduraNo123 7 months ago
@DictaduraNo123 the Qur'an does say the earth is a spear and even mentions or cylindrical orbits. Does not mention it was flat as you add. For that matter, all early Muslims knew the earth was round because of the Qur'an and calculated the circumference of the earth. Where do you think the math came from to calculate this. Algebra is an Arabic word.
yahyaiphillips 7 months ago
@yahyaiphillips
I would strongly recommend you research 'Eratosthenes' to dispel your ignorance!!!
And would further assert that no discovery of any scientific merit was ever made by reading any religious book.
kakamana1000 7 months ago
@kakama BESIDES 18:83-90 THE QURAN IMPLIES THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT, "LIKE A CARPET", "SPREAD OUT"
71:19 "'And God has made the earth for you as a carpet (spread out)
13:3 And it is He who spread out the earth, and set thereon mountains standing firm and (flowing) rivers...
15:19 And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet)
43:10 (Yea, the same that) has made for you the earth (like a carpet) spread out
79:30 And the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse)
DictaduraNo123 7 months ago
@kakamana1000 The Qur'an is full of Scientific information and non of it is refuted. Yes, when you read English translation you can have very narrow interpretations. But in the Arabic when the science becomes developed enough to understand what the Arabic means. The Qur'an makes many claims on in Science that can only be understood when the science develops enough. It is the many pieces as a whole that makes it a marical not that somebody observed it before.
yahyaiphillips 7 months ago
ABSURDITIES: "STARS WERE CREATED AS MISSILES TO DEFEND THE HEAVEN FROM DEMONS TRYING TO LISTEN TO THE DIVINE ASSEMBLY". BUT STARS ARE HUGE SUNS, THE QURAN IS VERY UNSCIENTIFIC.THE "LOWER HEAVEN" IS "ONE OF THE 7 HEAVENS"..HA HA, 37:6-8
We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars,
(For beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious evil spirits,
(So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side
DictaduraNo123 7 months ago
@yahya ABSURDITES: SELON LE CORAN LES ETOILES SONT DES LAMPES ET PAS D'ENORMES SOLEILS. ELLES SONT AUSSI DES PROJECTILES CONTRE LE DIABLE. REMARQUEZ QUE LE CORAN DIT QU'IL Y A 7 CIEUX, 41:12, ENCORE UNE FAUSSE CROYANCE DE L'ANTIQUITE, ET "LES ETOILES SONT DANS LE CIEL LE PLUS PROCHE"
67:5 Nous avons effectivement embelli le ciel le plus proche avec des lampes [des étoiles] dont Nous avons fait des projectiles pour lapider des diables et Nous leur avons préparé le châtiment de la Fournaise
DictaduraNo123 7 months ago
@ya ABSURDITIES: "STARS WERE CREATED AS MISSILES TO DEFEND THE HEAVEN FROM DEMONS TRYING TO LISTEN TO THE DIVINE ASSEMBLY". BUT STARS ARE HUGE SUNS, THE QURAN IS VERY UNSCIENTIFIC.THE "LOWER HEAVEN" IS "ONE OF THE 7 HEAVENS"..HA HA, 37:6-8
We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars,
(For beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious evil spirits,
(So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side
DictaduraNo123 7 months ago
@yahy ABSURDITIES: ACCORDING TO THE QURAN THE STARS ARE "LAMPS" AND NOT HUGE SUNS. THEY ARE ALSO MISSILES AGAINST THE DEVIL. NOTICE THAT THE QURAN SAYS THAT THERE ARE 7 HEAVENS, ANOTHER ANCIENT, FALSE BELIEF PROVED WRONG CENTURIES AGO, 41:12, AND THAT STARS ARE LOCATED IN THE CLOSEST HEAVEN.
67:5 And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire
DictaduraNo123 7 months ago
@yahyaiphillips
Yet with all of this 'alleged' scientific information in the Quran no one ever discovered anything of any scientific merit from reading it! I wonder why that is...
kakamana1000 7 months ago
@yahyai ACCORDING TO THE QURAN THERE IS A PLACE WHERE THE SUN SETS AND RISES AS IF THE EARTH WAS FLAT, 18:83-90
They ask thee concerning Zul-qarnain...We gave him the ways and the means to all ends.One (such) way he followed, until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! ...Then followed he (another) way, until, when he came to the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom.....
DictaduraNo123 7 months ago
CONTRADICTIONS IN THE QURAN: MAN WAS CREATED FROM?
/WATER: 86:6, 25:54 And it is He Who has created man from water...
/A CLOT: 96:2 Has created man from a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood)
/CLAY OR MUD: 15:26 And We did certainly create man out of clay from an altered black mud..32:7 qui a bien fait tout ce qu'Il a créé. Et Il a commencé la création de l'homme à partir de l'argile See 38:71
/DUST:3:59, 30:20 And of His signs is that He created you from dust
DictaduraNo123 7 months ago
@DictaduraNo123 You don' t see that these are the same? Man is created from water and earth. We are mostly water, and the same elements the earth is made up of. Dust and clay is the same matter, they are elements of the earth. and the clot is the part of the steps of embryology.
yahyaiphillips 7 months ago
@yahyaiphillips BLA BLA BLA..YOU ARE A TYPICAL MUSLIM. YOU WANT PEOPLE TO ACCEPT YOUR CONFUSED INTERPRETION AS THE TRUTH OR WE ARE SIMPLY "IGNORANT". PLEASE, ADMIT IT, YOUR QURAN IS FULL OF CONTRADICTION AND EXPRESSES ITSELF IN A VERY UNSCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE. WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE THAT MAN WAS CREATED FROM CLAY, DUST, WATER, A CLOT....ETC? NONE. THIS IS A TOTTALLY PRIMITIVE,UNSCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION, MORE LIKE A FAIRY TALE
DictaduraNo123 7 months ago
@DictaduraNo123 I don't care what you believe, but what you say can be said about you. You want me to believe your confused interpretation as the truth or am I simply "Ignorant" Yes, you are ignorant when you use arguments that can be expressed in the exact same way back to you. You understanding of the Qur'an and the language is very little and inaccurate, you will believe what you wish to believe, and I don't care what you belief. You belief does not affect me.
yahyaiphillips 7 months ago
@yahyaiphillips OF COURSE, EVERY TIME THE QURAN SAYS SOMETHING STUPID, CRUEL OR UNSCIENTIFIC WE HAVE TO ACCEPT YOUR SENSELESS "EXPLANATIONS" JUST TO MAKE THINGS AGREE. BUT ADMIT IT, THE QURAN HAS NOTHING SCIENTIFIC. IT CLEARLY DESCRIBES THE EARTH AS FLAT AND IT IS FULL OF ABSURDITIES
DictaduraNo123 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CONTRADICTIONS IN THE QURAN: HOW LONG DID CREATION TAKE?
50:38 And We did certainly create the heavens and earth and what is between them in SIX days, and there touched Us no weariness.
41:9 Say, "Do you indeed disbelieve in He who created the earth in TWO days and attribute to Him equals?
DictaduraNo123 7 months ago
I must smile about all these stupid reactions of some poeple
Who is the Sience and what is sience they even not know , but they talk about it.
Brothers and sisters , sience is from Who and where ?
Understand that a little thinking, is already a sience and theorie is not a fact eyt untill it is not proven. Human Evolution is never proven. Where you find that stupid Proof ?? Did you know that and proof that or what kind of theorie etc ?
OOHhhh... Professors in Sience even can't proof that.
Romanticoclown 8 months ago
@Romanticoclown
Your denial of evolution stems from your ignorance of the evidence that supports it. Furthermore your name is quite apt you are a clown!
kakamana1000 8 months ago
Look up faith and fact in a dictionary. Evolution is a fact
joctheviper1 8 months ago
Is theism a fact?
joctheviper1 8 months ago
This video is hilarious!
I've never heard so much wishy washy waffle in ages - and yet they talk of blind faith!
Stick to the facts - firstly a fact is important and not the least important - that is unless you have very little fact to support your stance!
And to derive a theory - you must have observation, analysis and then a derived theory. But lets understand that there is a difference between a law and a theory, which is simply an explanation put forward.
Cont...
2007josemarques 8 months ago
@2007josemarques
Your ignorance is hilarious!
Facts support a theory. A fact does not have any predictive utility on its own! Its just a piece of data. Thats why in science a theory is strongest construct.
kakamana1000 8 months ago
@kakamana1000
Really - hilarious!
The first thing I learned at university, was that all science is, is the analysis of data.
Observation, analysis, theory...
Without facts - what is your theory (explanation) based on!!! ridiculous! There is no conclusive evidence for the evolution of man. This ridiculous Darwinian theory has been continuously regurgitated over the past 150 years - but where are we? playing with the goal posts of definition and quantization does little to make a case - b/faith?
2007josemarques 8 months ago
@2007josemarques
You should have also learned at University that a scientific theory has to be falsifiable otherwise it does not qualify as a theory! The 'ridiculous' theory of evolution has NEVER been shown to be so in 150+ years. All the data all the evidence supports the theory. We can make an assertion based on evidence, faith is an assertion based on no evidence! So a scientific theory is anything but blind faith. That idiocy is the exclusive domain of religion!
kakamana1000 8 months ago
@kakamana1000
I just saw this - its just another plainly ridiculous attempt to redefine the goal posts of critique. Falsifiability? LOL, what evidence proves evolution? there is nothing of substance and nothing that warrants a statement or conclusion to pre-claim a position of falsifiability
You sum it up perfectly when you use the term making up 'assertions.' That's all the 'theory' of evolution has, is and will be. An assertion, based on nothing more than a chosen & conveniently defined belief
2007josemarques 8 months ago
@2007josemarques
'what evidence proves evolution?'
Read 'The Greatest Show on Earth' by Richard Dawkins.
You maybe entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts!
kakamana1000 8 months ago
@kakamana1000
Hilarious cop-out! I asked you to provide facts, not to evade the issue by defining my question as an opinion and not fact!
What evidence proves evolution - can you answer that factually and logically? simply?
The answer is not Richard Dawkins - he's an arrogant prat, who regurgitates the same old spiel of 1+1=3?? I've heard him umpteen times, watched him on the 'God delusion' and always thought - 'very confident, unrelenting, talks like there's no question - but no substance.'
2007josemarques 8 months ago
Cont.
I'm not interested in 'extreme' materialist sales men, with their anti-religious, condescending, superior agenda. Nor with their unrelenting, illogical barking - the world has enough of those already at both ends of the pole. Richard Dawkins is the champion propagator, not the explainer of the atheistic evolutionary 'ideology,' he may be 'their' champion, but he has nothing of substance to put forth.
It is my opinion, but one based on the facts that I see!
If you have facts please show.
2007josemarques 8 months ago
@2007josemarques
Richard Dawkins may well be an 'arrogant prat' (not to say that he is) but that does not discredit the scientific evidence he presents because they are not based on his opinion but independently verifiable facts. Newton was not a very pleasent person but that does not discredit his theory of gravity! Now, if you still want to educate yourself and learn about the evidence supporting evolution, I can suggest reading material. If not, your willful ignorance is not my problem!
kakamana1000 8 months ago
@kakamana1000
P1)
Independently verifiable facts? please, are you claiming there are clear facts that chart & prove an unbroken chain of man's evolution from a single cell to an ape, through finally to a human being? Well if so then please prove it! But please, the commonly peddled 'formulas' of 1+1=3 do not constitute anything more than conveniently derived explanations 'theories,' supporting a chosen belief. I'm talking of clear facts, not conjecture with excuses and dynamic goal posts
Cont
2007josemarques 8 months ago
p2)
@kakamana1000
We clearly know gravity exists - its 'tangible,' can & was observed by Newton, those before him & those after him, with observations & calculations subsequently derived. Funny you mention Newton - as good as his theory is, it is now known to be flawed. Yet interestingly, in the context of this discussion, what is the strength of evolutions basis in comparison?
Its very ease to make statements that dismiss and condescend, yet they do nothing to address the real questions!
2007josemarques 8 months ago
@2007josemarques
Yes, the evidence supporting evolution is independently verifiable from various fields of science including but not exclusive to paleontology, genetics, molecular biology, archaeology, phylogeny, comparative anatomy etc! Creationists' dismissal of evolution is based on ignorance. Ignoring the evidence, like you are doing when presented with reading material, does not make it go away!
cont...
kakamana1000 8 months ago
@kakamana1000
Once again you have demonstrated an utter lack of understanding of science and its principles which doesn't surprise me anymore at this point in our discussion. We have NEVER observed gravity (yet). When something falls to the ground what we observe are the effects of gravity. So that too is an inference! We don't know what causes gravity. The current 'theory' is hypothetical particles know as gravitons. Evolution has much more evidence supporting it than Gravity does!
cont...
kakamana1000 8 months ago
@kakamana1000
Newtons theory, although not entirely wrong, does not explain all the data (light, black holes) and hence is replaced by Einsteins General Relativity. Science is an ongoing endeavor as its concerned with understanding the natural world around us and creating a workable, self consistent and coherent model of it and that is why its the most successful enterprise for gaining knowledge we have.
kakamana1000 8 months ago
@kakamana1000
Where did my comments and questions go? not into a black hole I hope, but I'll reiterate the questions I have been asking, in fact been asking from the beginning:
You state that there is a multitude of evidence throughout different fields of study that 'prove' evolution, and that ignoring it is ignorance, so once again I ask you where and what is it?
Is there clear FACTUAL evidence that demonstrates a continuous link charting evolution of man back to an ape, then to a single cell?
2007josemarques 8 months ago
P2
Is there even fossil evidence that demonstrates this declared evolution within the 'animal and species' world? evidence that links,charts and proves evolution on the 'physical' 'macro' level, let alone the micro level. I believe we both know there is no such evidence, and the Cambrian explosion impedes such suggestions - so on what basis are they peddled?
Apart from the evidence being contrary to the claims, we have issues of scientific impossibilities that arise with such stances
Cont.
2007josemarques 8 months ago
P3
Questions of the type, which came first? the chicken or the egg?
How do you explain cell construction through evolution - when all its elements need to be present simultaneously to exist and function? How do you explain DNA's evolution, when DNA is fundamental to the formation of proteins, yet it needs protein to function???
How do you explain a claim of the random formation of cells, protein formation - the correct formation of left handed amino acid chains?, DNA sequencing etc etc
2007josemarques 8 months ago
p4
All of which would of had to have occurred not only in contradictions to their own laws of existence, but randomly, simultaneously and perfectly over and over - despite scientist calculating the mathematical impossibility of it occurring?
Rather than you levelling accusations of ignorance, try addressing the factual and viable questions that arise with such claims.
Declarations and dismissals, do little to detract from the obligation to prove claims - something that isn't encouraged!
2007josemarques 8 months ago
@2007josemarques
All your comments are still here so am not sure what are you trying to imply?
I have repeatedly pointed you towards reading material that outline the evidence that support evolution...yet you keep ignoring it! I would suggest again to educate yourself before making ignorant claims. Your assertions are based on your ignorance of evolution eg 'charting evolution of man back to an ape' - man did not evolve from apes but modern day apes and man share a common ancestor!
cont...
kakamana1000 8 months ago
@kakamana1000
Homo sapiens are categorised as apes!
Yes evolution has been observed both on the micro and macro level so again it comes back to your ignorance of it and an utter refusal to learn!
You make the same assertions that have been refuted and answered multiple times eg 'How do you explain cell construction through evolution - when all its elements need to be present simultaneously to exist and function?' - modern day cells are far more evolved and complex than their ancestors!
cont..
kakamana1000 8 months ago
@kakamana1000
The theory of evolution is the best explanation we have to account for the evidence. No piece of data has ever contradicted or refuted the theory yet. All of the predictions of evolution are vindicated. If you suggest the theory is wrong then you have to explain the evidence that stacks up supporting the theory and no counter explanation has ever been forthcoming! For instance how else would you account for atavism in species other than common ancestry?
cont...
kakamana1000 8 months ago
@kakamana1000
I would suggest again you educate yourself on the subject before making assertions that only display your ignorance. If you are so averse to reading I could suggest information from youtube. The 'Made Easy' series by potholer54 would be an excellent start:
/watch?v=wg1fs6vp9Ok&
Also the 'Foundational falsehoods of creationism' series by AronRa:
/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&
kakamana1000 8 months ago
@kakamana1000
I would once again ask you to answer the pressing questions that clearly have a basis, rather than continuously avoid them by levying dismissive accusations of ignorance, and stressing that I should go and read. Its a poor tactic, that only serves to highlight your inability to answer and willful avoidance to answer anything. If you don't like that, I suggest you don't go around levying ridiculous claims and charges - you only end up setting yourself up.
Either put up or shut up!
2007josemarques 8 months ago
@2007josemarques
Are you retarded? You have been asking me to provide evidence that support evolution and I have done so both by suggesting reading material and providing links to relevant videos but rather than educating yourself on the subject and dispelling your ignorance you choose to revel in it! Well thats your prerogative and I have stated before your willful ignorance is not my problem. Whats apparent is that youd rather be a troll then engage in any discourse so in that case... goodbye!
kakamana1000 7 months ago
Cont..
These scientist can put forward their explanation of what theories are,however lets dispense with the silly dismissals that seek to claim it is all irreproachable, or the definitions that seek to make the same claims. Lets rather have someone explain how we have factual evidence to prove the explanation of evolution is correct and a fact - an explanation of what observations and analysis of facts have clearly shown man to have evolved and how indeed life formed from a single cell?
2007josemarques 8 months ago
@2007josemarques
So your ignorance happens to be willful!
The scope of this video was to make the distinction between fact and theory in science. If you are looking for the evidence that supports the theory of evolution I would recommended the book 'The Greatest Show On Earth' by Richard Dawkins.
kakamana1000 8 months ago
@kakamana1000
My ignorance happens to be willful? well, and how exactly is that?
You seem to be full of convenient conclusions, and very thin on actual fact. What your video poorly proposes is that the theory of evolution is an irreproachable fact - without being a fact. Its seeks to pass off a theory - which is simply an explanation - derived on information which is not conclusive, as unquestionable - as religion once was. Such dismissals are common place, in the avoidance of hard critique.
2007josemarques 8 months ago
@2007josemarques
You are unaware of the evidence that conclusively support evolution, you are unaware of what a theory means in science and how it has practical and predictive utility that facts do not, that is ignorance... and to hold on to that after being pointed towards evidence makes it willful!
My video makes the distinction of what a theory in science means and its relevance. The theory of evolution would never be called a 'fact' in science because that is how science works!
kakamana1000 8 months ago
hey mr ...bring us the muslim scientist not the atheists......and by the way it will always remain a theory...even tho this never proof theory to be fact..
ahmedzahir12345 8 months ago
@ahmedzahir12345
There is no such thing as 'muslim science'! Science is science. If you choose to remain ignorant thats your prerogative it does not change reality.
kakamana1000 8 months ago
@kakamana1000 what reality u r talking about ? come to the real discussion if u want reality...answer me my questions if u think your view points r the truth...
LETS ME PROOF BEING MUSLIM AND ISLAM FROM YOUR OWN SCIENCE....
Tell me....WHATS BIG BANG ? and when did u discovered it...
ahmedzahir12345 8 months ago
@ahmedzahir12345
I'd save you your proof! Heaven and Earth were NOT joined together (as the verse claims). Earth did not even exist at the time of the Big Bang, it formed independently billions of years after the event. So the verse is wrong and restating a creation myth that was held by cultures and religions before Islam too. Finally if the Quran did have information about the Big Bang then why didnt any muslim discover it? Thats the reality I am talking about...!
kakamana1000 8 months ago
@kakamana1000 i didnt asked u to tell me about the verse...just explain to me the big bang....and leave the verse to me for proofing...1st let me hear from your own words the creation of the universe..so explain the big bang theory not your ideas...
ahmedzahir12345 8 months ago
@ahmedzahir12345
If that's the verse you were going to use then as I said dont even bother! The verse is wrong if it's describing the Big Bang theory as ive just shown. Secondly proving scripture through science would only work if that particular discovery was made from the scripture in question. The fact remains that no scientific discovery of any merit was ever made from reading any holy book! Thats why I keep pointing out you have no grasp of reality.
kakamana1000 8 months ago
@kakamana1000
watch?v=73EfykhtXsE&feature=related
watch?v=hUA_G5-2KVI&feature=related
watch?v=ob60pQYyYM4&feature=related
watch?v=Qjtetxrvu18&feature=related
watch?v=bnx03Yw8KBE&feature=related
i can keep on giving u the scientic facts NOT THEORIES in the QURAN...BUT LET SEE IF U EMBRACE ISLAM OR NOT....
NOW ANSWER ME THE BIG BANG NOT THESE.....THESE R JUST THE PROOF FOR YOUR WORDS.....
ahmedzahir12345 8 months ago
@ahmedzahir12345
/user/TheIslammiracle
And I can keep debunking your 'FACTS'!
For your information I was born and raised as a muslim!
You did not answer my point that if these alleged 'facts' were in the Quran all along why didnt any muslim discover even one of them? Why did the 'atheists' have to do it? I repeat again no scientific discovery of any merit was ever made from reading ANY holy book (including the Quran)!
You need to educate yourself on what a theory means in science!
kakamana1000 8 months ago
Did anyone else realise how stupid that woman at the beginning sounded. How can she say facts are the least important. Doesnt that just mean that in regards to evolution, science is just doing guesswork, and not actively engaging in trying to found out the truth.
hsvluver 9 months ago
@hsvluver
She was describing the hierarchy in science and in that regard 'facts' are the least important things because they dont have any predictive utility! An apple falling to the ground is a fact but it does not have any predictive utility however the the theory of gravity that explains that fact does! And that's used to calculate gravity's effects its strengths and its applications! Science used that theory to put man on the moon....what has religion ever achieved?
kakamana1000 9 months ago
@kakamana1000 Well for one, i cannot comment on what other religions have achived in regards to science. However, islam was the first to prove many scientific "theories" as you call them 1400 years ago. For instance, Islam knew of the healing and antiseptic properties of Honey, and a special chemical in the wax used by bees over 1400 years ago in the Quran. The Quran also stated that the world was round rather than flat, as was only recently discovered(recent being 500 years ago).
hsvluver 9 months ago
@hsvluver
There is no such thing as 'Muslim science'! A muslim stating an observable phenomenon is doing so using the scientific method and not religion... Other cultures knew of the beneficial properties of substances like honey because its demonstrable the Ayurveda of the hindus for example. Eratosthenes was the first person to prove the earth is round and also the first to calculate its circumference. Both instances predate Islam!
kakamana1000 9 months ago
@kakamana1000 Okay, can you point me in the direction of the proof which shows that Eratosthenes proved the world was round first? And okay, ill agree with you on the Ayurvedic arts which proved the honey thing.
hsvluver 8 months ago
@hsvluver
Yes indeed:
en(.)wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Eratosthenes
/watch?v=en5UKtcNujI
kakamana1000 8 months ago
@kakamana1000 Please dont take this the wrong, way, im not trying to prove your views or religion or whatever wrong, im just replying to your question, of how Islam has contributed to this world.
hsvluver 9 months ago
@hsvluver
Dont worry about it :)
As long as its civil I am more than happy to engage in discourse. Exchange of ideas is how knowledge is increased...
kakamana1000 9 months ago
That Mullah is thick skulled, low IQ, & misinformed, individual is a fact, not a theory.
109ri23ea30ri1 10 months ago
Funny how you made this video title against Islam, evolution was an Islamic theory before Darwin was even born: /watch?v=Ugu3cZN-3jU
helasmoh 10 months ago
@helasmoh
Funny that you don't know the Greeks were the first to mention evolution before Mohammed was even born and Islam was invented!
en(.)wikipedia(.)org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought
kakamana1000 10 months ago
@kakamana1000 Funny how U think Islam(the message/religion from God) was Invented but existed way before Prophet Muhammad came n restore the religion of Abraham!! Idiot!!
moeazysgc 10 months ago
@moeazysgc
My comment was specifically concerning the theory of evolution which the original comment incorrectly attributed to Islam! It is a scientific concept and has no affiliation to any religion. Moreover it negates special creation that religions promote and Adam being the first created man which all Abrahamic religions believe in! I suggest next time read the comment properly before making silly comments because otherwise you end up looking like a fool!!!
kakamana1000 10 months ago
@moeazysgc
Actually get it right if you want to point out someone else's mistake. Koran was plagiarism of Christian and Jewish faiths. Both of which were themselves plagiarism or Mesopotamian myths. Hence for so many errors, misconceptions and ridicules "scientific evidence". They copy each other without having proper knowledge, making hundreds of claims, by today standard we know are false.
KLSeba 9 months ago
we'll say see, Quran said it 1400 years ago!...that's how it works!
manzar9121 10 months ago
@manzar9121
That's called projection and wishful thinking...neither of which is impressive in the least! If that indeed was the case Muslims had a 1400 year head start to state these 'truths' yet they were not able to even in a single instance!
kakamana1000 10 months ago
@kakamana1000
amm, well, not necessarily. I lack knowledge on the Islamic history, so I won't say that they did. but the facts that were mentioned in the Quran, the motion of the sun, and it's movement towards a fixed point for eg, Muslims never said that it wasn't true!...we just didn't have any independent evidence to show that it is the case, see for yourself.
manzar9121 10 months ago
@manzar9121
"the motion of the sun" LOL :)
Are you for real ? The Qur'an mentions numerous times that the Sun and the Moon travel in an orbit, but does not mention once that the Earth does too. This is consistent with the beliefs that were prevalent prior to the 16th century that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Qur'an 36:38, Qur'an 91:1-2-1, Qur'an 35:41, Qur'an 40:64, Qur'an 21:33.... etc... etc..
Please, spare us this ridicules nonsense, this is just embarrassing even to read.
KLSeba 9 months ago
@KLSeba
There's a diffrence between what a verse implies, and what you as a person infer from it. You cannot know what allah implied, you can only know what you, logically infer. But then again, you need to acknowledge that your inference can easily be biased. but tell me this, if it truly implies this, how come none of the early scholars who made tafsir, actually interpreted it as such?
manzar9121 9 months ago
@KLSeba
here's one example:tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=21&tid=32959
manzar9121 9 months ago
@KLSeba
No, it is not implied. Instead I argue, that since you know that in the past many people believed this, that the Qur'an must mean this to, but this is your personal bias. None of the early scholars thought it believed that.
manzar9121 9 months ago
Respond to this video...
why would you think it meant that, and then move to disbelieve because of that "different" opinion? No offense; but It sounds to me, that you're having emotional problems and that you desire to leave Islam, and that therefor you're simply looking for these rational justifications to do what you emotionally desire.
manzar9121 9 months ago
@manzar9121
I left faith in exchanged for actual knowledge since I was 14. My wife and my children are religion free. I encourage them to read about it due its influences on culture, arts, architecture etc. but that's as far as it goes.
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is, than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. That's why they call it faith, because it's not knowledge, and my emotional desire is to gain as much of it as possible, not from Koran tho.
KLSeba 9 months ago
@KLSeba
and I have faith, and it does not contradict with my actual knowledge. infact my faith encouraged me to look deeper into the material reality for there are the sign posts towards the supernatural. but anyway, if you dont see them, then it's your own life, and you have the right to live it the way you want. but i should say this tho, life is given once, and we all have to die someday, make your decisions carefully:)...and gudluk with your life, sir:)
manzar9121 9 months ago
@kakamana1000
here are the verses: And the sun runs his course for a period determined for him: that is the decree of (Him), the Exalted in Might, the All-Knowing.(36:38)
It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day: Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to Law).(36:40)
see tafsir ibn-ekathir on these verses, he never said that sun does not move at all, even when science wasn't there!
manzar9121 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@manzar9121
Assalamu alikum brother,
Evolution was an Islamic theory before Darwin was even born, it was called Mohammedan theory of evolution, I proved that beyond any doubt in my video: /watch?v=Ugu3cZN-3jU
helasmoh 10 months ago
a quick note on your problems with science within Qur'an: well, we find it AFTER science discovers it because before, we don't have any explanation for the verse!...for instance, Quran speaks about a different life form, "the Jinns", it might seem a fairy tale right now, but someday when science will be able to demonstrate with solid proof, the existence of other, extra dimensions and the living beings in them which live parallel to our dimensions, next comment plz
manzar9121 10 months ago
@manzar9121
How are you so sure that science would be able to demonstrate Jinns in the future? And how is that assertion any different to anyone suggesting when science would in the future be able to demonstrate fairies, unicorns (or any such nonsense) that would vindicate our beliefs?
Its intellectually dishonest to assert Quran (or any other religious book for that matter) contains any scientific truths because nothing of any scientific merit was ever discovered form them!
kakamana1000 10 months ago
@kakamana1000
how are you so sure that they won't?...Im sure because it's already in theoretical physics!...look for "string theory" "parallel dimensions" "parallel universes"...who saying "non-sense" now?
im sorry but i STRONGLY disagree. have you ever read the Quran, or are you just making claims out of thin air? Quran was the first book on earth which asserted that mountains have got roots, it was the first book which mentioned "evaporation" and the complete water cycle, nxt comment
manzar9121 10 months ago
@manzar9121
I was born and raised as a Muslim and I have read the Quran. All of the things you have mentioned in the Quran has been taken from knowledge of the Greeks...
Furthermore the discovery of none of those phenomenons is accredited to the Quran!
I agree string theory does suggest parallel universes and dimensions. However, Jinns have no evidence for them as Quran does suggest they occupy our physical realms!
kakamana1000 10 months ago
@kakamana1000
mashAllah, very well brother, very well. i had a hint about it before but, i really wonder why!...anyway, on your second point, string theory is still just clever mathematics. they suggest that we could one day, if they really exist, talk to them by the use of gravity waves, made up of gravitons. possibilities are still open, never underestimate science. i for sure believe in jinns. Quran never speaks of anything unscientific. science will follow the truth.
manzar9121 10 months ago
@kakamana1000
the first book which told us that the universe was once a single entity before it was separated, then it was just scattered matter within spacetime, then the heavenly bodies were made out of it. the first book to claim that the universe is expanding! the first book to tell us about the different stages about embryology, the first book to tell us about the separation of sweet and salt waters...the list goes on!
manzar9121 10 months ago
@manzar9121
It is debatable that the Quran does indeed mentions those phenomenons! Most of them (embryology for instance)) were known to the Greeks much before Islam and in those cases Quran makes the same mistakes as they did. Furthermore the discovery of none of those scientific discoveries is accredited to or made by reading the Quran! Not even a single one! Retrofitting science to vague verses is done by all religions! Do you know the Bhagwat Geeta allegedly speaks of multiple universes...
kakamana1000 10 months ago
and the other theories that you cite are quite different from the theory of common ancestor!....gravity for eg, is a theory to explain why things fall!...newton said it was some invisible force between everything that contains mass!...Einstein said it was because the warps in space-time, today string theory says that it's because of movement of tiny strings contained between quarks!...we still DONT KNOW what causes gravity!...lol.
manzar9121 10 months ago
@manzar9121
However Gravity is demonstrably true! Just like Evolution by natural selection and common decent!
kakamana1000 10 months ago
@kakamana1000
things fall=fact, what causes them to fall=still in theory.
life exists=theory, what caused life to exist=still in theory.
manzar9121 10 months ago
@manzar9121
life exists=fact, what causes life to exist=still in theory*
manzar9121 10 months ago
@manzar9121
You are still making the fallacy of Theory being inferior to Facts in science, which is not the case. Gravity is a law but we dont really have a conclusive theory of it yet. We have models to explain it though. However evolution is a theory that is backed by facts and evidence. The origins of life is not within the scope of evolution to explain it only deals with the diversity of life.
kakamana1000 10 months ago
@kakamana1000
im sorry buddy, im not the one making a fallacy here. i wonder what's that hard to understand in it. you still have not put my argument down. please dont use the word evolution, it's a bit misleading. macro and micro evolution are correct, demonstrable, falsifiable and testable theories, and i accept them. i have problems with the theory of common descent only, it's a vague historical theory. which does not explain "the nature of physics", or "the physics of nature".
manzar9121 10 months ago
@kakamana1000
you still fail to demonstrate an example by which we can test the theory, as in the case with general relativity.
manzar9121 10 months ago
i mean c'mon!...the similarities in our genetic makeup could also strongly propound that all the life forms were created by the same creator! why can't it be?...and just visual similarities in fossil structures between primates and human beings, I don't think necessarily mean that we had a common ancestor with them!...we could discuss that in depth if you like anytime. next comment
manzar9121 10 months ago
@manzar9121
The same genes same designer argument is falsified by atavisms! Why do chickens have genes to make teeth? when insects dont? Why do whales have the genes to make legs and we have the genes to make tails? The only explanation for this phenomenon is common decent!
kakamana1000 10 months ago