Added: 2 years ago
From: ZuluFightrunner
Views: 8,122
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (616)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • I hate this Zakir Naik guy! he preaches garbage to thousands of people on a regular basis in order to convert them to Islam. Unfortunately he is always making up lies and making any other view of life other than his own seem like a joke. People who make up facts and preach lies to thousands of uneducated minds should be arrested but unfortunately since the majority of people on this planet are religious that won't happen anytime soon

  • Dr.Zaik Naik is not a scholar of science nor Islam. His attitude to Islam is similiar. He belongs to a small Wahabi sect and does not represent the opinions of Muslim scholars and Muslim scientists.

  • Comment removed

  • All these names flying around thicker than the feces at a red neck monkey bar fight surprise you?

    Mind you, there is a lot more where this comes from.

    And over there, any "foreign" (=western) sounding name immediately adds an aura of authority and respectability to your argument.

    "Do you dare question Mr. George who actually wrote a book about this?"

    And ooh yeah, me come from India.

  • what is the ending music.

  • @aaqucnaona94 Extreme ways : Moby.

  • @ZuluFightrunner Thanks for the quick reply.

  • Pecking at niches.... I came for the accent but as a student and a evolutionary biologist, that really does take the cake!

  • 6:28... he says crazy ape and man and its Albert Szent Gyorgi... atleast get it correct.

  • “And the heaven We created with might, and indeed We are (its) expander.” (Quran 51:47)

  • @MU5h3d1 "What does God need with a starship" (Star Trek V: The Final Frontier)

  • @ZuluFightrunner what?

  • @MU5h3d1 I thought I would quote some fiction as well.

  • @ZuluFightrunner yeah because an illiterate man would know that 1400 years ago... dyu believe in the big bang?

  • @MU5h3d1 I accept the evidence. Now when did Mohammed talk about the expansion of space-time? Does he give an estimated date? Does he speculate on the initial conditions of the universe pre big bang?. Why is it only since the Big Bang theory was proposed that Islam claimed it was predicted in their big book of bullshit? Does Mohammed mention red shift? Cosmic Microwave background Radiation? Or is this some very inventive "interpretation" going on ?

  • Comment removed

  • @MU5h3d1 " any Scientist in the Universe something must have caused it.. and they will agree with me" - No they don't stop fucking lying. They say "we don't know". Seems like you're doing the best to imitate the illiterate man. For the love of your god go and learn some fucking punctuation and proper grammar.

  • @ZuluFightrunner "stop fucking lying" see you atheists dont even have etiquette to speak properly, you don't know... but we know. You will die one day and that day you will realise.. EVERYONE dies.. Happiness, sadness and love can not be explained by science... and one day the feelings you feel effectively your soul... you will realise when death reaches you...

  • “The heaven and the earth were joint together. And We clove them…(Surah Anbiya,21:30

  • The sad thing in this video is all those people watching and possibly believing everything they hear, even though every other thing out of that guy's mouth is total bullshit.

  • muslims have no fucking clue what they're talking about - they are the lowest bar religion has to offer, the least sophisticated, most joyless, and most backwards. if we should hate or pity them more I don't know, I wish there was more we could do for people born to such a substandard way of learning about the world.

  • Just FYI

    I think the reference is to Frank B Salisbury who wrote a book called "The Case for Divine Design" - apparently he's a botanist and a professor at Utah University: hmm, Utah . . . why doesn't that surprise me?

  • It's the Indian guy from Short Circuit!

  • Yupe....he is an Indian creationist idiot...just like the American creationists idiots

  • To be fair, many of the things you couldn't find may be attributed to you not being able to decipher his pronunciation... I believe the book is called "the crazy ape"... His claim still doesn't hold water... but I think laughing at his accent just cheapens your argument. Don't get me wrong... you are right on all counts, he is stupid, but not because he talks with an accent. Peace and good video none the less.

  • must be a different Darwin cause Darwin was on the beagle.

    pecked at ecological niches ? arrgghhh ..

    is he saying 4 hominids ? that sounds very low hmm, google finds a site that lists 21. 21 > 4

  • Is it kind of ironic that Islam was perhaps the only Abrahamic faith whose scientists and philosophers actually came close to discovering the theory of evolution? At least, this was so during the Islamic Golden Age. Oh well...

  • @Watsonthe2nd the golden age of islam (knowledge and research) was more economic (due to the stability of the empire ) versus being attributable to islamic doctrine... stupidity and dogma took over.. and now muslims are back in the iron age...

  • Other religious groups, eg., Hutterites, Amish, etc., outside mainstream, live on their own communities, grow their own food, are self-sufficient, why don't these creationist guys do the same? Its like they want the advantages of science, (watch them give up their tvs and cars, ha ha), and still want to shove this garbage down our throats. They should be FORCED to live apart. (I wish that could happen).

  • what an idiot he is !!!!!!!

    Look at the sheer confidence, accent and the way he speaks all of it ........

    So confidently !

  • Religious dumb-ass explainning evolution?????

  • its understandable why muslims are backward and badly evolved humans its because they ban science from their schools so if a child is reared on mumbo jumbo and superstitious nonsense i.e you reap what you sow.

  • @megamus3 It's not even muslims, it's poor countries with almost no infrastructure. Alot of them don't even go to school.

    Understanding evolution correctly (meaning enough not to fall for stupid creationist arguments) and knowing enough about science to know where to find proper information both require a high level education. I mean, unless you've done college here, you won't get that education (only partially), and we have one of the best educational systems in the world.

  • @ivanlagrossemoule am sorry my friend fight the good fight.

  • @megamus3 I wasn't going against you just giving my thought on the subject.

  • @ivanlagrossemoule hello mate you sound panic'ed dont be ,scrub of the brainwashing and it is a beautiful world

  • I think a laugh-track should've been added to Naik's speeches. :)

  • hello Dr Zakir Naik has accent and he meant Galapagos islands which is the island Darwin visited

  • Comment removed

  • instead i'll just say this. Zakir Naik you retard.

  • i'm trying to think of a argument against what hes saying but they are all pretty much done

  • These magic lists of 100s Scientists who don't believe in evolution-- I personally get a kick out of it when these lists only have a handful of biologists on them. The Discovery Institute list was torn up good in a video by DonExodus2.

  • Minor nitpick: Crick and Watson didn't discover DNA, they elucidated it's 3D structure, and hence mechanism for replication.

  • again ,, brothers and sisters ,, in Islam there is both faith and logic and there is always a proooooof ,,, may allah be with you

  • @m3oda11 Also looks like there is no punctuation in Islam.

  • Comment removed

  • @m3oda11 And it now appears that there is no Sarcasm in Islam to boot.

  • @ZuluFightrunner what are you trying to say here

  • @ZuluFightrunner well, you say that the bible is from your god. it seems to me that if your god made the mistake of saying: ( The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises (in Ecclesiastes 1:5 ).) gives me the right of making a couple mistakes in punctuation.

  • @m3oda11 Yes, the Bible is just as wrong as the Quran !

  • @m3oda11 I am not a christian.

  • please google ( piltdown man ) and tell me what do you think ? thanks.

  • @drshiddo Piltdown man was a hoax.

  • @drshiddo Piltdown Man was a hoax, just like 100% of "evidence" for all religions. At least the evidence for evolution is 99.999999999% real.

  • This man is 100% scientifically illiterate. That bothers me less than seeing the number of people who, presumably, are listening to him and believing his ignorant rantings. 

  • This guy is a real fruit loop- religion is a celebration of ignorance. These idiots just don't understand the scientific use of the word theory - It does not mean hypothesis or idea. I feel for the poor fools believe this crank

  • Surprisingly Islam only up until a few hundred years ago was teaching evolution way before Darwin, they held on to the Qurans description of how mankind came to be.

    How the Quran states that we were placed on earth then fashioned "in stages" etc.

    Islam was teaching evolution before Darwin was born

  • @hudfadz And before that the Greeks spoke about evolution. Must mean that Zeus is real.

  • @ZuluFightrunner I knew the lightning wasn't from charged particles in the air.

  • Naik is an idiot and thanks to you tube he is being exposed!

  • OMG can't we just 'round up' all these nutjob creationists and send them to Mars? Religion is such utter garbage lol.

  • @MrJohndl I vote for the sun instead of Mars

  • Once and for all. Evolution is a scientific theory. The theory of evolution is the best description we have for the evidence (facts) we have gathered thus far.

  • HOW CAN ALL THIS PEOPLE HEAR THIS BULLSHIT......WHAT A FUCKTARD

  • FACT is opposite of FICTION Someone please fill the blanks with either or, when filled with FACT please show proof

    __ God figured out the most suitable language to reveal to people is arabic

    __ God made up a "poem" in arabic

    __ God talked to an angel and commanded it to talk to Mo(hammed)

    __ God commanded the angel to tell Mo to recite the poem

    __ The angel obeyed, and so did Mo

    __ Mo claims that an angel talked to him on God's behalf

    I do not know about you guys, only the last one is FACT

  • @glakagz ,,,,,,,,, aaaaaaaaaalll of this you mintioned are faaaaaaaaaaaaaacts ,,, we are Muslims and we believe what we are told to ,, and this is mintioned in the holly book quraan ,, how can u not believe so ??!!!!!!!

  • @m3oda11 I'm not against what u were told to believe... I said when someone says FACT.. show proof. don't say because the q'ran says so, that's not proof

  • @m3oda11

    "we are Muslims and we believe what we are told to"

    Exactly.

  • @m3oda11 "i want to ask something if you are a christian or a non-believer ,, do you have believe , logic and faith conjugated ?" - Try rephrasing that into a coherent sentence and i might be able to answer.

  • "I can give you a list of hundreds of scientists who are against Darwin's theory." Perhaps, but none of them exist. Lol, what a moron.

  • Dr Naik is a dumbass. If you say something loud, it doesn't become a fact. Please Dr. Naik, get your facts right before talking. Homo-sapiens are still alive :) One dumb Indian creationist. Makes me feel so ashamed of Indians being an Indian :(

  • Evolution was an Islamic theory before Darwin was even born: /watch?v=Ugu3cZN-3jU

  • A mini rant about homosexuals? I guess mention of "Sir Whitemeat" got him in the mood.

  • This is unfortunately a man who knows just enough about evolution to get it all screwed-up and give this presentation and cause others to become confused about it. 

  • creationists are so dam stupid

  • @AntaresInScorpius your dam stupid

  • That video was shocking, but so are most of the comments on this page.

  • Invented vitamin C lol!

  • @montrealwatcher Man! Is that so? I should purify that shit and sell it, to muslims junkies

    It's not illegal is it?

  • @montrealwatcher well dude seriously when i c the helplessness of these creationists and d bullshit they need to prove thr claims,i can only laugh i mean we need sum1 to kick his ass this basterd naik declines all invitations to debate by hindus,atheists,christians i wud be more than happy to even c a religious person kick his ass atleast islam wud be disproved,only god can save humanity from this delusion called religion(lol!!!!!) and hope humanity emancipates itself from religion and gods

  • This corn-hole isn't even qualified to drive a cab in NYC, he should be working at FOX News. These kinds of misinformation spreading campaigns should have consequences for the perpetrators like Naik - throw him in jail for a few years and force him to get an education, otherwise a lobotomy - this is such a destructive thing for society when someone purposely retards the knowledge of innocent people.

  • this guys a doctor? are they giving phd's away?

  • @Foxboy106

    He has an mbbs degree it quite easy to become a medical doctor in pakistan and india :P

  • @Foxboy106 ye4s he claimns to be a doctor.... probably prescribing camel piss for almost evry thing ... the quran says it's good

  • Well this guy is truly a loony.

    Though the nasty thing about Islam is the very loose wording of the Quran. When ever science proves something beyond what even these religious nuts can deflect which is in direct conflict with the Quran they just go back to their poetry book and interpret the wording another way. "No, see here. It doesn't say the earth is flat anymore. Now it says the earth is shaped like an ostrich egg we just read it wrong all this time. The Quran is right again. Praise Allah!

  • GOD SAVE HUMANITY FROM RELIGION!!!!!!!!!!!!(LOL)

  • what a charlatan,mohammad was d zakir naik of his time he also talked nonsense wich d stupid arabs swallowed as god's word,morons,just look 2day all evil wicked deeds r allowed of if u hav d word imam,reverend,saint b4 ur name d same way all evil ws allowed in d ancient middle east if u had d word prophet b4 ur name,it ws a region hungery for messiahs nd prophets no wonder dat charlatan lunatic mohamamd made a fool out of others he is dead but we hav a ghastly cult to deal with

  • fuckin muslim basterds,scumbags of humanity

    definition of muslims- a group of people spread around the world with an iq level lower than d size of thr mutilated penis nd in case of women the clitoris

    what are thr beliefs?that d entire universe was created and exists so tht d male members of a primate species living on a corner of a very small planet of d solar system can enjoy mass orgy and sex with 72 virgin houris after thr death nd dats d reason y theis universe exists makes perfect sense

  • Watching that was PAINFUL!!!

  • see the number of skullcaps in the audience. Only muslims can listen to this looney.

    His only ace is he can lie with confidence.

    Now you see the curriculum of madarsas

  • Comment removed

  • someone seriously needs to shut this looney up

  • LOL now the Muslims are becoming arrogant like the Christians

  • @bringonthewrath theyre always as dubm as christians, its just we are less in contact with muslims than we are to christians that...we dont really realize how dumb they are

  • this muslim doesn't have no idea of what he talking about.

  • @TheLovesoul1

    Are you saying then that he has SOME idea of what he's talking about?

  • CreationistsWON this guy is an idiot. seriouisly.

  • im a christian and i reject evolution because i am not a homo sapien im straight dammit like the good lord baby jesus made me. all you devil worshipful homo atheist out there can burn in hell!

  • @BladedArrowTBGamer Nice troll

  • @nemisis99331 not really a troll im from alabama and im just imitating teh people down here =/

  • @BladedArrowTBGamer Ahhh, like that is it? You appear to live deep in the united states of jesus there my friend. I take it that you don't share these enlightened views.

  • @nemisis99331 no i dont not share the views of my fellow alabamians. I tend to lean toward reason not magick (but harry potter is still awesome ;D )

  • Damn this kind of missinformation needs to end. These religious fuckers deserve all the laughter and ridicule they get. Useless superstition has dragged us down for too long, its time we kill religion.

  • Naik, you poisonous little gremlin.

    I know hundreds of thousands of people who disagree with you.

    There's Dr. Ambrose Bootlace; Prof. Bumsore; Dolly Doggybag; Kermit Phlegm; Neil Legweak; Prof. U R Soul; Abdul Twat; Sir Simon Felching... Hundreds! Thousands! Not forgetting Victoria Sponge; Rose Water; Lily Pond; Jenny Rator; Dick Splash; Rick Shaw; Peter File; Ben Dover; Paige Turner; Rita Book. Millions!

    I win. Now, stop ranting like a muppet on crack and go learn something.

  • What's the intro song?

  • This guy makes Kent Hovind sound like the epitome of scientific integrity. And worse, Islamic congregations are less able to critique this kind of demagogue. I predict a second wave of creationism, originating in Islam, that will be so dogmatic and ignorant as to make Christian creationism seem reasonable by comparison.

  • @NevilleRhysBarnes - Too late. Naik has quite a big following among hoardes of other gooey-eyed brain-donors and he's not the only one. You've never read any of Harun Yahyah's tripe ?

  • Well pretty much everyone knows the so called "Dr." is a complete fool. Only gullable muslims would listen to him.

  • Sir Whitemeat ? WTF !? LOL

  • jeeze, whoever invited him to that seminar must of been embarassed afterwards =/

    the guy doesnt even know anything, not even what a suit is. he got an ugly tie for sure.

  • He had me @ sir whitemeat....

  • Homo sapiens...died out....

    I'M DEAD! NUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUOOOOOOOOOO­!

  • I'm a Muslim, and this is too much stupid. I wanna fuck him, I've no problem to become a gay for 1 day for fucking him......

  • Comment removed

  • I found someone by the name of Frank Salisbury, but he was a painter, not a biologist.

    There is such a thing as "paramecia". It's the plural of "paramecium". Just like "bacteria" is the plural form of "bacterium".

  • lol someone tell zakir naik that a theory is a collection of observable and demonstrable facts

  • One slight problem. At 7:58-"proven" to the same level of confidence that gravitation has been proven.- Last I checked, there is significantly more evidence/studies/literature in support of evolution than there is for gravity. Try not to disservice the certainty of evolution by comparing it to something as shaky as the "theory" of gravitation. hahahaha! Brilliant vid.

  • Always a jaw dropper to see a religious... well.. spokesman? who 100% resembles satire and caricature.

    Noticed how all the women are in the back of the room, btw?

  • zakir naik you fuckbag

  • Darwin friend's name, the one with the letter, was Thomas Thornton.

    There was a guynamed that. It was clear that you mispelled your google search.

    If I prove you are wrong with such a small detail, I prove you never done your homework properly and your entire video is incorrect.

  • @MrPointblank5 - Time for you to do some homework. Look up the logical fallacy known as a non-sequitur and see if you can work out how it applies to your comment.

  • @RoadRunnerLaser - the point am trying to make is simple : Zulu's comments are easily debatable and easily proven false, they are nothing more than his opinion (which I respect). if your academic sensitivity was hurt by me cutting an argument short and jumping to the conclusion, i can go the long way and break it down for you in logical steps. p.s: don't patronize people, it won't bring you any friends

  • @MrPointblank5 - Contrary to your claim, proving that someone is wrong on ONE small detail does not invalidate their entire argument unless it hinges on that very detail. If you want to be patronising to someone else and then set up a non-sequitur, don't be surprised if people treat you with the contempt you demonstrate to others.

  • @RoadRunnerLaser - you're trying to say that am not proving my point. check this out: naik mentions thornton, zulu says there was no such a guy called thornton, I check and there was someone called thornton (anyone with internet can see that).

    you can conclude that zulu is either misinforming, mocking at naik's accent, or he just simply didn't bother checking the fact or anything along these lines. whichever you choose it tells you the same thing: this is not reliable. rest my case

  • @MrPointblank5 - Naik mentions someone. Supposedly Thornton. I'll accept for the moment that it is. Zulu says there's no such guy as whatever Naik says. TRUE.

    YOU conclude that Zulu is misinforming, mocking or didn't bother checking facts. Yet, if Naik had bothered to check ANY of the crap he's spouting, he'd have got a lot more of it right.

    Your case (That you proved Zulu's ENTIRE argument wrong) rests on the fact that you think you proved him wrong on on little detail. A non-sequitur.

  • @MrPointblank5 - Let's assume that whatever it is that Naik said is Thornton but he didn't pronounce the guy's name properly. Let's also assume that Zulu didn't try to decipher what Naik said or investigate that particular detail effectively.

    Let's even go so far as to suggest that Zulu is WRONG on that point. It STILL doesn't prove his entire video is wrong. Maybe you realise this and that's why you've changed your claim from "proven wrong" to "unreliable". Nice backpedalling !

  • @RoadRunnerLaser - admirable skills.. but! if we call Zulu's attempt at ridiculing Naik's claims a WHOLE, and we also identify that for each proposition Naik is making, Zulu has a counterargument, and we call that a PART, we can safely say that Zulu is trying to prove as a WHOLE that Naik is wrong using PARTS which are wrong. I wasn't backpedalling. when i said "proven wrong" i was reffering to the theory, when i said "unreliable" i was reffering to Zulu

  • @MrPointblank5 - Rephrased:

    ...we can safely say that Zulu is trying to prove as a whole that Naik is wrong using parts, ONE OF WHICH may be wrong. Remove that one part from his video. Does the rest still stand? If so, then you've not proven him wrong by pointing out one failure, have you? His ENTIRE presentation doesn't depend upon that one point (as you would have us believe that it does).

  • @RoadRunnerLaser - I could argue that a whole made up of ten correct parts and one incorrect, is wrong as a whole, but that would be just lazy.

    another point that Zulu's making is the fact the theory is taught in schools for all the evidences confirm the theory, but it's constant news the discovery of the missing link only for the story to fizzle out. even if the missing link is found what does it prove, and how does the theory proves there is no creation?

  • @MrPointblank5 - No you couldn't. It would be a flawed argument, not simply lazy.

    Many "missing links" have been found. They're called "transitional" specimens.... and between each of them, lies many more transitional specimens, some we've found, some yet to be found, others never to be found.

    The theory of Evolution by natural selection is in direct contradiction to every claim of "creation" I've ever heard..Eg. God created man in his own image and woman from man's ribs? FAIL !

  • @MrPointblank5 - You're called on your BS!

    A) "whichever you choose it tells you the same thing: this is not reliable. rest my case"

    B) "when i said "unreliable" i was reffering to Zulu"

    So, Zulu qualifies as a "this" or an "it" ???

  • @RoadRunnerLaser - Zulu and his video, a person and an "it"

  • @MrPointblank5 - Urm... no... That's "THEY".. which in English would be rather an unusual construction. It would be more usual to say "in his video, he is unreliable" or "he and his video are unreliable".... Keep squirming. The hole you're digging for yourself is getting deeper and deeper.

  • @RoadRunnerLaser - i do apologise, english is not my first language

  • @MrPointblank5 - It may not be, but you're demonstrating a level of competency which should preclude you from making such basic errors. I'm quite sure that you can tell the difference between "he", "she", "it" and "they". Your excuses are just getting weaker and weaker.

  • @RoadRunnerLaser - The point here is the theory of evolution, is that something that makes sense - and what are it's implications. Is it worth taking as FACT a THEORY and what are the risks of doing so. Does Pascal's Wager appeal to your wisdom? Life it's all about taking the safest choices, protecting oneself, isn't it?

  • @MrPointblank5 - I can agree with your final point, that we should take the safest choices in life to minimise risk. That's why I prefer my choices to be based on what is demonstrably true rather than in some aged book of superstition or the claptrap spouted about it by a guy who has a demonstrably flawed understanding of reality.

    I hope you're not suggesting that we should take Pascal's Wager? We'd have to believe in all gods just in case one myth is correct...!

  • @RoadRunnerLaser - it is good to be safe. but what is demonstrably true? and what is reality? what you can see, smell, touch, sense, think, imagine? can you imagine anything beyond your visual sphere, and i do not mean distance, i mean in your near vicinity. can you imagine beings undetectable to the human eye? and if they're not part of your "demonstrable reality" would that make them exist any less?

    If i were proposing believing in God, what would your reponse be?

  • @MrPointblank5 - My response would be to ask you to present your evidence... so far it sounds as if you've started on an argument from ignorance, but I'll reserve judgement until you've presented your evidence.

  • @RoadRunnerLaser - The creation, from it's inception, until it's end follows a prescribed path, and intelligent design, a testimony of premeditation.

    There has to be a Creator, if you can sense a Creation, the same way but on an infintely smaller scale there has to be a carpenter, if there is a table.

    A work so perfect - yourself, the world around you - it doesn't just happen.

  • @MrPointblank5 - You're presenting what's called the "Teleological Argument". It's a form of argument from ignorance and because complexity does not necessarily imply design, it's another non-sequitur. I suggest you do as I recommended in my first response to you. Learn what a non-sequitur is and how not to fall for one.

  • @RoadRunnerLaser - Complexity is one side of creation. Perfection, necessity, complementarity, earth's safe distance from the sun, the tilt in its axis, etc. are others. They celestial bodies work together, in a beautifully designed way.

    Similarly, you spend some time thinking before writing a reply, and it doesn't just happen that your fingers run on the keyboard and incidentally your message makes sense, and answers my question (or attempts to) - there has to be a design to it

  • @MrPointblank5 - It's still a non-sequitur and an argument from ignorance.

    Just because YOU cannot comprehend how such a Universe might exist without a creator doesn't mean that it must have one. You're not comparing like with like in your examples. We know that tables and messages have creators. We've either created tables or messages of our own and maybe watched others do so, too. The Teleological Argument just isn't successful. It demonstrates ignorance, no more.

  • @MrPointblank5 - ... and as I pointed out before, in trying to assert this argument, you run into the problem of infinite regress which means you need to explain your creator's creator... or lack, thereof.

  • @MrPointblank5 - Oh... and Human beings are far from perfect in design. If you're proposing a creator, then I suggest that he's a moron.

  • @MrPointblank5 - I'll tell you what... For fun, let's just assume that you're right and complexity DOES imply design. Then... Who or what designed the creator of our Universe because his complexity and perfection implies that he needs a creator of his own... That's known as the problem of infinite regress. You've really not studied this stuff very much have you? I guess you just bought into Pascal's Wager and had done with it because it was easier. Looking forward to meeting Shiva or the FSM?

  • @RoadRunnerLaser - to begin with - complexity & perfection in creation do require design - you're not making me any favors!! Now, as for God, He can't have a Creator, as He has to be perfect, and to be perfect, means a lot of things, one of them being to exist outside the time&space frame, hence without a beginning.

  • @MrPointblank5 - You're not doing yourself any favours. You're contradicting yourself and making baseless assertions if read one way, and employing circular reasoning if read another. You just shot yourself in the foot and ended your argument on a FAIL.

    Didn't you know that the FSM made your God with his noodly appendages? The FSM is the only creator capable of creating creators and he deliberately created your God to be logically contradictory as a big cosmic joke for atheists to enjoy.

  • @MrPointblank5 - ... and if not circular reasoning, it was, at best, a tautology. Either way, you're still arguing from ignorance and doing a very bad job of it.

  • @RoadRunnerLaser - Well, am confident on where am standing. do you support the theory of evolution? and if yes what is the source of all life? and to save yourself some time how do explain the coming into being of the first microorganisms?

  • @MrPointblank5 - Now you're confusing evolution by natural selection with abiogenesis... and, just in case I haven't already the point clear to you. Proving me wrong, won't assist in proving you right. The burden of proof still lies with you and you're failing to deliver in spectacular style.

  • @RoadRunnerLaser - I had the impression that you are avaoiding direct answers, now I have the certitude :-) I do not have to prove anything, and there is no pressure on any of us. You might be smarter, slicker, faster, whatever, am not here to compete but to participate. you do not have to answer me, but you owe it to yourself, how did the first microorganisms came into being? the theory of evolution, just notices similarities across species, but has no ground-breaking theoretical value

  • @MrPointblank5 - I'm not avoiding direct answers, I'm avoiding allowing you to keep shifting tack. There's a difference. I've already told you that there is a huge difference between abiogenesis (the start of life) and evolution (the mechanisms by which life adapts to its environment). This is a commonly repeated error. One made almost exclusively by Creationists. If you want to discuss abiogenesis, then sure... but as you've consistently failed so far, I don't hold out much hope for you.

  • @MrPointblank5 - If I were proposing that you believe in a small china teapot in orbit around our Sun, what would be YOUR response?

  • @RoadRunnerLaser - I investigated the matter, and I reached the following conclusions:

    A) you are absolutely right - there are millions of teapots orbiting the sun indeed - all of them, here on planet earth (not sure if they discarded any on the moon, mars)

    B) it doesnt affect my life in any particular way so am just taking a mental note of it and move on

  • @MrPointblank5 - Brilliant bit of reasoning...!!! I take my hat off to you.

    If I'd stated the problem correctly then I'd not have left such a gaping loop-hole...

    So, now that you've identified that teapots can exist and are found on Earth, how about I describe two more. One which has an orbital period of 200 days and an aphelion of approximately 1.3AU and a perihelion of about 1.32AU?

    Now, how about one in orbit somewhere between Mars and Earth about which we no little else for sure?

  • @RoadRunnerLaser - the aphelion is always a higher number than the perihelion, so i guess that planet's trajectory would be worth seeing, as for the possibility of another teapot existing somewhere in space - there is such a thing as space trash, they don't recycle on the spatial missions - so why not? probably, the point you're trying to make is that the idea of God is as acceptable as the teapot you never seen. i do believe that the subject is too significant to be treated with contempt

  • @MrPointblank5 - Superb. You've determined that the "facts" are logically contradictory. You could also have said that an orbital period of 200 days does not match such an orbit even if I'd simply made a mistake in my terminology.

    In the same way, we can discount most of the claims made about a creator. Until someone provides rational evidence for a creator, then I see it as no more significant than worrying about Batman yet far more worthy of contempt. People don't make laws based on Batman !

  • @RoadRunnerLaser - One thing we can agree upon, that every claim should be evaluated and debated until the issue is crystal clear, then you can form a qualified opinion. I'll give you an example that made me think really hard.. it's written in a religious book: "..and We have sent down the iron.." meaning the iron on planet earth is of alien origins. The iron is deep under the earth's crust, at a depth which couldn't be verified at the time when this book was revealed. how do you explain

  • @MrPointblank5 - How do I explain? That you're destroying your own argument, so you've decided to change the subject and try a different one.

    However, the verse about "sending down" iron in the Qur'an, when read in context shows that the verse is referring to it as a gift from Allah.

    See Surah 57:25 and you'll see the phrase "sent down" occurs more than once.

    It says nothing about extra-terrestrial origin. Iron WAS known about at the time that Mohammed cobbled together his abysmal poetry.

  • @RoadRunnerLaser - am trying to make this an enjoyable conversation and it is not my purpose to make you believe - that isn't my job. i change the subject when i feel that you are not prepared to accept other truths than your own. you are avoiding a direct answer, and jumping to grab the chance of expressing your opinion on poetry, which has nothing to do with the subject tackled. If i was to ask you what is at the centre of the earth, what would you say

  • @MrPointblank5 - Why would you change the subject when you feel that I won't accept your "proofs"? If not to try to find a "proof" which I would accept?

    I've already told you that I will accept rational evidence or argument. So far, you've presented none. It's not that I won't accept any argument or proof other than my own. For a start, I am neither Darwin nor Newton.

    I didn't avoid a direct answer. I gave it and placed it in the context of Mohammed's actions.