Maybe ask yourself, would this channel even exist and would suboor even give the theory of evolution a second thought if he were not religious and if evolution did not cast doubt on the story of creation described in the quran?

@@fatmaramadan6928 who said there is a doubt in the Quran 🤔 The doubt is in the notion that science pushing absolute facts about something not completely observable

@@commandar88 *Who said there is doubt in the quran* Every muslim that visits this site and attempts to disprove evolution .....

@@fatmaramadan6928 I have no doubts about evolution. There is evolution happening in my gut right now. Lets not use the word evolution so loosely as we know its not such a word

@@commandar88 Let us not attempt to play word games either. the complete theory of evolution is not accepted by muslims not primarily because of any scientific objections but because of a religious belief that an unprovable god created mankind apart from the other animals. You have a biased religious objection rooted in fear. Fear of eternal damnation if you contradict the quran ,your perceived message from god.

Sad..

KarimBilal1 mad tingg

init bruv

Saboor proved that he doesn't have the first fucking clue on how evolution works

@@Greenbd100 I actually think he does....... but is too frightened to admit it. How would you feel if you believed the eternal existence of your soul (whatever that is) depended on you believing in god/allah. Additionally his muslim friends and colleagues would disown him or worse . I cannot believe he has studied evolution that much and still does not understand.

Guess you've never looked at the SOURCES at the bottom of a wikipedia page....

So that's all it takes to beat Saboor?

A question can be loaded, poorly framed or misleading. Sometimes a question deserves critisism

So true. Anyone can modify Wikipedia. Now you know his credentials. University professors don't. Even accept Wikipedia as an academic source.

lol true even my university says not to use Wikipedia for assignments

Like?

Nas is not peer reviewed would probably fall under secondary sources. Nami is just an alliance not an academic source. Again, where are the academic sources?

Perhaps you should read the comments carefully before making yourself look like a foolish kid. Please show me where i did not accept? I clearly said and i quote myself "Nas is not peer reviewed would probably fall under secondary sources." And Nami is an alliance. You dont need an alliance you can go the sources them selves. Using academic doesnt make it academic. Just like eating a tomato doesn't make you a tomato. Suboor actually gave real peer reviewed primary academic sources published scientific articles, books, and direct quotes from researchers. Goes to show how far people like you will go to defend intellectual dishonesty and disingenuousness.

Aron Ra convinced Mr saboor and they are now happily married.

+A'amash Abd Al Samad lol wikipedia and google search is best search engine there is for knowledge heck with it you can even live in modern time even if you went to Stone age with time travel. So should i take your comment srsly? nope your nothing.

A'amash Abd al Samad + I would like to know why any one would take a guy seriously whos final and ultimate decision about everything must without exception not contradict ancient religious books that contain no in depth scientific information.

scott williamson + *It's not about the person . It's about the evidence they present* Which brings it back to the person presenting the evidence. If you are dishonest, stupid or misinformed or working to a specific agenda ,you will present misinformation. Sometimes deliberately, sometimes out of fear and sometimes because they cannot contradict a strongly held belief. Truth ,is truth though and has no religious allegiance ,no political agenda and may not always be what you want to hear.

Scott- i think in this debate, it is about the person... 1.he used wiki & not established website as his source.just showing how was your information gathering standard & skill..if you are not using the established academic source, then everyone's opinion become acceptable,thus you have no right to tell anybody to be 'wrong'...by that logic 2. @1:43:06 he just telling story without proof..he was with expert....such statement was not acceptable in science academic...just showing how was his way of saying thing without proof.just like asking theist,do you saw the prophet receiving the revelation?double standard applied,just to 'win' an audience... Suboor actually responded to this.. 3.@1:46:20 Suboor never said niche construction was the 3rd way,he said 'he beleive that nic cons. is not an alternative'... but he failed to notice that(or intentionally),but make it as a 'big point' to refute Suboor...just to 'win' an audience...what a shame..just shows that your listening skills is very weak..or intentional... theres more in this debate but...you know..

Scott- what about my 2nd & 3rd point?... =)

Maxmud Xareed I agree egotistic sperm have no manner

Because it hurt your feeling that's why.

he is arguing from irrationality i mean the atheist

The Athiest argue in a manner that may discourage the Muslim from watching? Yeah if facts are discouraging. Your whole religion is based on dogma,myth,heresy and superstitions. None of which are of any use in modern discourse which knowledge is desired.

If you Musljms love Islam so much and it's so great then why aren't you all living in Muslim government ruled countries.rhetorical

Liban Gedleh I noticed that too after a few debates, its either semantics or definitions

Semantics and definitions become important when the other side is so fond of equivocation fallacies

Liban Gedleh you can't corner an Atheist you creatard.

@Dan Delgado atheists believe in a matter-God with his blind Power of cause, this Is most stupid belief ever.

@Kuffar Legion atheism Is a positive affremation, not negative like agnosticism, so pick up you're of dictionary. And you're nickname tell us all we have to know about you. The reality Is that atheists are terrified about the consequences of an ultimate judge, and they retort to semantics to win their arguments. But they believe in nothing at all and all their Life they are tormented with this dilemma of God existence, and lastly they fall on depression or worstly suicide. Have you ever read the Quran?

Fahad Zafar facts are undisputed, not unrefutable. Just thought I might clear that up

Fahad Zafar look up the meaning of the word fact. There is no definition of the word fact that uses the word irrefutable in it's explanation. You are using the word wrongly and so naive about it, it's amazing. These are things they teach you in basic science classes the world over. Something being irrefutable is not an intrinsic property of a fact. You are probably going to argue that there are irrefutable facts, which is a totally different topic, which we can't even get to until you understand what a fact is.

You guys are doing the same thing than those 2 guys. No matter what the definition of fact is, the model of Darwinism is based a lot on assumptions, which Aaron completely denied in this debate. That's where he messed up. Also, there is a difference between observations and a model that explains the observation.

Scientific predictions that are not tested. But based on data. That's why we have a different model of an observation. Darwinism is just one of them. And that's why it's not a fact. There are huge holes in Darwinism that can't be explained like the question of consciousness. It became a pseudo science where everything is speculative and assumptions ( no prediction ). Let me give you a book to read since you are the only one in this planet who know how science works: Darwinian Fairytales by David Stove

baboo popa Darwin married his cousin. And had a few kids. Genetic diversity.

Kuffar Legion I think it’s more like “you don’t understand my point of view” rather than it doesn’t make sense. We still use our academic establishments as reference. One can choose not to, but then we will only listening to someone’s opinion without any credibility.

Kuffar Legion There is no dispute over the findings of what Darwin is saying. Yet if you listened to both sides carefully the philosophy of science was also explained. Which you seemed to overlook. There are many loop holes in Darwin’s theory as even Darwin has admitted to that. At this point we are only talking about the Darwin theory. For some reason there are a general ignorance about how Islam thinks about science or is it against it. Ignorant people think that Islam is only about fairy tales and an old guy in the sky. It is much deeper than that. But since one doesn’t bother to educate themselves then they make the quick convenient conclusion based their limited knowledge and emotions. Search KZfaq for science in the Quran and you will know.

Clyde Ssites “you could not be more wrong. You could try, but you would not be succesful”

Clyde+ What is your explanation for the fact early fossil remains are less complex than more recent fossil remains?

And the answer is?

Malhama Ul Kubra who says they haven’t evolved?

@@tmrv2974 They are still here since then. The ones that have evolved have evolved to better stronger bacteria you see. They are ring fenced and cannot by the permission of Allah swt to macro evolve to sharks to monkey to man. No raher they mutate to other better sophisticated bacteria and we have them at this position right now

​@@malhamaulkubra4437 How much have you read about evolution? If you are asking this question it clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of the basic mechanisms of evolution. Evolution does NOT mean one organism changes into another one. It is not a ladder of improvement. Humans are not "more evolved" than monkeys, and monkeys are not "more evolved" than bacteria. These organisms have been evolving for as long as they have been around. If anything bacteria should be more evolved than monkeys, because they have been around for longer -> but this whole line of thinking is flawed. Some bacteria have evolved into better bacteria and stayed there. Others have split and gone on to form more complex structures. To explain better: If you split humanity into two halves, leave some to evolve on mars and the others stay on earth, we will evolve in different ways to the point where we may not even be the same species in a couple millennia. Neither is more evolved than the other, despite who you think is cooler. The ones on earth might remain anatomically and genetically similar to modern humans. The ones on mars might radically change to become different beings entirely. Accumulate enough changes, you can't interbreed successfully anymore, and you become a different species. There is no hard and fast divine line stopping this from occurring. I only wish I had a time machine to give you so you can see it for yourself.

​@@malhamaulkubra4437 Why would you expect a current bacteria, that is perfectly suited for it's environment, to evolve to multicellular lifeform where it will be at a definite disadvantage? No permission from any deity comes in to play.

@@tmrv2974 Show me observable testable evidence where bacteria has macro evolved to a jellyfish.

I would love to see you do that, use deductive reasoning to prove God does not exist.

Adam West Can we in the interests of fairness or simply a level playing field use the exact same methodology and logic as theists use and prove, to their satisfaction, that God(s) do not or cannot exist? Deductive reasoning starts with a Major premise, an assumption, an imagined truth the only qualification for which is belief that it is true and ends with an assumed conclusion, an imagined truth that is solely supported by the Major Premise not ‘if’ true but simply believed to be true, this then forms the basis of ‘faith’ and is the bedrock of deductive logic. Deductive reasoning in religion, No evidence is accepted that does not fit the major premise / assumption. This is added to by the introduction of Minor Premises which are also assumed to be true if the Major Premise is believed to be true, this is called doctrine. God made the Universe, results in an infinite additions of premises for Gods to fit the conclusion that God made the Universe, e.g. God is good, God is omnipresent, god is omnipotent and God is omniscient. A battle cry of ‘my God is greater than your God’ results. According to Christians Gods of other religions are false Gods, therefore, are imaginary constructs and as belief itself is simply a part of the thought process in humans it can be assumed or even simply believed to be part of the imagination therefore ALL Gods can be assumed to be imagined including the Christian God and therefore not real. However this response is addressed by the theist by saying that disbelief is also part of the thought process therefore disbelief is imaginary. The Bible is held as proof for the Christian God, however the bible like most fictional books uses imagery to help the imagination to understand the story line and like other fictional stories may include real places or even real people. Authors also often give the main character superhuman powers or some standout heroic characteristic, of course other literary devises include; Allusion. Diction. Epigraph. Euphemism. Foreshadowing. Imagery. Metaphor/Simile. Personification. All of which are used in the Bible and literary works since around 1000 BC. Therefore if you believe the Bible to be true then you must accept the possibility that Harry Potter is also real or if it needs to be ancient then the Iliad must be a true story. By deductive logic all fiction can then be treated as being true! In philosophy/ deductive reasoning the Major Premise must be UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED as being true. The mere fact that mankind has believed in many Gods undermines the claim that any one God is a true God or can be a true God. Simply put Atheists do not believe in Gods therefore they believe there are no Gods, a simple deductive major premise that only requires belief that it is true and must be treated as having equal veracity, that any belief in a God has. Logically both premises cannot be true and as neither is UNIVERSALLY accepted as being true, they both fail to meet the requirement of deductive reasoning, therefore all minor premises supporting the God exists premise may not be true and the conclusion therefore cannot be accepted as true. Ergo Gods disappear in a puff of logic, of their own making no doubt. If however the Major Premise does not have to be universally accepted then both Major premises can be considered as true, albeit only to the believers. Every God mankind has worshiped must be the true God and simultaneously cannot exist. This elicits a common religious claim that God is unknowable, a somewhat contradictory claim given their Major Premise that they know God exists, and also destroys their Major premise as their God cannot be both known and simultaneously be unknowable. Therefore any claim of ‘revelation’ cannot be given any veracity. This dichotomy is expanded upon by other minor premises, God is outside space and time, is a Priori a first uncaused cause. Seems theists are happy to think they know an unknowable uncaused thing from nowhere exists. This of course has been known for as long as logic and philosophy have been around and perhaps why Roman Christianity adopted the aphorism ‘Catholic’, meaning Universal and why their leaders claimed that they were infallible e.g. Roman Catholic Church. Immune from fallacy or liability to error in expounding matters of faith or morals by virtue of the promise made by Christ to the Church, a minor premise that these Popes had god like qualities, which of course no Protestant Christian would accept let alone an Atheist! Furthermore to ensure Universality other methods were used including genocide, torture, fear and forced conversions. Women and children were slaughtered with the excuse that God will recognize his own, women being merely property and children get a free pass to heaven anyway. Not just knowing the unknowable but what the unknowable from nowhere thinks. Therefore the only TRUE conclusion that can be drawn from deductive logic is we don't know, therefore any and all claims regarding the existence of any God must be regarded as being false.

In your first sentence I must ask did you mean to say God(s) do or can exist, or were you referring to how theists discount other God(s)? Secondly I do not see how God is good, nor God is omnipresent fits the conclusion God made the universe, morality and creation have nothing to do with each other at this point, neither does he need to be everywhere if he knows everything, so one of the premises seems to contradict or at the very least is redundant when used in combination with another premise you listed. Christians do not believe ALL Gods of other religions are false Gods, the God of the Jews for one is they accept as a true God, and every other God mentioned in every religion supported by every prophet mentioned in the Bible. Therefore your next point is moot. It does not follow Harry Potter has the possibility of being real for the simple reason that the author states it is a work of fiction. Your following sentences build upon the premise that the Bible is fiction however for a Christian this premise is false so any conclusion from this is false. Belief in many Gods has no bearing on whether one actually exists, believing in no God has no bearing on whether one actually exists. I would agree of the premise of atheists has equal veracity as deists except that as far as I know there is no the atheist argument has no evidence for it, a deist view could be that God created the first creation required for common ancestor, without attributing the requirement of Adam of Eve, this need for a creator would not be at odds with the common ancestor theory. Following your chain of thought in terms of universal acceptance, therefore all minor premises supporting God does not exist may not be true and the conclusion therefore cannot be accepted as true, including the Christian one mentioned above. As you stated before both major premises must be universally true for them to be applicable in deductive reasoning therefore wondering about none universally accepted premises, within a deductive reasoning body is moot. The statement “Every God mankind has worshiped must be the true God and simultaneously cannot exist.” How did you come to this conclusion? Your following sentences are inferred by this statement so I will hold response on them until I understand the process of the processing of reaching said conclusion. God is outside of space and time is logically deduced by the simple premise that time began to exist, and that we are all subject to cause and effect. Therefore if there was a creator he has to be before (outside) of time and outside the cause and effect cycle, considering nothing within a cause and effect chain can start a cause and effect chain. God having unknowable qualities has no bearing on the deductive conclusion mentioned above, if theists knew all his qualities it would still have no bearing. Your final conclusion is incorrect because your previous conclusion drawn from deductive reasoning states we don’t not know so how can any resultant conclusion from a stance of insufficient data be either true or false?

All religions start with a major premise, GOD EXISTS, They then use minor premises to IDENTIFY this Major Premise as THEIR GOD I am not trying to prove any God as you seem to think but rather using the same deductive logic that Theists use (to DISPROVE their Gods) can be used to make them disappear as logical fallacies. I am not making claims about Gods THEISTS are, These ARE their Major and Minor Premises. You are simply making the same conclusions as I did that their ADDITIONAL minor premises fall down where their MAJOR Premise can be falsified by their own deductive logic. TOP DOWN LOGIC as opposed to Inductive logic which is bottom up logic. "Your final conclusion is incorrect because your previous conclusion drawn from deductive reasoning states we don’t not know so how can any resultant conclusion from a stance of insufficient data be either true or false" Theism does not work from DATA that is inductive logic, it works from BELIEF. READ THE POST AGAIN

Jim666 the entirety of my response was to challenge every assumption/statement/premise/conclusion you made which I feeI I did. Therefore I am not convinced that deductive logic can be used to disprove God. I used insufficient data as a interchangeable term to what you referred to as "we don't know".? Furthermore most religions are not not purely based on belief but have some data which they use as reasons for their belief. Again I dont understand how a conclusion of uncertainty can lead to a conclusion of a true or false unless it also confirms uncertainty. Perhaps I misunderstood your original explanation, in that case can you clearly state your case in as few sentences as possible, in other words simplify it.

lazy students

Because the information is correct.

Malhama Ul Kubra see phylogeny explorer project.

@@tmrv2974 Cop out. The common ancestor of man and chimp is NOT known and never will be as it is a lie. The common ancestor that that fiction common ancestor HAS to be 4 legged with paws and skeleton that makes the theory B.S

Please state your own sources/basis for knowledge before you call someone out. Also what you typed makes absolutely no sense and is BS. There is more than sufficient evidence for a common ancestor between homo sapiens and chimpanzees. And a common ancestor for homo sapiens and the entire hominidae taxonomic family if you go further back. What he has given reference to is a scientific resource which I bet you haven't even bothered to give a fair chance to.

@@malhamaulkubra4437 Your understanding of the TEO is comical. The common ancestor of man and chimp lived 7 mio years ago. Even if we never find its fossils, the DNA evidence alone is clear. The common ancestor would be 4 legged as ALL tetrapods are "4 legged". Or better, have 4 extremities. All tetrapods also have a skeleton. Nothing you said comes even close to being a problem for the TOE.

@@tmrv2974 So clearly your common ancestors common ancestor was a 4 legged pawed dog fish type of a thing which cannot exist as there is no evidence

saboor had terrible arguments

Muz 1 + If quoting scientists without understanding what they were actually saying is winning a debate .......then we can congratulate suboor.

Ruhel Miah + If you go to 1.31 min into the debate, you will see and hear a young lady approaches the desk. Listen to the conversation. *Subboor's statements were more rational and logical then any atheist i have come across* Unfortunately to make sense he has to be more rational,logical and correct than scientists not atheists. *Perhaps i recommend you humble yourself and actually look into what Subboor has mentioned and decide for yourself instead of making an assumption that he doesn't understand what scientist are saying* I recommend you take your own advice after watching the video @ 1.31 min.

Ruhel Miah + *Once again i strongly recommend you take your own advice and view discussions and debates objectively rather than making foregone conclusions* You definately need to take an unbiased approach to the debate as well as the subject of the debate. This is very difficult if the answers and conclusions must not under any circumstances contradict the creation story in a holy book . @ 1. 30min suboor attempts to redefine the meaning of a scientific theory . He can ask for a second and third opinion from scientists about that statement but would be laughed at by all scientists be they muslim, christian or atheist. It is only the layman and those who attempt to deny science that need "scientific theory" to mean "best guess."

Ruhel Miah + *How am i taking a biased approach?* You can not be unbiased when any conlusions must confirm and not contradict a strongly held religious belief. Is there anything you might hear or read that would make you renounce your own faith? Scientific theories are not absolute as they are open to new information that add to our understanding of a subject. *A theory is working model based on PROBABILITY, do you understand what PROBABILITY means?* A scientific theory is the best current explanation of observable facts. Gravity = fact. The explanation of gravity = theory of gravity.

Ruhel Miah + *You can be unbiased so long as you are sincere and genuine in your intention for seeking truth* Which most religious people are not, they do not even understand the very subject they are denying, they choose faith. Faith is not the path to truth by definition it is belief without proof. *So far to my knowledge, i have not come across any scientific theory as of yet to make me renounce my faith, in fact it has done the opposite and strengthened it* That statement may or may not be true as far as you are concerned but the majority of religious people deny evolution because it contradicts the creation of adam and even. Instead of researching evolution with an open mind they make statements like "it's only a theory" or " i believe micro not macro" and approach the subject with hostility. *Evolution cannot be observed* Not true. There are many ways evolution is confirmed and used in medicine where disease causing organisms and the host (patient) evolve. The fossil layers going from less complex organisms to more complex organisms. Vestigial limbs and organs are further proof of changes over time (evolution). *So science is great as a useful working model but it is not absolute nor does it lead to truth* The truth of a science hypothesis is rigorously tested before it can be classified as a scientific theory which is a far cry from any religion that is took on faith.

YES IT IS!

And my response would be: "Faith in something that can be shown as fact is stupid."

If they were confirmed, how are they superstitions? Do you even science, bro? Do you even understand how scientific predictions are made and how they are later accepted as fact WHEN THE PREDICTION COMES TRUE AND IS PROVEN?

It just proves that Islam is incompatible with science. No wonder that the Islamic world is such a scientific graveyard for the past 7 centuries. Nothing but backwardness, scientific stagnation and pseudoscience

AHH Nope it has not.

Jerry Coyne

define creationist please

Generally speaking: deniers of evolution. In practice: scientifically illiterate religious fundamentalists who use dishonesty (a combination of pseudo-science, logical fallacies like straw men and red herrings and somethimes outright lies) to attack established science without presenting one iota of evidence as to why their brand of creation myth is true.

I swear to god. That is the funniest thing I have ever heard Praise you mate. Praise you!!!

A scientific theory is not fact, that's why it's called a theory. -_-

It seems to me that you have misunderstood Saboor's point completely. He is not dispute any of the points that you are making. What he is saying is, that darwinian evolution, as a paradigm, is not based on facts, in the absolute sense, but on assumptions, which have been disputed by a wide range of scientists within the secular evolutionist tradition. Therefore presenting the theory as an indisputable fact and insisting on interpreting all new data, no matter how contradictory it may seem to the basic assumptions of the theory, within those same assumptions, without even allowing into consideration the suggestion that it might be wrong, has resulted in darwinism turning into, what you could call a religion. All that he is saying is that: 1. It is a theory that is built on a probabilistic framework. 2. It has assumptions which are speculative. 3. It has been and continues to be disputed by scientists who have presented a wide range of equally valid alternative explanations. Therefore is it a working model that presents an explanation og the data which is currently available, but it might be disproven at some point, like many other working paradigms of the past. Like you said; science is based on fallibilism and induction and therefore does not lead to certainties, which is the point that Saboor is trying to make. Aaron, on the other hand, insists that (darwinian) evolution is an indisputable (/absolute) fact, which has not been contradicted by any scientists, what so ever.

Islam does not really delve into the realm of science. It mainly deals with the metaphysical, such as creation, the unseen, morals and ethics, the afterlife, the meaning of life, etc. These are things that the scientific method, by definition, can not deal with.

you are watching the wrong video if you expected religion not to play a role in this debate. It says theist vs atheist in the title. You don't need proof to say that something doesn't make sense.

World Peace, That was not at all, what he was saying. They didn't discuss the evidence for the truth of Islam, but no one has ever put forth the argument that because atheism is false, then necessarily Islam must be true. You can find several other videos where Saboor discusses the epistemological method and evidence for the existence of a Creator and the truth of Islam (which are two separate discussions).

At-Tawhid w-Al Hadid You’re a pig.

Said the person who doesn't know anything.

Resonant93 I feel sorry for you, watch the video and don't make a joke of yourself here.

Mc Gamer + Only someone who is ignorant and does not understand even the basics of evolution and is also oblivious to the truth because they are blinded by their faith will claim suboor won anything. He stuttered and had no reply to the points raised about his lack of understanding of the very things he quoted. He was embarrassing in the final exchange,no contest .

he did very well and smashed aaron

Ruhel Miah + *Please save yourself the embarrassment, your statements are emotional rather than rational and objective* I am not the one emotionally running to the defence of suboor and your perceived attack of your religious beliefs. When someone studies a subject with no other scholarly ambition other than attempting to cast doubt on a scientific theory it diminishes what they have to say.

bearer of bad news(troy) you have 2 options really. We came from nothing or we came from something. I know what makes sense to me.

a5amr2 that didn't help me

bearer of bad news(troy) you know what would help, going to search for real and not ask people in comments

Me The Great well I do that and that also doesn't help me. so I figured I'd see what others had to say

You can't prove nor disprove God. He gives His signs such as His messengers and the revelations that they brought. You can study them and make a decision. Just to clarify though this life is a test. So faith is also part of the test. To believe there has to be a leap of faith at some point. If God wanted us to believe in Him easily we would have. I personally believe that the signs and evidence for God are overwhelming. But that's just me.

Denial is bliss.

Ross Heaton This is not confirmation bias - this exposed Aron Ra and his delusions - the greatest fairy tale of them all, atheism.

Evo Atheism and Evolution (Darwinsim) are two very different things, you can have one without the other. There is large amounts of evidence, proof ,logic and reason for Evolution (Darwinism), there is none for Theism.

Fahad Safar Watch the video, don't listen to Saboor Ahmed and you will find out.

Fahad Zafar Even after editing your comment, please watch the video and ignore Saboor Ahmed. Or if you don't have 2 hours, look it up.

Anser Mateen read 'Darwins house of cards ' and 'zombie science ' and tell me if you still think this institutionalised myth is in reality in line with the evidence or rather like I suspect you wished it were ...... evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolution-confirmed-the-philosophy-of-naturalism/ evolutionnews.org/2017/08/national-association-of-biology-teachers-versus-the-ribosome/ There is no question that Dobzhansky’s famous phrase has failed. It simply is not true that “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.” Indeed, it would be difficult to imagine a perspective more at odds with the science of biology. But while a few rare voices, such as Massimo Pigliucci, admit that the phrase is “patently wrong,” evolutionists for the most part continue to rehearse it in robotic fashion, revealing an underlying agenda that has strayed badly from the science. Evolutionists are so heavily invested in Dobzhansky’s phrase they will never admit it has failed. Even Pigliucci soft-pedaled the problem, explaining that “Dobzhansky was writing for an audience of science high school teachers,” as though it is OK to misrepresent science to high school teachers. Also, Pigliucci’s admission was limited to the fact that spectacular progress has occurred in the life sciences while ignoring evolutionary theory. True enough, and that certainly demolishes Dobzhansky’s phrase, but it is only the tip of the iceberg. It is a safe criticism that avoids the more damning problems. There simply is too much at stake here. It isn’t like admitting that a particular prediction went wrong. Dobzhansky’s phrase was not merely a prediction, it was meta-prediction - the rallying cry for an entire world view - and walking it back in any genuine way would be to reveal the man behind the curtain. Suddenly all those epistemological claims, such as that evolution is as much a fact as is gravity, heliocentrism, and the round shape of the earth, are left hanging, open to scrutiny, and with a long, long way to fall. The National Association of Biology Teachers’ feverishly holding up of Dobzhansky’s phrase reveals the underlying, nonscientific dogma at work. We are seeing a fascinating dissonance and hypocrisy, for the phrase is unequivocally false and yet it cannot be abandoned.

Anser Mateen remember people this guy answer is not Muslim and is known person that comes to speaker corner Hyde park and hates Islam.

Anser Mateen when are you going to man up one day and have a debate with brother Ahmad ?

Haha you guys brainwashed by your stupid ancient man made religion really do not understand science, especially the scientific method! You claim evolution is a conspiracy even though it is based on every available piece of evidence humans have ever found! Yet, you still choose to believe some made up stupid ancient rubbish to be true without even a single piece of evidence whatsoever!!! This is what believing in stupid religions does to people’s intellectual honesty. This is why I humiliate theists at Hyde Park - they are full of shit because of their brainwashing. Peace

Aron was superior in jokes

God doesnt talk about human evolution, but nice strawman 🤦‍♀️

steeven coogan + Not really. He is showing frustration at the fact saboor is quoting information he does not understand a fact that is confirmed by a student of one of the scientists suboor quoted ( 1hr.31min)and is trying to impose the need for science to claim absolute truth . Religions claim absolute truth and shut the door to questioning what is written in their respective scriptures. Science does not use the word absolute when describing scientific explanations and leaves the door open for further input and clearer explanations.

Quote me one single competent certified scientist in the field of science dealing with evolution that disagrees with Aron Ra's presentation? Show me one and cite the disagreement

Ajmal Khan ,. Facts.. let's explain.......It's entertaining how Saboor twists the meaning of words and fails to understand evolution with all the overwhelmed evidence to confirm evolution is fact. There are too many fact to list in this here which prove evolution to be fact so let's start with why evolution needs to be denied. Those that believe that atheist are illogical ignore the following facts: 1) designing a body with merged eating and breathing tubes to cause death by choking is neither loving, nor intelligent. The dolphins don't merge those tubes so those that believe the creator is intelligent are delusional. If there is a creator, he's not intelligent. 2) We create complex creations without one designer such as language, therefore the nonsense of requiring one creator and designer to create complex creations is a sign of ignorance. 3) people believe in instant gratification, but in reality everything is the result of collaboration and evolution. If you make the rule that a creator is required for creating then that creator also requires an creator and so an.. an idea that makes a creator impossible. The only way to deny this fact is to present an exception to the rule just to accommodate your opinion. Theists lost before the debate started but since debates are actually a need for people to receive acceptance of their belief instead of confirmation, by popular vote, these nonsense debates shall continue.

Ajmal Khan , a creator of everything is impossible because if a creator is required for creating, so is a creator for that creator and so on - that is impossible. Also we create complex creations such as language without one designer. Your concept is a delusion because it contradicts with the observed reality. talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html - Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. Your denial will not change facts. If you want to have a discussion, the question must be rational, relevant and be supported with evidence. None of your questions would change facts I presented. There is a reason to use the definition in a dictionary, we agreed to the meaning as documented, not as you personally want to apply for your opinion.

Ajmal Khan , the point atheists make is actually a fact. We know from knowledge, not faith. It's not a believe. I'll repeat if you didn't get it yet. Science is about facts regardless of belief, religion is about belief regardless of facts !

Ajmal Khan , you do not understand logic because to you an entity that creates unintelligent and uncaring is wise and loving. The most important fact is that the creator is at fault for any flaws, not the creation. You lost the argument and are disqualified for a logic argument for believing in an imaginary master that made many flaws, the most important examples are merging the eating and breathing tubes to cause suffering in choking. Now since this merge doesn't exist in dolphins, our design is either the act of an idiot or a malicious entity. The second example is the blind spot in our eyes created because the nerve cells of the eye are in front instead of the back of the light sensing cells.. not any harm but proves the "creator" is an idiot. You lost before the argument started.

@Neoicon Mint until i see all the species that came in between modern creatures and old creatures than evolution seems ridiculous. also no one knows the full origin of the universe, which is the main argument (to me) that needs to be brought up. either you look at the universe and believe that god made it or you dont. science can not prove the origin of the universe so therefore they can not prove there is no god. yet you claim there is no god. if i claimed you raped me, and you got put in prison within 1 hr, you would be pretty upset. ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? well same thing with the god thing. you can no scientifically prove the full origin of the universe there fore you can not say there is no god. pick a side and leave the other to their own. edit: also if evolution is in fact real than it can go hand and hand with the god ideal. but ive never seen the species of animals that came between primates and humans. a select few skeletons? we have more dinosaur skeletons than those (most likely) mutated humans

Aditya Mohan suboor himseld is a phd student

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/o8yln693lamuZZc.html

Wrong again.

Watch his speakers corners public debates.

@@rishadk4299 I have, he's a theist....it always come done to his faith.....that's it.....faith is not based on evidence.....fail!

@@boglerun8444 I would say that is correct. At the end of the day in order to be a theist you have to believe in something. Btw do you agree with his view that evolution and it's relative principles are not absolute facts and by the principle of evolution and contemporary science it's not possible to rule out the possibility of God?

​@@rishadk4299 A scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation. Why do you insist on using the word 'absolute'?....scientists never use the term 'absolute'. As for ruling out the possibility of anything....I guess you can't, but with out any evidence, why 'rule it in'?.....should you believe in leprechauns or unicorns?

@@boglerun8444 Maybe you have not heard about different definitions of the word fact. There was even a scientific journal published to describe it. Most of the authors give definition to words such as fact in their book itself if you want I can quote examples. For using the word in literal english meaning I inserted the word absolute.hope we don't have problems with it from now on. You haven't answerd my question correctly. As for why ruling in the God first let's come to an agreement if you have any fact in support of ruling out of God or not.