@Patje yo patje, i thought suboor was a liar ? why u watching a debate of a liar for 2 hours long ? btw u werent the guy who promised to go in speaker corner and destroy suboor ? i dont remember who it was...

@@ocerco93 who is @potje here ?

@@AtheismLeadsToIrrationality moat probably someone who ran away with their tail between their legs

Walter De wit Did u watch 2 hours?

@@curiosone8843 clearly he never watched it otherwise he wouldn't be making these statements from his fairytale fantasies within his own mind. Any neutral can see what happened. Only people who like to lie to themselves can conclude differently.

And may reason and logic guide you and other Muslims:

@@tonyronta are you pissed of?😂😂

@@tonyronta why do you use reason and logic ?? what kind atheist are you :V

O Modesta Unico Not pissed off, just a bit concerned.

Isbie Iskandar An atheist?!?

Ever time he speaks it's lies Volume 9, Book 93, Number 506: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: That during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relation with them without impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interrupt us. The Prophet said, "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection." Qaza'a said, "I heard Abu Sa'id saying that the Prophet said, 'No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it."

He is so dishonest... Honestly if this man is a 'good Muslim' I am glad most other Muslims are not as good as him... As these lesser great defenders of Islam won't use strawmans, argument from ignorance and more fallicies.

Ameen and for us

آمين يا رب العالمين

@@walterroberts9431 wdym?

brother subhoor is totally dishonest, misquoting dawkins in the first five minutes. all he wants is to win arguments, he seems to have zero interest in honesty or his religion, remind me what is religion about? it's not about winning arguments.

@@HarryNicNicholas dishonest? What dishonest? You clearly don't have any idea of what you're talking about. "All he wants is to win argument" isn't that what you too will be doing? Winning argument. Stop being dishonesty with yourself and please stop that public shaming. Either you shut up and learn or just continue to be ignorant. I believe you don't learn anything from this debate. Truth hurts perhaps?

That guy, Subboor is the greatest scientific nitwit ever.

@@dreadinside654 are you still ignorant of evolution, now a year later?

TBH, I think Subboor is very well versed on the topic but looks at it through the prism of life long indoctrination and investment into the truth of Islam.

@@divinity176 he looks at it like this: if Islam has a lot of evidence and if it's right I'll go to heaven, but evolution has a lot of evidence but if it's right it wouldn't matter, so he'll just prefer Islam over evolution 🤷‍♂️

@@mohammadnawar4193 my biology teacher who is an atheis says that Darwinism is a paganism and darwin was a pagan.but i don't know what type of evolution he believes

@@zhasan6561 First off let me tell you something, you dont have to be an atheist to accept evolution, you just need to be educated on science. I believe in God and I know evolution is a fact, simple. Second of all, pagan means polytheist, and charles darwin was a former christian who became agnostic at the end of his life so your "atheist" teacher is mistaken

@@mohammadnawar4193 my teacher has 3-4 degree in biologe what u have??and pagan means not only polytheists but also idolatries.nature worshipers...

yes i agree, i fond of people who are atheists which are actually a people of knowledge, because they are tend to be a seeker of truth, most of the atheists today are sheeps who follow Richard Dawkins and Aron Ra blindly, which themselves are dishonest in most of their argument

@@Flaw93 prove Aron Ra, or Dawkins are dishonest (you mentioned them specifically which is why I did) Actually Aron Ra runs circles around an idiot like saboor, because Islam is rooted in myths that never happened and Aron Ra only deals with facts

Keith Ziegler watch Saboor's debate with Aron Ra and see how he absolutely schools him and Dawkins I mean are you really that blind? The dude lies almost daily trying to link science and atheism together, the dude has the audacity to speak on Islam even though he knows absolutely nothing about it, Islam is rooted in fact and truth my friend it's not the religions fault your ignorant and biased

@@Flaw93 at least I can verify these guys on what they are teaching instead of following blindly a book that doesn't have any proof to back it up

@@Saber23 "Islam is rooted in fact and truth" islam is rooted in the wors of A man.

example is so wrong Theory of gravity Einstein or newton doesn't work in quantum physics There's something working about it Event for beginning of universe

I can give you some of them, they are not in order right now. But I have collected most of the references mentioned. Maybe you can send me your email if you comfortable with that.

@@leonardodavinci7983 hey could I sent u my email I'd like to look at it

@@Hello-ri9dd of course, leave your email akhi

Would really appreciate if you could share the references with me too bro

I think as humans we should at least just stick 2 the basics like treating eachother regardless of what religious beliefs one holds with respect, help eachother when we can etc at the end of the day we all inhabit this tiny planet.

@John Matrix Did you even watch the video?

@John Matrix There's no hope then.

@John Matrix did you just said fact ? omg 😂😂😂

Evolution IS a demonstrable fact. It's directly observed in real life, new species have evolved in your own lifetime. Exactly what evolution is, it is directly observed. We observe the change of allele frequency in populations over generations (evolution), and we observe speciation (macroevolution). Showing that any two species are related by evolution is a simple matter of testing the nuclear DNA of the nucleus for paternity and the mitochondria in cells for maternity then looking for markers on the genomes in a codon for codon comparison.

@Checks Cleared but Subhoor claiming that he has the objective truth isn't backed by anything. Evidence should adjust people's understanding on any topic. Saying that no evidence would adjust his understanding just means that he thinks he knows the answer regardless of evidence and that is silly arrogance

@Checks Cleared you mean you claim that Allah has revealed the objective truth.... But we can't really verify whether that is true

@@MrPakiman111 The Quran makes a claim of itself that it is from God, there are multiple 'litmus tests' if you will within the Quran which prove it's claim to be true. The most obvious is its linguistic excellence, consistency, affirmation of the torah and gospel while they were not available to the Prophet SAW who himself was illiterate.

@@alisaood9445 I would love to hear these litmus tests that the Qur'an sets itself and passes... Also linguistic excellence is subject and has been replicated numerous times at this point. I have heard Hamza Tzortsis claim the linguistic miracle of the Qur'an but would love an actual coherent explanation which does not rely on subjectivity. Affirmation and semi consistency with other religious texts doesn't affirm the divinity of the Qur'an in any way. Even if the prophet couldn't read, he was still in a society containing Jews and Christians and could easily know about their religion through contact

@@MrPakiman111 What about the scientific verses and preservation of the text?

dissentfromdarwinDOTorg

Not for muslims.They might start using common sense and leave religion.Keep them primitive…

I love stawberry cakes.

@@Real_Gigachaddi k

Guide him to where ? Suicide bombing ?

@@user-rn5dl6tf8r Suicide is haram/ prohibited . Let alone bombing other innocent humans. Peace !

@@user-bi8uh5fq3q True

@@JEA- evolution against religion as allah created adam directly in heaven which is a dumb story for kids

@@evillogic7724 My condolences to your parents for having given birth to someone as ignorant as you.

The disagreement lies in the definition of "fact". Subhoor takes fact to mean it s 100% true, no discussion about it. James takes fact to mean it s not 100% true but there are a lot of things that can substantiate it. Then Subhoor challenged the data presented by James.

@@evillogic7724 gz you came to a debate and left dumber than you entered.

Sometimes, a good discussion is better than argumentative debate.

That's because the ancestors of Opssums crossed over continent and only them. Like how Native Americans were the first modern humans to crossover to the Americas from Asia 20,000 years ago. And I don't remember how Opossums crossed over. I'm gonna look it up

You mean where Aaron shat himself in public when suboor asked him 5 questions?

@@person81045 which questions exactly? In which part of debate? I don't recall Aron losing any argument or confidence at all.

@@smashexentertainment676 it's hard to recall anything when you're blinded by prejudice and fanboyism

@@SimpleReally it's like you all are incapable of producing anything substantial, yet still can't stfu. But apart from all debates, dude is arguing against fact. No amount of semantics and mental gymnastics will make it somehow magically go away.

incredible - you got something right!

@@bengreen171 Yep, that usually happens as when I spanked you in debate. But it seems like IP got it right: you really do go around trolling. ROFL.

@@everyzylrian because i left a comment on a video? wow. Does that mean you're trolling here now? You have a very weird sense of things.

@@bengreen171 Mans literally stalking my comment on other videos ROFL

@@everyzylrian you think I'm hunting you down, watching your every move? Don't flatter yourself. Considering i left a comment on this video a year ago, I think it's you who followed me here.

There are no alternatives, the train left the station many decades ago. Common origin is fact.

@@jesan733 not even remotely close to the truth.

@@kaleemthedream9450 so you're a science denier?

@@jesan733 did you even watch the video

@@Adnan-wl7wx so long ago, so not sure. Seems like a waste to spend 2h listening to the worst kind of science denialism though.

Aleykum Salam

Sure But we want you to be in heaven with ❤️🌹 I ask you to read Quran If you did Please read it again but without bias 🌹❤️

@@xmuhmd yeah okay bro keep believing in fairytales, yeah I ve read the quran actually, it's obviously man made. Also most of your countries are poor and have no liberties or democracy, that's why you all immigrate to the west.

@@troywalt4834 Um, yeah. This is a debate on evolution, not on Islam. Just like when Kent Hovind debates Aron Ra. He's not debating for christianity, he's debating against evolution.

@@troywalt4834 it's called staying on topic, something youtube atheist struggle with in comment sections.

Subboorb lost the debate Islam has been proven false Volume 9, Book 93, Number 506: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: That during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relation with them without impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interrupt us. The Prophet said, "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection." Qaza'a said, "I heard Abu Sa'id saying that the Prophet said, 'No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it."

This is Subboor's tactic. He quotes other people, rambles incoherently then says "you can't do that". He never presents actual scientific evidence.

@@aangellotti508 Subboor destroyed him handedly

​@@aangellotti508Because their argument isn't based on science but faith. If, say tomorrow, evolution was proved beyond doubt, which is a practical impossibility, Muslims wouldn't stop believing in God, they'll just claim that evolution was already in the Qur'an by twisting a few words here and there. The argument isn't based on science.

@@only_fair23That’s what scientifically literate christians do. It’s harder for Muslims because their holy book was preemptively insulated against reason by claiming to be the literal and inerrant word of god.

Skepticism means - Questioning the ideas which are commonly accepted as a fact. I think - The purpose of this debate was to clear that no matter how many people have started to accept darwinism as a fact but its never a certain to be called as ultimate truth. No matter how much overwhelmed you are with scientific findings (i.e data) to conclude darwinism as true, but you must know that you are ignoring that the same set of data can produce multiple outcome, and can even produce completely different outcome when we know that 99.99% of species are not been observed at all. Darwinism is just an idea that fits atheists world view, that's why it makes sense to them, while it can never make sense (completely) to those who believe in God and can provide logical evidences. This debate is again for those who challenges religious perspective of (beginning of Humanity) by using darwinism while undermining their own uncertainty. And thus darwinism can never be used as a tool to challenge religion (Especially Islam)

By "evidence" you mean the similarities between different organisms. But i think you forget the fact that we all live on the same planet thus similarities are going to exist life will be lifeless without similarities. Anything that is not similar to a living organism is not life. But to use this to say that all living things have a common ancestor Naoudhubillah is stupid. Only those who want to believe that the mechanism just exists or work "automatically" will believe this. I.e you are using your current information to support a narrative that you have created yourself. I.e Naoudhubillah you are using current information to support a narrative that is impossible. Allah is ONE and you can see Allah by looking at the universe.

@@moosaali9371 Can you tell us approximately when Allah instantly created the first humans?. Many thanks Islamic scholars are generally shy to give even a rough date.

@Muksid Khan Thankyou for your honest reply. Best wishes.

@@iainrae6159 Similarities doesn't explain the origin of life. Evolution whether true or false doesn't contradict God existence. Remember I am talking about Evolution not Darwinian Evolution

There's no butler in the game of Cluedo. He's clueless on this point.

That's because Subboor know that he cannot deny the facts. His only aim is to undermine the entire field of philosophical thought, because that's the only way he can hope to assert that evolution hasn't been reliably proven.

What's the difference when you justify the theory as a fact because of much empirical evidence knowing there are limits?

That was the topic of Debate

​​​@@abdussattar211 How on earth justifing a theory as a fact based on sufficient amount of evidence has anything to do with our few limitations that exists. Evolution is the most logical and rational scientific theory we have ever developed but now it's a fact due to the tremendous amount of evidence we have found. Limitations doesn't always mean that the theory is incorrect, it means that more research yet to be done🙃

@@Astrophile2345 subboor Ahmed is not arguing against all of evolution. He questions the Darwin's version of it and still not all of it. And, yes, as you said it would be stupid for learnt Muslims to completely deny any adaptation or all aspects that come under the term "evolution".

You are on twitter?

@@justabeardedguythatisahero9848 yep

How do you understand evolution and what is your take on Islam and Evolution? If you don't mind me asking!

a hypothesis is a theory that has yet to be tested. And a theory is an explanation of the facts we observe. example things fall to the ground. objects rotate around each other and larger/heavier objects pul on things harder. thus the theory would be that mass/energy creates a force towards its center. (this was later updated to bending space-time)

Because it was not true and just a theory while now it is been educated as a fact. Opposing the creation of the world by God.

​@@abyzayd2022​It is being taught as a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of a natural phenomenon, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Natural Selection meets this criteria, just like Atomic Theory, General relativity, Cell theory etc.

@@LiamJCash But Darwinian evolution has never been repeatedly proven. It says a million years ago an ape changed into a human. It is a theory and not observed, and cannot be repeatedly confirmed. Change of kind has never been proven. Remember that "change of kind" is totally different than "adaptation" of certain species to some environment. One cannot say because a bird's beak was larger in Australia than in Europe, thus it proves that all species change; meaning change of kind, thus an ape became a human being. No my friend, it was just adaptation and not change of kind. They even never proved that a bird was becoming another kind of bird, let alone another animal. Think about it unbiased.

@@abyzayd2022 Judging by your response you either have no knowledge of evolutionary theory, or your knowledge is founded on gross misconceptions. I suggest you read up on natural selection, genetics, and cladistics. Molecular biology alone proves evolution and common ancestry between humans and the other great apes. I recommend you start there.

@@LiamJCash ok mr. Smart. Please explain and tell me what I dont know. Why cant you explain it here briefly? I have to read a book to understand you? Haha.

@Abbas Abdullah Thanks for the response Abbas :) On that point, I disagree and think there's similarly lots of strong empirical evidence for evolution. Like we have images and videos from NASA, for evolution we have things like transitional fossils. BUT! I don't think that's important for the point I was making, I don't think we need to go there (although we can if you want). I can assume for the sake of argument that there's no empirical evidence supporting evolution. The point I was making is that Subboor's way of defining a fact means the empirical evidence of science _never_ produces facts. The shape of the Earth doesn't meet his criteria for a fact. Even though it's supported by images and videos, that doesn't make it an absolute logical certainty, in the sense that it cannot _possibly_ be wrong. For that, he should have chosen examples like 1+1=2, or that all bachelors are unmarried. Things that don't require our fallible empirical investigation, which can always possibly be wrong :)

@Abbas Abdullah Yes, that's it :) Subhoor's point applied to all of science. Science is too limited to prove anything absolutely, and doesn't ever give us 'facts' the way he is defining facts. That's why the shape of the Earth was a bad example of a fact, because it's supported by science, so it's not a fact in the way he was defining fact. It's not a big objection, it doesn't refute his argument or anything like that - I just think he picked an inappropriate example :)

@Abbas Abdullah Yes things can be very very powerfully supported by observations, beyond any reasonable doubt, and still not count as 'facts' in the absolute way that Subhoor is using the term. He hasn't defined it as things supported beyond reasonable doubt, but as things that couldn't even possibly be wrong. Things so certain that we didn't have to rely on our senses to make observations at all. Science doesn't _prove_ things in the technical and absolute sense, as you said. Any observational evidence can always be argued against as one day it might possibly be overturned. Anything supported by observations, relying on the senses, doesn't qualify for a 'fact' as Subhoor uses the word. Not even the shape of the Earth, which we used fallible science to figure out. The very thing Subhoor is arguing isn't 100% reliable, and so anywhere it conflicts with the Quran it can be mistaken.

@Abbas Abdullah *"seen not simply observed"* -- Seeing is a type of observation, I'm talking about seeing. It doesn't prove absolutely, it's still possible to be wrong after you see something (or, think you see something). It seemed to all our senses that we sent astronauts to the Moon, but it _could_ have been a vast illusion. It's completely unrealistic, but it's logically possible. And that means it's not a 'fact' that we went to the Moon, as Subboor has defined 'fact'. Given Subboor's really strict criteria for a fact, there would be no scientific facts about the world.

@Abbas Abdullah try going into any university and make that statement. They won't laugh at you in your face, but they will once you leave.

Thought the same thing... Subboor is not saying the theory of evolution is bs or something like that, he is simply saying that its a theory, strong theory with a lot of research behind it, but a theory nonetheless, therefore it must remain debatable, not dogmatic.

@@brunochaves3887 Absolutely.

@@brunochaves3887 Theory of Evolution is a "Scientific theory" not just regular "theory". Scientific theories are based on facts and evidences, they are not guess works! Evolution is a fact also, there is no denial in that because it's the fundamental backbone of Biology and modern day medicine!

@@AdvaiticOneness1 i did not say it was guesswork, i'm well aware that Theory of evolution is well accepted, but take in perspective the theory of relativity for example, it has overthrown our knowledge that was a fact back then. The whole point is that science cannot be about "facts" but about what we know until now. Unless there is a point where we can say that we know about everything in the universe science will always be about the most accepted.

@@brunochaves3887 You put "facts" in quote marks, because Subboor had to redefine the word to make his point, as something logically necessary, something we couldn't possibly be mistaken about. Science IS about facts, Subboor just doesn't know what a fact is. Or, he intentionally redefined the word, so that he could say evolution isn't a fact. That's just a scam, pandering to the creationists in his audience. Beefing up the people who really want to deny evolution.

Pfft lol

I didn't have negative opinions about Islam now I surely have. I wasn't interested in reading about religions but my friend told me to read it and give chance and try it and I will find scientific miracle , best literature in the word no mistake amazing master piece , I found non of that then I read a fairy tale where god is the villain

in Quran Allah almighty has said every time that he is the most merciful and most gracious that's why according to islam if a person ask for forgiveness from Allah almighty from his true only one time he will be forgiven by Allah almighty and all his sin will be forgiven

Cool! I tried reading the English version, and you're right, it's despicable. I couldn't read more than a few pages. Allah punishes atheists for not believing, after he forces them not to believe. I've been told by Muslims that all the hate directed to 'non-believers' in there is a mistranslation, and really it means to be talking about people who oppress Islam.

@@aishaaisha6626 hahaha oh my :D

@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke you definetely have no idea what you are talking about. We as Muslims are fearful of hell and that should make us be better muslims. And “non believers go to hell” you are again wrong it depends if the person wasn’t properly introduced to Islam with it’s evidence and wasn’t convinced of it they WIL NOT go to hell. Only when they know the truth and their desires get in the way then it becomes the problem. If you seriously read the Quran and came to such conclusions I reccomend you to read it with a Tasfir (explanation of the verses) with it

You don't know much do you? Did we species evolve from a common ancestor ? This is the question. Lets quote ATHEISTS scientists to refute the foundation of the "great" theory of evolution: Evolutionists argue that some mutations are good and change the features for the better. The problem is, to really change a feature, you need more than one good mutation, which occur simultaneously. Professor of biochemistry Michael Behe says about this: “If more than one [mutation] is needed, the probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse.” [3] Darwin realized (even without knowing about genetics) such a problem. In his book about evolution he dedicated a whole chapter to the problems of his theory. He says: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down“. [4] In 2004, Behe and the physicist from the Pittsburg University David Snoke concluded in a study, *that more generations need to pass for useful mutations to occur than there are generations in the history of Earth itself* .[5] Behe is a critic of Darwin, so predictably he provoked criticism. In 2008 two biologists tried to conduct a similar study in order to refute Behe and Snoke, but they ended up confirming them . For two useful mutations simultaneously to occur it would take more than 100 million years. Since humans exist fro only 6 million years, this is highly problematic for evolutionists. [6] Evolutionary biologist David S. Goodsell writes: "Only a small fraction of the possible combinations of amino acids will fold spontaneously into a stable structure. If you make a protein with a random sequence of amino acids, chances are that it will only form a gooey tangle when placed in water“ [ 7] Lynn Margulis was a atheist and evolutionary biologist and she admits: “ *new mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired* .” [8] She further explained in a 2011 interview: "Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change- led to new species. *I believed it until I looked for evidence* .“ [9] The same problem comes with other species like whales, who evolutionsits believe to have evolved from land animals to todays whales in less than 10 million years,[10] which is too short for all the mutations and changes that needed to occur. The evolutionary biologist Richrard Sternberg summarizes it: “Too many genetic re-wirings, too little time.“ There is another important aspect. Evolutionists believe that these mutations *happened randomly* and without any sense or purpose. For mutations to be deliberate and purposeful, you need intention and intelligence. You basically need a Creator, you need God. HERE ARE THE REFERENCES TO THE STATEMENTS QUOTED ABOVE : Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, Chapter 1 4 Charles Darwin, On the origin of species, London, 1859, p. 189 5 Michael Behe and David Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13: 2651-2664 (2004 [6]Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt, “Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution,” Genetics, 180:1501-1509 (2008). [7] David S. Goodsell, The Machinery of Life, pp. 17, 19 (2nd ed., Springer, 2009) [8] Lynn Margulis, quoted in Darry Madden, UMass Scientist to Lead Debate on Evolutionary Theory, Brattleboro (Vt.) Reformer (February 3, 2006). [9] Lynn Margulis quoted in “Lynn Margulis: Q + A,” Discover Magazine, p. 68 (April, 2011). [10] Alan Feduccia, “‘Big bang’ for tertiary birds?,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18: 172-176 (2003).

@@mohamudahmed6554 If you really want to dispute or dispel the evolution theory by Darwin, you should do the same or similar experiments he did and present a paper to disprove the theory. Next you should also do Genetic studies of different species and give your conclusion that different species have MATERIALLY different genetic codes. Until then, there is no scientific basis to dispel the evolution theory. Your narrow belief is called fundamentalist dogma.

@@henrylow2248 If you want to affirm and accept the theory of evolution, you should do the same or similar experiments he did and present a paper to affirm it. Sounds absurd doesn't it? Also, you are educated on Darwins theory. It is gone though multiple change and Darwin himself knew the issues his theory had. Today Darwin himself would need to study the current theory from his original theory. You clearly didn't know any of this. Lucky for me, i refer back to the scientists and quote their statements and these are the biggest isses with Darwinian Evolution. Hence, it is a theory, not a convincing one and not only that, it is based on assumptions that are impossible as stated. So do me a favour and stop talking about things you don't know.

@@mohamudahmed6554 You are simply unable to understand what is meant by the 'Scientific Method' even but instead base your childish understanding of evolution merely on ''quotes by Scientists". That makes you an uneducated ignoramus. Read first on what is Science and the Scientific Method, Mechanics of Evolution, Genetics, Anthropology, Cosmology etc before you talk. There are tons of reading material on this out there on this. Don't just limit yourself to one archaic book written 1,500 years ago.

@@mohamudahmed6554 ~340 scientific papers worth of evidence can be found in the references section of "evolution" on Wikipedia. That's not every scientific paper, it's just a handful of important ones. Handful being _340 scientific papers!_ So the legwork has already been done here: mountains of evidence have been collected, and they show evolution happens, and the evidence is _dramatically stronger_ than a handful of cherry-picked quotes (so it requires actual scientific papers to dispute, or requires that you somehow find fault in all of those 340 scientific papers)

Pfft lol. My condolences that you actually believe that. Perhaps you have the guts to challenge him on that? Or are you comfortable behind a screen and armed with a keyboard?

@@MansMan42069 if you at least argued against her points i wouldnt mind you starting all of your sentences with pfft lol

Darwin is a liar (literally), there is a lot of gaps in his theory, instead i suggest you read the books that is against his theory to know how many gaps in it.

In school i was told by teachers as if this was facts

@@abbas4604 Yes, this is one of the important reasons why there's a lot of people who won't even suspect it, they deal with it as a fact.

The topic of the debate is wether evolution is a fact. Every scientist on earth will tell you its not a fact. Its not bias to agree with the truth.

@@keelobrown4991 "Every scientist will tell you it's not a fact". Got any evidence to back up that claim?

@@daviddinoger well for one its literally in the name.... "theory" of evolution. Theories by nature are not facts. Secondly there is problems with darwinian evolution and alternatives to it. If you think its a "fact" you either dont know anything about science since the closest truth in science is theory. I shouldnt need to explain this to anyone who even remotely understands the scientific method. Why dont you tell me how it is a fact? Become the first person to ever prove a scientific theory to be completely and objectively factual.. ill wait.

@@keelobrown4991 The problem with your claim is that its grounded on nihilism. In your argument, nothing can be proven, nothing can ever be right. We cannot prove that we exist, i cannot prove that the object in my hands (the phone) actually exists which would mean there is no fact, there is nothing in this world that can be proven, i could not even prove that i am a human, talking to you right now. Obviously that is the case, we cannot prove anything unfortunately with this mindset we cannot function as a society or even as individuals. Our world would fall into chaos if we all truly believed nothing is real, nothing is factual. The other part of your statement was that a theory is just the closest we get to truth. Yes, you are correct but we can expand that theory, just because we can expand the theory of evolution, doesn't make it wrong.

@@daviddinoger wow. Everything you just said about not existing and not being able to prove anything was a major strawman. The scientific method isnt the only way to seek truth. We know we exist and can interact with other existing things through logic and reasoning, which can be used to infer something. Inference basically means to make an assumption based on logical reasoning, which would actually be deduction. Thats different from the scientific method which uses induction to find truth. Induction is observation and testing (both of which are inherintly flawed) Induction can never be 100% true. I would really suggest you look into the scientific method and how it works and what is applicable with and more importantly what is not. Cos your literally comparing two different things (deduction) and (induction). Theres nothing nihilistic about that. If I was being nihilistic then I wouldnt even engage with this convo since the actual view of a nihilist "nothing matters, everything is just atoms and nothing has value or meaning in any way". What your describing is someone who is uncertain of anything. (Which as I've just pointed out is a false assesment on your part) Thats not the same as a nihilist. Also I never said the theory of evolution is wrong (another strawman) I said its not a fact. It very well could be true but that our understanding of it can be completely or partly wrong.

God Creates many organisms without common ancestors, even ones that look like they match in some ways under a microscope. Do you need to see it too or will you also accept this the same as you accept the earth orbits around the sun ?

@@HappyBloke81 One is based on millions of observations that have been tested repeatedly and have consistent results. The other is some guy on KZfaq made some claims. tell me how did you test? "God Creates many organisms without common ancestors" That as far as I can see is least 3 unfounded claims . That there is a god, That god made these organisms and That some of them don't have common ancestors. And I don't know how seeing them under a microscope can even show you how even one these claims are true or even likely.

because we have a falsification test that you can't get a verse like Quran whatever you did. you can search the people who tried and see it. and there are programs that if someone died you allow it to read the messages and then the program talks like him, you can reprogram them and use a supercomputer and try to get something like it?? you can raise a fund to do this by the help of other people

@@gaber42424 I'm sorry but I really did not understand exactly how this falsification test works, can you maybe link the site or explain it better? But if I understand your point correctly, your saying you can't make a book like Quaran and therefor it must be true and from a God. If that is your point then it's a invalide point. first of all you say you can't create a book like Quaran, my question is what is your criteria? If you talk about beauty or structure of verses then first it's a subjective criteria because you defination of a impeccable structure maybe differ from person to person there are a lot of poets who wrote books who are a lot better than the Quaran in my subjective opinion like Edgar allan poe . Second point even if you can't recreate something it does not mean necessarily that it came from a God. There is a lot of things that people did in the past that we can't do today in the same exact way they did them but they are still people not Gods. The rational and honest answer to the question is there a creator to this universe is we don't know that is if the universe was indeed created to begin with, and if we want to know we need a lot more information.

Read holy Quran find problems with it and ask Suboor .... Then only you can ask this question 😃

@@hakimo3417 nows thats what I say is an honest answer...I am amuslim and I would like to invite you to read quran

Especially since there's so much BS in the quran.

@@KATOOMY this got nothing to do with telling lies... Evolution is a PROVEN scientific FACT and a theory.... Dont debate me ,dude . Just bring your own theory , present it to the scientific world.. and get Published. ONLY call me when you got your Nobel prize in science for turning the whole scientific world upside down.. good luck with that

@@arvitt pezosiren portelli a walking manatte

an evolution simply means biological changes over time but darwinian evolution says we humans evolved from apes which Completely an assumption of homology

@@muhammadhussain5854 transition from apes to OTHER apes (like homosapiens) IS STILL CALLED EVOLUTION.... BY DEFENITION. We do not call gravity ... Newtons gravity.. do we? The person who made the theory is irrelevant. Its their theory itself that is relevant in science.

@@KATOOMY First you said "That evolution is a lie", then you mentioned an interesting transitional fossil. I don't get it, all evolution deniers are forced to deny transitional fossils exist. How haven't you just debunked yourself?

If your listened to what subhoor said you would see that what you are saying is circular reasoning based upon assumption of Naturalistic Causes. Let's make it easy. If you decided to make a Creature to walk on this Earth, how would you do it? It needs to breath oxygen so it needs lungs, a heart to pump blood. It needs to eat so it needs a mouth, tongue stomach, intestines etc etc. It needs to see and smell. You would not expect them NOT to have any of these things. These things are vital to most creatures. If we were to state a designer made the Earth and its creatures, you would expect this. You would be crazy not to expect this. You assume common traits equals common decent, because you believe there is no designer and all animals commonly descend. That's what he means by circular reasoning. If someone 20,000 years ago in ancient egypt opened a dog, and they found a heart and lungs, they did not say common decent, they said, that's what we expect to find for a creature of the Earth.

@@redx11x there was no need for lungs because there was no oxygen in the atmosphere, just hydrogen and helium, later when the composition of the atmosphere changed lungs evolved from air sacs in fish, to breath oxygen, you need some science education

@@salvadoralvarado8685 🤦

@@salvadoralvarado8685 Did you not even read my message and understand my point.

@@redx11x i would create subatomic particles to form atoms that by themselves can form molecules then biomolecules, once you have biomolecules like dna, rna, proteins you would eventually have elephants, you cannot start with something so complex as a human being, the process of organization of matter goes from the very simple to the more complex, again get some sci info

When evolutionists face a challenge to their theory .. they give the challenge a "scientific" name and oops it becomes part of the theory

Very vague explanation.

@@ALMA3LOMATCHANNEL this is what Dr Eyad Qunaibi said.When science disprove their myth,they come with modification and giving new names 🤣🤣

@@muslimboyilyas775 school has failed you if you don't understand that evolution is true. You should ask for you money back.

@@ALMA3LOMATCHANNEL so, two years have gone by. Do you still not understand that evolution is true? Has your understanding improved in any way?

If he was a scientist he should have his qualifications revoked.

Just not to provided wrong info , Firstly, watch his KZfaq channel , I think he mentions it there a few times. He's studying Philosophy of science or sth like that

A real scientist wouldn't even waste his time on saboor to be honest, basically a young physics grad is at best all it takes to present the data, a real scientist will annihilate him on the spot

@@TripleAceAAA just like lawrence krauss did with hamza?? LOL. come out of emotions there is no place of emotions in materialism.

MidnightRyder Maybe like Prof Lawrence Kraus, when he wrote a universe from nothing and then tried to define what nothing is ;) Quite deceptive.

@zaggaona. Did the 'WE", you are talking about deemed those things wrong using objective or subjective criterion? Did the "WE" in their judgement consider all of the possibilities for purpose and existence: possibility of afterlife being true and spiritual life being true or the "WE" have judged these things only trough naturalistic point of view. Could the "WE" be wrong in their judgement of what is right and what is wrong?

@@safetsalihovic8775 by "we" i mean non-fanatical, rational, modern people. And i believe, when it comes to the subject of morality it can only be subjective. Lets take slavery for instance, referenced and practiced during the writing of holy books, WE, as a society and subjectively, can agree that slavery is morally wrong.

@@zaggaona The "We" think of them selves as: non-fanatical, rational, modern people , and the "We" had agreed .on a lots of things. The same "We" have agreed on things as being all right which now you judge wrong. Those: "We":non-fanatical, rational, modern people bend their necks in the way that wind blows [ in a moment one way in the next moment the other way ] because they think that morality can only be subjective. Out of subjective morality come: murderers, robbers, thieves, dictators, and all the most horrible deeds a human being can imagine. The source of subjectivity [ peoples own whims, desires and wishes ] is their own selfishness. The selfishness is also the source of: self piety, racism, chauvinism [ what causes injustice ]. There is not one good thing that comes from selfishness, yet you think it's a source for morality. So don't talk to me about morals when your morals come from your selfishness. That's also the reason why the "We" think so highly about them self's as being: non-fanatical, rational, modern people while in the same time the "We" are the most fanatical and irrational. About " modern" [ as I understood it from your reply ] you think of it as being something good. Well it's modern to have a sexual intercourse before being married with: multiple partners some of them not even knowing who they are [ one night stands ] or having sexual intercourse while under influence of drugs and alcohol and not even knowing later who one has slept with. It's modern to have a lover or multiple lovers besides spouse. How many problems in societies this "modern" behaviors have caused. Families being broken, hatred among people, single parenting, abandoned children, murdered children, suicides. Causes incest [ people having sexual intercourse with close relatives or even marrying them without knowing that they are related ]. Modernity is the cause for disrespecting parents and elders because they are not modern. Modernity is the cause for many more awful disgusting and nasty things. Don't make me count them all. As for subjectivity, the source of modernity is also in selfishness . So those who believe in morality according to their own subjectivity are the most immoral and disgusting people. One can hide own deeds from people but words that come from ones mouth will uncover directly or indirectly what's hidden in ones hart.

Man, You know that thus debate topic Is different right? Islam is another topic

@@zaggaona The ''we'' non-fanatical, rational, modern atheists who in the last 100 years have massacred more people than every abrahamic religion combined in their existence. Get a grip and get off your moral high horse please. Its embarrassing how you seem to think the modern atheist has some superior understanding of morals and ethics.

because it is, all evidence point to it, there are no contradictions or large gaps/mysteries and also there is literally no competition.

Evolution is fact, it's the fundamental backbone of Biology and modern day medicine!

@@AdvaiticOneness1 is that what they agreed on ,cause the video is so long and i want the gist

@@Frirkrkk92o4ii What these two agree or disagree doesn't matter! In reality, Evolution is a fact and it's undeniable whatsoever!

@@AdvaiticOneness1 Evolution is fact and the source : Believe me🤣🤣

I don't think they converged on an agreed result. I'm pretty sure Subboor left with the position he arrived with - that if there's any remote possibility that evolution could be wrong, no matter how unrealistic that possibility, we shouldn't call evolution a fact. To Subboor, facts have nothing to do with evidence. There are no facts in science. Only things that are logically necessary, logically impossible to be wrong, count as facts.

You would argue the same for lion prides and Orca pods , If these traits are so successful why are they rare ? Or would you say because of their success they are thus rare

@@garsayfsomali it’s rare because most animals are not social. Within social animals it’s actually very common to hunt together, eat together and sleep together in order to ensure survival

@MatalixTheREAL historically giving to those less fortunate than yourself would propagate the survival of the tribe as a whole and therefore would benefit you by having an extra pair of hands when going hunting

Explain why some chemicals in a water randomly formed a perfect chain of dna to cause the first prokaryotic bacteria u can't because its not possible

Also how about killing of elder and disabled people they would be dead weight for the tribe it would be better if they were non-existent cuz as 'animals' we see lesser creatures like cows or sheep as somtjing we have the authority to kill why not the same for disabled and elderly people according to you theory.

so much well poisoning in the incipit.

Subboor destroyed Aron the clown. Aron doesn't even know what Darwinian evolution is

He is doing this to cover his back.

@@an9l1c1sm6this is a common saying according to Quran and Hadith bro lol he didn’t come up with it and it is said even if someone is 100% sure he is right

@@MR.33133 Same thing. Since you are so knowledgeable about hadiths, where does the sun go at night?

@@an9l1c1sm6 The Quran is speaking about the sunset lol I knew you would bring up this stupidity The verse is talking about a king called “Thu AlQarnayn” and it is describing his point of view of the sunset. Just like when someone sees the sun sets into the sea, mountains, fields, etc

@@MR.33133 No, I'm talking about a hadith: Sahih al-Bukhari 3199

I think adaptation is a fact because thats what we can view within our recorded history..beyond that its still a theory. The scientific evidence strongly suggests its a fact.

@Sharif Masum. The scientific fact about evolution is that it isn't an entity. The scientific fact is that only entities have ability to do something. Therefor evolution can't do anything. The scientific attributes of evolution are: Isn't an entity. Neither is a living or not living thing. Has no any ability. Has no any knowledge. Has no any power. In order for evolution to be even possible, it must have an entity working behind it. What is the entity???

@@zaggaona The scientific evidence strongly suggest that evolution is just a false guess [ a wrong idea, a wishful thinking of non believers ] and that; it is impossible to happen..

@@safetsalihovic8775 There is no such thing 'scentific fact' just like there is no such thing 'Darwinian evolution'. Its is just fact, and just evolution. Fact is something can be proven true. Change of season is a fact which can be proven true, and it has no entity.

@@safetsalihovic8775 science is not at all "wishful", its about looking at evidence and coming up with the most logical theory as to why. And true, science and the majority of its theories are just that, theories, but what they do is confirm a lot of wrong answers and wrong questions. Religion has no evidence to ANYTHING. Its ALL stories written by people. And its hard facts according to followers. And islam, and christianity, are heavily reliant on Judaism and their "stories" which they took a lot from Egyptian theism. WHEN, .. people, today in age, say they speak to god, or have visions of god and what they are instructed to do WE, as modern, reasonable people, look at the evidence from our society and come up with a reasonable and most logical conclusion.

Not true Islam has been there from the first day that Adam was created, Christianity and Judaism are not religions these are human made religions as Muslims we consider all prophets are Muslims and that's why as Muslims say that the prophet Muhammad peace be with him is the last prophet which means all prophets who came before him were preaching the same message which is submission to the will of the almighty.

That's because you atheists have got religion all wrong. And it seems like you never want to understand it. Forst off stop calling it religion as if all the religions are the same because they are not.

@@tylerdordon99 atheists dont believe in any religion u fool, and u getting all religious cuz of a pandemic sad

Islam is on tawheed all prophets were on tawheed

🤣

Actually the point Subhoor is trying to make is that religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive. It s just the naturalistic focus on the current status of evolution that makes it hard to accept the current developments and status. For example, if you re trying to make a case that some humans are superior to other humans and you only use the current state of the world as an argument, then you are going to get results which are extremely biased and unfair. As muslims we accept any scientific study even if it contradicts the Quran because we know that science is changing. For example, the most popular argument in the early 1900s was the argument that the universe was infinite. Today science changed its stance and now it is in line with Islam. Nevertheless, the philosophical discussion by muslims was always done in a similar way. What evolution brings as a problem, is that it is being pushed by an atheist dogma and is mishandled in such a way that alternarive theories that may explain things much better but are boycotted out since they may bring the theory more in line with religion. And because the theory has a very low empirical force of direct evidence, this can be done ad infinitum. So as muslims we are merely begging the question whether the idea of evolution is being done rationally and fair. Hope this clarifies my stance a bit more :).

@@dadush4 but aren’t the neantherdals and early hominids evidence of human evolution

@@AD4MANTIUM2166 i cant comment for some reason :D.. so ill try it in parts

@@AD4MANTIUM2166 depends if you wanna believe a single tooth or a piece of the jaw is sufficient evidence for the entire theory of Neanderthals.

@@AD4MANTIUM2166 E.g. piltdown man, after 30+years it turned out to be a hoax.. We have to separate ideologies from this field of research to find actual evidence and truths. Atheism has made a bad indent on evolution as a science, and it s hard to wash out the taste now. It s similar to how the church kept the earth flat for so long, lynching everyone that dared to say otherwise.

Jan Koščak Of course there is an absolute answer: evolution is either true or not that is an absolute answer, but which one of these is the absolute truth we can't find it trough science. Science doesn't have tools to deal with absolutes, one can't observe, measure or test it because all possibilities are not of the physical reality. To get to absolute truth one must examine all possibilities physical and metaphysical, but science can't do that. Doesn't matter in which ideology a person was born. Absolutes are the same for everyone, regardless if one believes in them or not. Believing in them or not will not change a thing about absolutes. We do have the ability [a way] to find absolutes and it's trough reason. With the reason [ rationality ]we come to know that a dependent thing or a dependent being can't exist without The Independent. The existence of The Independent is necessary because without its existence: the universe and everything in it wouldn't exist. Dependent things can't exist on their own or on depending just on other dependent things, as evolution would include only dependent things it's an impossible idea. Our existence [ existence of dependent things] proves that The Independent [ The Absolute ] exists. We don't need to observe The Independent to know it exists. World views which don't recognize these irrefutable facts don't matter at all. It is those world views: which don't recognize the limits of science and don't recognize our ability to get to the absolute truth trough reason that follow absurd ideas. Idea that everything must have a scientific [ naturalistic ] explanation is absurd idea, when one knows that even conscience and mind can't be explained scientifically. We use our rationality together with science in order to explain anything. Rationality and science compliment each other they are not enemies. With using only science we can't explain how light which has no mass moves, but with our rationality we can.

There are many people who were raised as either Christians or atheists and they accepted Islam. Does this mean that their belief is right becuase they accepted a belief that’s different to what they were exposed to when they were kids! Your argument is preposterous

@@safetsalihovic8775 of course conscience and mind can be explained scientifically. Your philosophy regarding the "independent" is doubtful, but even if it's correct, there's nothing to say that the independent entity is a mind or anything like a god. Occams Razor would rather slice away anything else than that the universe itself is in some sense the independent thing. Everything else just adds a layer of complexity without helping. Evolution is fact at least in the everyday sense of the word. It's possible we're all a computer simulation started two minutes ago, who knows, but assuming our existence is as it seems to be, evolution and common origin is a fact that can no longer be fundamentally overturned by science.

A cool brother in huamnity

A cool kid

What's your point?

@@darcymr353 Exactly what it says. Abiogenesis fails

@@tonymaurice4157 not necessarily. Just because we can't currently replicate it in a lab, doesn't mean it's impossible.

@@darcymr353 It doesn't mean it's possible,.all you have is wishful thinking and hope. all the chemistry goes in the exact opposite direction of life. And if we did succeed in the lab all it would prove is intelligent design. The complex and highly orchestrated experimental protocols with unnatural starting materials further demonstrate that intelligent agency is an essential ingredient to life’s origin.

@@tonymaurice4157 this is just the god of the gaps. I didn't say whether or not it is possible. We simply don't know. Success in a lab wouldn't necessarily point to intelligent design. Please justify this assertion. Prove complexity requires orchestration.

this is subjective analysis. fallible argument.

fix your grammar

"that is human behaviour just like kings and queen and royalty system thinking they are special and deserve special treatment place and title." Humans respect superiors, it is human nature. If you respect somebody like God you would follow what they say. If you respect your parents and they tell you do something, you would do it.

@@muzzyjk how can anyone respect the idea of a god? It’s man made superstition 😂

@@muzzyjk there is a different between respect and worship , well human worship , that is in their nature they like to adore idol people with power

The answer of yes combats the idea of science. Do not be so stupid. Science is dynamic and not absolute so how can darwinism, an idea centuries old, still be infallible to this day. Even Darwin knew his theories were fallible yet you still state such stupidity.

@@muzzyjk take your own advice and don’t be stupid. Your assertions about what Darwin did or didn’t think isn’t relevant. His theory of evolution stands today because it’s held up to scrutiny. The short answer IS yes.

@@muzzyjk you're confusing darwinism with evolution by natural selection. The latter is a fact.

@@darcymr353 🤦🏻‍♂️ they both mean the same thing silly 😝 what you’re really getting at is that you think since Darwin’s theory is able to evolve that you feel it’s not solid. That’s too bad my friend. Please be the first to successfully challenge it.

@@markusbaker1161 evolution by natural selection is a scientific fact. Darwin made some mistakes in his lifetime. That's the difference I'm referring to.

Does that mean you think species do not adapt to better suit their environment over time, through variation and natural selection?

@Al Mudarabah spam 🤦🏻‍♂️