Posts

Total: 130
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
More BS. No one even truly knows who the authors of the gospels even were.  The names given to them may as well have been plucked out of thin air.

And an empty tomb is evidence only that a tomb was empty. 

Why would anyone need to "roll away the stone"  Mark 16:3  when it is said that Jesus was able to walk through the wall of a locked room? John 20:26. 

 Why were they all shocked and surprised and in fear that he had "risen", when he had been telling them all along that this was going to happen?

 The whole story is contrived and you just can't face it.
- You seem quite capable of constructing a sound argument. How come you run away when asked to debate?

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Yassine
More BS. No one even truly knows who the authors of the gospels even were.  The names given to them may as well have been plucked out of thin air.

And an empty tomb is evidence only that a tomb was empty. 

Why would anyone need to "roll away the stone"  Mark 16:3  when it is said that Jesus was able to walk through the wall of a locked room? John 20:26. 

 Why were they all shocked and surprised and in fear that he had "risen", when he had been telling them all along that this was going to happen?

 The whole story is contrived and you just can't face it.
- You seem quite capable of constructing a sound argument. How come you run away when asked to debate?

 I am simply not interested, Yassine. I am happy here on the open forum sharing my opinions, thoughts and theories.

But don't let me derail your thread. I only piped in because the Reverend  claimed this utter nonsense:

Tradesecret wrote:  " the biblical narrative makes sense and is clearly based upon sound evidence"#28





Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Because it is not just impossible. It is implausible and improbable. Apart from that it is unprovable.
- This should've read: it's not just implausible, it is improbable & even impossible. But indeed, I agree.

And the biblical narrative makes sense and is clearly based upon sound evidence. 
- You wanna have a debate on that?

Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Yassine
Despite all the promotions, the majority of people outside Europe & East Asia do not believe in mainstream Evolution. 
This is because people are willing to safeguard their sacred religious beliefs, even if it means turning a blind eye to facts. Like what biologist Sheril Kirshenbaum stated, America is a very religious nation, and if forced to choose between faith and science, vast numbers of  Americans will select the former. 
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
This is because people are willing to safeguard their sacred religious beliefs, even if it means turning a blind eye to facts.
- That's a sorry excuse for the phenomenal failure of the evolutionary narrative to provide any compelling arguments. This idea lingered in the Muslims world since the Mutaziles came into prominence, 13 centuries ago, starting from al-Jahiz & Ibn Maskawayh, through Ikhwan Safa & to Nasr Tusi... In fact, one of the main arguments the Darwinians used against the Church in the 19th century is their rejection of the Islamic theory of evolution, as it was known then...& YET, it's still could not take hold.

Like what biologist Sheril Kirshenbaum stated, America is a very religious nation, and if forced to choose between faith and science, vast numbers of  Americans will select the former. 
- I agree with the first half of this statement. Half of Americans religiously believe in the Christian creation story & the other half also religiously believe in the Evolutionationary creation story. This dichotomy is false. Virtually all people around the world adhere to the vast majority of scientific discovery, especially in Physics. Evolution is simply *not* Science. It's religion disguised as science, aka pseudoscience. If you disagree, provide *proof* for the opposite.

Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Yassine
Unlike Islam or Christianity, science autocorrects itself.
- Autocorrecting implies incorrectness. You've lost the argument before you even started. 
There is no argument. I’m having a conversation with a child. 

  1. Admit to yourself what you don’t know. 
  2. Understand all humans can be wrong, and all humans can be corrected; No human is infallible.
  3. Acknowledge there are smarter people than you or I.
  4. Stay curious.

Neo-Darwinism is the last synthesis of Darwinian evolution. They scrap the previous syntheses & invent new stories, because they realize it was all fantasy exposed with new discoveries.
Aren’t new discoveries good?


They are at their 5th synthesis now, because of the Genome Project; comparative genealogy do not support the traditional tree of life they concocted.
Are you talking about the human genome project? Which tree of life are you talking about? I’m note sure how they would conflict. Please explain.


So far they are still arguing about what this extended synthesis is, because they are not sure what stories to tell before they know the facts. Like politicians.
Are you talking about science popularisers, or actual scientific study/experiments, peer review, replications?
The device your using is the product of countless hours of the later. 
 
Science cares about truth and it looks inwards when disputing, while Islam/Christianity care about dominance and they look outwards. 
Science does not relate to truth in the slightest, it relates to accuracy & likelihood.
Truth: the quality or state of being true.
True: in accordance with fact or reality.

Science cares about fact and reality. 

But yes, you’re right too.

No scientific theory can ever be true, by design. Science practices an inductive reasoning, where one seeks a universal explanation (an abstract hypothesis) to a particular event (a concrete observable fact), by computation of frequency.
You’re conflating truth with what I call absolute truth. 

In short: observations, then hypothesis explaining observations, then statistical comparison of results of hypothesis against new observations, then rinse & repeat. A good such hypothesis is a possible, plausible, simple, verifiable, falsifiable & accurate explanation:
Plausible: intuitive & in harmony with the general scientific narrative.
Simple: as opposed to complex, more complexions mean more assumptions.
Verifiable: fits observable facts.
Falsifiable: predicts new observable facts
Accurate: quantitative postulate with minimal statistical margin of error.
I agree. Although you might be intentionally misunderstanding some words when it comes to evolution compared to quantum mechanics.
 
You’re the one fixated on “stories” and “narratives.”
- You have it backwards. You have yet to produce any proof or evidence for the mythos that is the evolutionary narrative you subscribe to. Don't take my word for it, check the theory of evolution against the conditions required by the scientific method.
First, what would you consider sufficient evidence? I guess watching an animal turn into another animal, like a fish turning into a human or something.


Is the theory of evolution plausible? No, it isn't. It's a dumb reductionist theory in a quantum world. 
How does quantum mechanics indicate the theory of evolution is void? You might as well say that about general relativity. 

Simple? Absolutely not. It's the most convoluted expansive tale ever produced by Mankind. Verifiable? That's a joke. Falsifiable? Haha. It's the only known so-called theory that predicts Jack Schitt. Accurate? It doesn't predict anything or give us any measure of anything to even have the chance to be inaccurate, let alone accurate.
By your standards quantum theory isn’t science.

- I'm ready to provide proof for the Islamic narrative that I'm willing to debate it on this forum. Are you ready to provide evidence for your narrative?
I care about truth. 


“Maybe in 500 years we'll have a quantum theory of biology.“ 
That’s why. These ideas must be too big for me. Please explain what you mean. 
- Our understanding of biology stems from our understanding of chemistry, which stems from our understanding of physics, which stems from our understanding of quantum theory.
No, our understanding doesn’t. They may inform each other to one degree or another. But our understanding of everything else doesn’t derive from our understanding of quantum mechanics if that’s what you’re referring to.

When you move the tip of your finger, it's not a crankshaft mechanism, instead countless quantum chemical reactions are in play, from the muscle tissue down to the cell & down to the molecules & down to the smallest particles involved.
How about both? Not sure I fully understand your crankshaft analogy but I think I know what you’re getting at.


It's impossible to explain biodiversity with imbecilic vacuous tales about similarity in bone structure & common ancestor. We must achieve a bottom-up understanding of biology, by expanding our understanding in physics, maybe even beyond quantum theory, then building up from elementary particles interactions up to the organic compounds (nucleic acids, lipids, proteins & carbohydrates), up to cell structure & so on. Hence, a quantum theory of biology, with actual equations & predictions.
The study of evolution covers countless scientific fields. I don’t know where to begin.

They all point to common ancestors.
i.e. modern humans didn’t just show up out of no where. We can see that in the fossil and genetic record. 










BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Yassine

Yassine,

YOUR QUOTE TO STEPHEN IN POST #31: "You seem quite capable of constructing a sound argument. How come you run away when asked to debate?"

The irony is that you continue to ask the members for a debate with no takers, where I have stepped up and want to debate you upon your Satanic Islamic faith, but you have yet to commit by continually running away from me as shown in the links below!!!   Why, SCARED of my reputation upon this forum of easily making pseudo-christians the Bible fools that they are?


Can a fellow Hell-bound Muslim of the Islamic faith help YASSINE find his "big boy pants" to debate me upon his Satanic faith?  Anyone?

YASSINE, the membership is watching you RUN from me debating you, no more lame excuses, understood?!!!


Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Reece101
There is no argument. I’m having a conversation with a child. 
- Oh! Your imaginary friend?

Admit to yourself what you don’t know.
- But you know evolution is true? Or you don't know?

Understand all humans can be wrong, and all humans can be corrected; No human is infallible.
- So evolutionationists are infallible? Or are they wrong?

Acknowledge there are smarter people than you or I.
- Smarter =/= right...

Stay curious.
- They lied to you. When Blinken was asked about the awfulness of US invasions, he retorted that democracy is beautiful because we learn from our mistakes! I doubt he would be keen on saying that after he murders his American neighbor, "sorry judge, this is beautiful because I learn from my mistake", "oh sure, you're free to go." LOL!. But this is exactly what politicians do when they are pressed, use feel good bogus responses. The evolutionationists, just like the politicians, use bogus feel-good nonsense to confuse their fans.  

Aren’t new discoveries good?
- Discoveries, despite the hatefulness & biases of the evolutionationists. I remember few years back, Dawkins couldn't shut up about junk DNA & vestigial organs, until we discovered their true purpose & utility. Now he pretends like he knew all along. What a moron! Evolutionationists hamper the progress of Science & obstruct new discoveries, because they are not seeking to understand life & unravel its mysteries, rather they are after confirming their biases. The darwinist looks at life-forms as badly designed machines barely functional, thus assuming their parts to be a priori functionless & obsolete, only there to explain evolution. This is not just unscientific, it's anti-scientific.

Are you talking about the human genome project? Which tree of life are you talking about? I’m note sure how they would conflict. Please explain.
- The most common phylogenies, the genome Tree of Life, the molecular Tree of Life, & the morphology Tree of Life rely on completely different assumptions & give desperate results. The latest reconstruction effort comes with the Genome Project (not just for human, that one is already done), but the results are depressing since they turn the traditional trees upside down. Now, the old evolutionationists are understandably upset.

Are you talking about science popularisers, or actual scientific study/experiments, peer review, replications?
- Huh? Outside the serious sciences (Physics are the gang), the overwhelming majority of publications are erroneous & irreproducible. In Evolutionary biology, the rate is close to 100%.

The device your using is the product of countless hours of the later. 
- (You're*). Of engineering*. Biology had nothing to do with it, neither did evolutionation. It's called Physics. The most infuriating & comical thing about Science today is that the dumbest "findings" in phycology & biology (such as evolution) live under the same umbrella of 'Science' as things like Gravitation Theory & Quantum Theory, leeching off their reputation. In the traditional Islamic classification of knowledge, physical sciences such as astronomy (hay'a), mechanics (hayl), gravitation (thaqala), or engineering (mimar) were classified alongside arithmetics (hisab) algebra (jabr), & geometry (handasa), under Mathematics (Ryadyat); whereas biological sciences & medicine were classified under Natural Sciences (Tabi'yat). If we take out Physics & put it back in the Mathematics department, we'll finally have Natural Sciences right where they belong.
 
Truth: the quality or state of being true.
True: in accordance with fact or reality.
Science cares about fact and reality. 
- "care"? As in 'has an emotional attachment to'...? Why the convolutions? Science does not produce truth, period. You're confusing fact with explanation of fact. A data set is not equal to its explanation. There is no true scientific theory, there are accurate/inaccurate or likely/unlikely scientific hypotheses.

But yes, you’re right.
- Fixed.

You’re conflating truth with what I call absolute truth.
- Take a course in Logic, or at least in Philosophy of Science. Truth & falsehood relate to deductive reasoning, such as in saying: the statement "1 + 1 = 2" is a true statement. Scientific reasoning is a statistical computation of divergence (or convergence) between hypothesized results & observable results. Therefore, its truth value is necessarily either a statistical measure, i.e. accuracy, or a probabilistic measure, i.e. likelihood

I agree. Although you might be intentionally misunderstanding some words when it comes to evolution compared to quantum mechanics.
- I'm all ears. Why are you wasting your time arguing concepts, when you can instead provide much needed proof for Evolution here & now. Bring me proof that confirms the scientific rigorousness of this theory, & I will cede your case.
 
First, what would you consider sufficient evidence? I guess watching an animal turn into another animal, like a fish turning into a human or something.
- This is the postulate of Evolutionary Theory: "Life emerged from spontaneous & compounded chemical reactions, to form a self-sustaining & self-reproducing single-cell organism, capable of gradual changes in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms of increasing complexity, giving rise to all biodiversity on Earth through descent of varying species from a common ancestor via undirected mechanisms, such as natural selection, random mutations, genetic drift, migration & gene flow". Sufficient evidence is such that it makes the aforementioned postulate a scientific postulate, 

How does quantum mechanics indicate the theory of evolution is void? You might as well say that about general relativity. 
- Maybe this analogy will help. Back in the day they thought a duck is just a big clock, mechanical pieces attached together. It turns out it isn't. Evolution still looks at the duck as if it's a big clock. It really isn't. The problem with most people who believe Evolution is that they don't really understand its implications, but they trust the "experts" in what they tell them, because it's supposedly too technical. This is true for religion, where the followers trust in their leaders to have the knowledge they themselves do not have. Why is this the case here. Well established scientific theories in Physics can all be personally verifiable & checked with reasonable effort. You don't need a mathematician or a physicist to tell you the equation is accurate. This is not the case for Evolution. 

By your standards quantum theory isn’t science.
- Let's see... Plausible? It's one of the two foundational theories of all of Physics, & therefore all of Science. Simple? How about this GORGEOUS equation: HPsi = EPsi . Verifiable? It is called the most precisely tested theory in the history of Science. Falsifiable? You betcha, Quantum theory can predict the movement of trillions of trillions of electrons in your flash memory allowing you to store your data & read it safely. Accurate? Give me something else that measures down to 10 to the power of 16, that's 0.0000000000000001 margin of error. In short, if Quantum Theory isn't scientific, then nothing is.

I care about truth. 
- Then seek it, it isn't in the evolutionary narrative. Not because you're an atheist you have to believe in this nonsense. Sooner or later they will run out of new syntheses (i.e. versions) of their story. & the whole thing will be dropped in the shameful basket of history just like Eugenics was dropped & forgotten.

No, our understanding doesn’t. They may inform each other to one degree or another. But our understanding of everything else doesn’t derive from our understanding of quantum mechanics if that’s what you’re referring to.
- It strictly does. You don't know what I'm talking about that's why you don't understand me. Go ask a chemist. You can not have Molecular Biology without Chemistry. You can not have Chemistry without Quantum Physics. Else, these disciplines will shrink back to 19th century level. This applies to engineering as well, you can not have Material Science or Computer Science... without Quantum Physics.

How about both? Not sure I fully understand your crankshaft analogy but I think I know what you’re getting at.
- Both what?


The study of evolution covers countless scientific fields. I don’t know where to begin.
- The story* of Evolution, yes! Ubiquitous, yet utterly useless. The theory of Evolution, regardless of its truth, has never produced a single useful thing. 

They all point to common ancestors.
- No they don't. That's what you've been indoctrinated to believe. If you have proof otherwise, by all means, the stage is yours.

i.e. modern humans didn’t just show up out of no where.
- It's ok to say "we don't know" & keep looking until you unravel the mysteries. 

We can see that in the fossil and genetic record. 
- No we can't. Show me otherwise.
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Brother D Thomas,

i doubt many people would debate you - because you are clearly a joke.  No offence meant, you purposely are using a parody.  It would be expected that you would carry your parody into the debate. It just would become a mockery.  I suspect no one - including yassine wants to do that.  

Perhaps you could use one of your other identities - like Stephen or wagu or willows or ethang or any of the other ones to challenge yassine. when you do i  suppose it might signal you are serious about debating.  

Everything currently signals you just want to have fun.  And that's ok.  but it also means that people don't run away from you - no body really runs away from clown - even the scary ones.     But people don't like being mocked in a serious topic. 
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Yassine
There is no argument. I’m having a conversation with a child. 
- Oh! Your imaginary friend?
When you said science correcting itself means I’ve already lost the argument, you did not think that through in the slightest.
It’s essentially like talking to a child. And there you go again.

Admit to yourself what you don’t know.
- But you know evolution is true? Or you don't know?
I know it’s true.


Understand all humans can be wrong, and all humans can be corrected; No human is infallible.
- So evolutionationists are infallible? Or are they wrong?
Evolutionationists are not infallible. All people are not infallible.
Does that mean evolution in its entirety is wrong? Yes, with strong enough counter evidence which most likely we’ll never find. 

Acknowledge there are smarter people than you or I.
- Smarter =/= right...
We must look to different people/sources for our knowledge then.


Stay curious.
- They lied to you. When Blinken was asked about the awfulness of US invasions, he retorted that democracy is beautiful because we learn from our mistakes! I doubt he would be keen on saying that after he murders his American neighbor, "sorry judge, this is beautiful because I learn from my mistake", "oh sure, you're free to go." LOL!. But this is exactly what politicians do when they are pressed, use feel good bogus responses. The evolutionationists, just like the politicians, use bogus feel-good nonsense to confuse their fans.  
So when it comes to science we shouldn’t be curious? Is science like murdering someone? Perhaps your belief in Allah?

Aren’t new discoveries good?
- Discoveries, despite the hatefulness & biases of the evolutionationists. I remember few years back, Dawkins couldn't shut up about junk DNA & vestigial organs, until we discovered their true purpose & utility. Now he pretends like he knew all along. What a moron! Evolutionationists hamper the progress of Science & obstruct new discoveries, because they are not seeking to understand life & unravel its mysteries, rather they are after confirming their biases. The darwinist looks at life-forms as badly designed machines barely functional, thus assuming their parts to be a priori functionless & obsolete, only there to explain evolution. This is not just unscientific, it's anti-scientific.
He’s been an outspoken atheist and science populariser for the most part in the last decade or so. You’re pretty much just tone policing. 
Science popularising is not science, though Dawkins has contributed his fair share of science in his earlier years. 

And as for vestigial evolutionary remnants, some are obvious such as earlobes. 

Are you talking about the human genome project? Which tree of life are you talking about? I’m note sure how they would conflict. Please explain.
- The most common phylogenies, the genome Tree of Life, the molecular Tree of Life, & the morphology Tree of Life rely on completely different assumptions & give desperate results. The latest reconstruction effort comes with the Genome Project (not just for human, that one is already done), but the results are depressing since they turn the traditional trees upside down. Now, the old evolutionationists are understandably upset.
Can you tell me how?


Are you talking about science popularisers, or actual scientific study/experiments, peer review, replications?
- Huh? Outside the serious sciences (Physics are the gang), the overwhelming majority of publications are erroneous & irreproducible. In Evolutionary biology, the rate is close to 100%.
Can you link me some things so I have a better understanding?

The device your using is the product of countless hours of the later. 
- (You're*). Of engineering*. Biology had nothing to do with it, neither did evolutionation. It's called Physics. The most infuriating & comical thing about Science today is that the dumbest "findings" in phycology & biology (such as evolution) live under the same umbrella of 'Science' as things like Gravitation Theory & Quantum Theory, leeching off their reputation. In the traditional Islamic classification of knowledge, physical sciences such as astronomy(hay'a), mechanics (hayl), gravitation (thaqala), or engineering (mimar) were classified alongside arithmetics (hisab) algebra (jabr), & geometry (handasa), under Mathematics (Ryadyat); whereas biological sciences & medicine were classified under Natural Sciences (Tabi'yat). If we take out Physics & put it back in the Mathematics department, we'll finally have Natural Sciences right where they belong.
 
Just in physics/astronomy the world doesn’t revolve around Earth, in biology the world doesn’t revolve around humans. 

Truth: the quality or state of being true.
True: in accordance with fact or reality.
Science cares about fact and reality. 
- "care"? As in 'has an emotional attachment to'...? Why the convolutions? Science does not produce truth, period. You're confusing fact with explanation of fact. A data set is not equal to its explanation. There is no true scientific theory, there are accurate/inaccurate or likely/unlikely scientific hypotheses.
So now you’ve moved the focus to “care” too. Childish.
Care: serious attention or consideration applied to doing something correctly or to avoid damage or risk.
You ask why the convolutions. I’m just giving you definitions. What are you doing?

But yes, you’re right.
- Fixed.
Don’t edit what I say in bad faith. 

You’re conflating truth with what I call absolute truth.
- Take a course in Logic, or at least in Philosophy of Science. Truth & falsehood relate to deductive reasoning, such as in saying: the statement "1 + 1 = 2" is a true statement. Scientific reasoning is a statistical computation of divergence (or convergence) between hypothesized results & observable results. Therefore, its truth value is necessarily either a statistical measure, i.e. accuracy, or a probabilistic measure, i.e. likelihood
I agree. I don’t know how that disputes what I said. 

I agree. Although you might be intentionally misunderstanding some words when it comes to evolution compared to quantum mechanics.
- I'm all ears. Why are you wasting your time arguing concepts, when you can instead provide much needed proof for Evolution here & now. Bring me proof that confirms the scientific rigorousness of this theory, & I will cede your case.
I doubt it.

First, what would you consider sufficient evidence? I guess watching an animal turn into another animal, like a fish turning into a human or something.
- This is the postulate of Evolutionary Theory: "Life emerged from spontaneous & compounded chemical reactions, to form a self-sustaining & self-reproducing single-cell organism, capable of gradual changes in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms of increasing complexity, giving rise to all biodiversity on Earth through descent of varying species from a common ancestor via undirected mechanisms, such as natural selection, random mutations, genetic drift, migration & gene flow". Sufficient evidence is such that it makes the aforementioned postulate a scientific postulate, 
Not fully understanding something does not mean it doesn’t occur

How does quantum mechanics indicate the theory of evolution is void? You might as well say that about general relativity. 
- Maybe this analogy will help. Back in the day they thought a duck is just a big clock, mechanical pieces attached together. It turns out it isn't. Evolution still looks at the duck as if it's a big clock. It really isn't. The problem with most people who believe Evolution is that they don't really understand its implications, but they trust the "experts" in what they tell them, because it's supposedly too technical. This is true for religion, where the followers trust in their leaders to have the knowledge they themselves do not have. Why is this the case here. Well established scientific theories in Physics can all be personally verifiable & checked with reasonable effort. You don't need a mathematician or a physicist to tell you the equation is accurate. This is not the case for Evolution. 
That was a tangent which turned into projection of internal fears you have as a Muslim.
It wasn’t a direct response to what I asked and said.

By your standards quantum theory isn’t science.
- Let's see... Plausible? It's one of the two foundational theories of all of Physics, & therefore all of Science. Simple? How about this GORGEOUS equation: HPsi = EPsi . Verifiable? It is called the most precisely tested theory in the history of Science. Falsifiable? You betcha, Quantum theory can predict the movement of trillions of trillions of electrons in your flash memory allowing you to store your data & read it safely. Accurate? Give me something else that measures down to 10 to the power of 16, that's 0.0000000000000001 margin of error. In short, if Quantum Theory isn't scientific, then nothing is.
So you do reaserch?

I care about truth. 
- Then seek it, it isn't in the evolutionary narrative. Not because you're an atheist you have to believe in this nonsense. Sooner or later they will run out of new syntheses (i.e. versions) of their story. & the whole thing will be dropped in the shameful basket of history just like Eugenics was dropped & forgotten.
Evolution like any other science is only a narrative if you make it one. Just because it conflicts with your personal Islamic beliefs. 

No, our understanding doesn’t. They may inform each other to one degree or another. But our understanding of everything else doesn’t derive from our understanding of quantum mechanics if that’s what you’re referring to.
- It strictly does. You don't know what I'm talking about that's why you don't understand me. Go ask a chemist. You can not have Molecular Biology without Chemistry. You can not have Chemistry without Quantum Physics. Else, these disciplines will shrink back to 19th century level. This applies to engineering as well, you can not have Material Science or Computer Science... without Quantum Physics.
You don’t need to be a quantum physicist to be a chemist. Seriously!..

How about both? Not sure I fully understand your crankshaft analogy but I think I know what you’re getting at.
- Both what?
You can acknowledge there’s mechanical properties of biology/chemistry/physics, etc while understanding there are quantum aspects. 


The study of evolution covers countless scientific fields. I don’t know where to begin.
The story* of Evolution, yes! Ubiquitous, yet utterly useless. The theory of Evolution, regardless of its truth, has never produced a single useful thing. 
The scientific fields that fall under evolution have. 


They all point to common ancestors.
- No they don't. That's what you've been indoctrinated to believe. If you have proof otherwise, by all means, the stage is yours.
Wait, you say no they don’t. Could you please explain because I’ve been brainwashed. 


i.e. modern humans didn’t just show up out of no where. 
- It's ok to say "we don't know" & keep looking until you unravel the mysteries. 
We’ll just keep on finding more and more of our ancestors which we’re closely related to genetically. 


We can see that in the fossil and genetic record. 
- No we can't. Show me otherwise.
and again counterfactuals. 
If we weren’t related to other animals, specifically mammals, animal (medical) test trials wouldn’t be useful for humans.




Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Reece101
When you said science correcting itself means I’ve already lost the argument, you did not think that through in the slightest.
- Indeed, you have. "autocorrect" is a slogan that doesn't mean anything, & if true then it's self-defeating. If Science is "autocorrecting" then any scientific finding is thereby incorrect. Though, the scientific process is indeed based on trial & error.

It’s essentially like talking to a child. And there you go again.
- More imaginary friends?

- But you know evolution is true? Or you don't know?
I know it’s true.
- Whatever happened to that "science autocorrects itself"? Or does that stop at Evolution?

Does that mean evolution in its entirety is wrong? Yes, with strong enough counter evidence which most likely we’ll never find. 
- LMAO! There is zero evidence for Evolution; fetch those first before you celebrate. 

We must look to different people/sources for our knowledge then.
- Yes, indeed. The evolutionationists do not even allow debate or participate in it. They are afraid to be exposed. When you see physicists & astronomers full of excitement to debate anyone & everyone who questions their findings, the evolutionationists run away with tails between their legs under the pretext of "we don't debate ignorants" LMAO! 

So when it comes to science we shouldn’t be curious? Is science like murdering someone? Perhaps your belief in Allah?
- Red herring. When you can't support your claims, you resort to distractions. Whatever else you say about everything else in the world will not add to the truth of evolutionation narrative one iota. 

He’s been an outspoken atheist and science populariser for the most part in the last decade or so. You’re pretty much just tone policing. Science popularising is not science, though Dawkins has contributed his fair share of science in his earlier years. 
- A fair share in the evolutionation mythology, indeed. He contributed nothing to actual Science, just the opposite. 

And as for vestigial evolutionary remnants, some are obvious such as earlobes.
- What did I say! They made you think like they do. If you don't know the function, then it's "vestigial", as if that means anything at all. Evolution god of the gaps, if you don't know what it is, then it's evolution. Amusing!

Can you tell me how?
- For instance. Human gene comparisons show closest similarity in RNA sequencing in elephants & farthest in rats; whereas the opposite is regarded in traditional phylogenies. Of course all based on the imaginary assumption: "similar = related". LOL! Since they can't reconcile this & that, they resorted to inventing new names... 'founding ancestor' instead of 'common ancestor'. Isn't this hilarious!

Can you link me some things so I have a better understanding?

- (You're*). Of engineering*. Biology had nothing to do with it, neither did evolutionation. It's called Physics. The most infuriating & comical thing about Science today is that the dumbest "findings" in phycology & biology (such as evolution) live under the same umbrella of 'Science' as things like Gravitation Theory & Quantum Theory, leeching off their reputation. In the traditional Islamic classification of knowledge, physical sciences such as astronomy(hay'a), mechanics (hayl), gravitation (thaqala), or engineering (mimar) were classified alongside arithmetics (hisab) algebra (jabr), & geometry (handasa), under Mathematics (Ryadyat); whereas biological sciences & medicine were classified under Natural Sciences (Tabi'yat). If we take out Physics & put it back in the Mathematics department, we'll finally have Natural Sciences right where they belong. 
Just in physics/astronomy the world doesn’t revolve around Earth, in biology the world doesn’t revolve around humans. 
- What does this have to do with anything?!

So now you’ve moved the focus to “care” too. Childish.
Care: serious attention or consideration applied to doing something correctly or to avoid damage or risk.
You ask why the convolutions. I’m just giving you definitions. What are you doing?
- Another red herring. 

I agree. I don’t know how that disputes what I said. 
- I did my part. The rest is up to you.

- I'm all ears. Why are you wasting your time arguing concepts, when you can instead provide much needed proof for Evolution here & now. Bring me proof that confirms the scientific rigorousness of this theory, & I will cede your case.
I doubt it.
- You doubt your ability to bring proof? Or is that a concession that you can't bring proof?

Not fully understanding something does not mean it doesn’t occur
- Does not mean it occurs either. Is that supposed to be your grand proof for Evolution? The floor is yours. Bring a single proof or evidence that shows the aforementioned postulate to be: plausible, simple, verifiable, falsifiable & accurate. If you do, I'm a new believer.

That was a tangent which turned into projection of internal fears you have as a Muslim.
- Even more red herrings. Hopeless.

It wasn’t a direct response to what I asked and said.
- It was, profoundly so. If only you paid attention. The duck story is a true story, though.

So you do reaserch?
- No. I studied Fundamental Physics & Theoretical Mathematics. I did work in a lab as an intern though, not for me. I work freelance.

Evolution like any other science is only a narrative if you make it one.
- False. That's the whole point, if you read the OP. The evolutionary narrative is a literary narrative, it is *not* a scientific narrative.

Just because it conflicts with your personal Islamic beliefs. 
- Red herring-fest. Sure, sure, sure... Still not gunna make evolutionation any less a mythological narrative. 

You don’t need to be a quantum physicist to be a chemist. Seriously!..
- Um...? Chemistry rests wholly on a Physics foundation & builds up on results from quantum theory, particle physics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics...etc.

You can acknowledge there’s mechanical properties of biology/chemistry/physics, etc while understanding there are quantum aspects.
- Mechanics are marginal in general biology, & virtually non-existent in Molecular Biology, unless in inter-disciplinary fields.

The scientific fields that fall under evolution have. 
- No such thing. Evolution is a parasite narrative, leeching off everything else. Bring me a single useful thing that we have thanks to Evolution.

Wait, you say no they don’t. Could you please explain because I’ve been brainwashed. 
- Similarity =/= kinship. Do you assume any two similar things you see in the world that they are related? No. 

We’ll just keep on finding more and more of our ancestors which we’re closely related to genetically. 
- No such thing. But I'm still willing to believe you, bring me a factual single one of those ancestors. I'm all ears.

and again counterfactuals. If we weren’t related to other animals, specifically mammals, animal (medical) test trials wouldn’t be useful for humans.
- How do you figure that out?! This is your argument: Evolution is true, therefore animal medical trials are useful to humans, therefore Evolution is true. Try this, assume Evolution is *not* true, & proceed to find evidence to prove that it is. That might help.

- I can provide proof for anything I believe in. I can provide evidence & proof here & now for the validity of the Schrodinger Equation, or for any established theory in Physics. Can you do the same for Evolution?




Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Yassine,

YOUR QUOTE TO STEPHEN IN POST #31: "You seem quite capable of constructing a sound argument. How come you run away when asked to debate?"

The irony is that you continue to ask the members for a debate with no takers, where I have stepped up and want to debate you upon your Satanic Islamic faith, but you have yet to commit by continually running away from me as shown in the links below!!!   Why, SCARED of my reputation upon this forum of easily making pseudo-christians the Bible fools that they are?


Can a fellow Hell-bound Muslim of the Islamic faith help YASSINE find his "big boy pants" to debate me upon his Satanic faith?  Anyone?

YASSINE, the membership is watching you RUN from me debating you, no more lame excuses, understood?!!!

- So you've decided to debate me? Which topic?  
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Yassine
When you said science correcting itself means I’ve already lost the argument, you did not think that through in the slightest.
- Indeed, you have. "autocorrect" is a slogan that doesn't mean anything, & if true then it's self-defeating. If Science is "autocorrecting" then any scientific finding is thereby incorrect. Though, the scientific process is indeed based on trial & error.
By autocorrect I meant science has internal mechanisms that corrects itself; It doesn’t require corrections from the outside. 
But you would probably disagree with you being a strident Muslim. 

It’s essentially like talking to a child. And there you go again.
- More imaginary friends?
You keep bringing up imaginary friends. Is that some sort of preemptive defence mechanism? 

- But you know evolution is true? Or you don't know?
I know it’s true.
- Whatever happened to that "science autocorrects itself"? Or does that stop at Evolution?
You’re assuming it’s wrong.


Does that mean evolution in its entirety is wrong? Yes, with strong enough counter evidence which most likely we’ll never find. 
- LMAO! There is zero evidence for Evolution; fetch those first before you celebrate. 
I keep on telling you we’re genetically related to our ancestors. All animals today have a common ancestor. 
When you have a blood test and it shows you’re related to your family, do you just say that’s a scientific narrative?

We must look to different people/sources for our knowledge then.
- Yes, indeed. The evolutionationists do not even allow debate or participate in it. They are afraid to be exposed. When you see physicists & astronomers full of excitement to debate anyone & everyone who questions their findings, the evolutionationists run away with tails between their legs under the pretext of "we don't debate ignorants" LMAO! 
It’s always good to challenge yourself. Willful ignorance is like a puzzle you have to try to work out. 

So when it comes to science we shouldn’t be curious? Is science like murdering someone? Perhaps your belief in Allah?
- Red herring. When you can't support your claims, you resort to distractions. Whatever else you say about everything else in the world will not add to the truth of evolutionation narrative one iota. 
Alright alright, calm down.

He’s been an outspoken atheist and science populariser for the most part in the last decade or so. You’re pretty much just tone policing. Science popularising is not science, though Dawkins has contributed his fair share of science in his earlier years. 
- A fair share in the evolutionation mythology, indeed. He contributed nothing to actual Science, just the opposite. 
What do you consider a contribution to scientific understanding? Anything that conforms to your Islamic beliefs?


And as for vestigial evolutionary remnants, some are obvious such as earlobes.
- What did I say! They made you think like they do. If you don't know the function, then it's "vestigial", as if that means anything at all. Evolution god of the gaps, if you don't know what it is, then it's evolution. Amusing! 
Okay, Allah designed it so you can put earrings through it. Happy?


Can you tell me how?
- For instance. Human gene comparisons show closest similarity in RNA sequencing in elephants & farthest in rats; whereas the opposite is regarded in traditional phylogenies. Of course all based on the imaginary assumption: "similar = related". LOL! Since they can't reconcile this & that, they resorted to inventing new names... 'founding ancestor' instead of 'common ancestor'. Isn't this hilarious!
As far as I can see ‘founding ancestor’ is a non-evolutionary term that refers to human lineages. 




- Huh? Outside the serious sciences (Physics are the gang), the overwhelming majority of publications are erroneous & irreproducible. In Evolutionary biology, the rate is close to 100%.
Can you link me some things so I have a better understanding?
Did you even read it? And yes, I already knew about the replication crises, but come on, either you know squat, or you’re purposefully being disingenuous.


- (You're*). Of engineering*. Biology had nothing to do with it, neither did evolutionation. It's called Physics. The most infuriating & comical thing about Science today is that the dumbest "findings" in phycology & biology (such as evolution) live under the same umbrella of 'Science' as things like Gravitation Theory & Quantum Theory, leeching off their reputation. In the traditional Islamic classification of knowledge, physical sciences such as astronomy(hay'a), mechanics (hayl), gravitation (thaqala), or engineering (mimar) were classified alongside arithmetics (hisab) algebra (jabr), & geometry (handasa), under Mathematics (Ryadyat); whereas biological sciences & medicine were classified under Natural Sciences (Tabi'yat). If we take out Physics & put it back in the Mathematics department, we'll finally have Natural Sciences right where they belong. 
Just in physics/astronomy the world doesn’t revolve around Earth, in biology the world doesn’t revolve around humans. 
- What does this have to do with anything?!
The Abrahamic God gives value to humans above the environment which humans are the centre of. It’s hard when you’re a devout person of faith and a biologist crushes your world view. 

So now you’ve moved the focus to “care” too. Childish.
Care: serious attention or consideration applied to doing something correctly or to avoid damage or risk.
You ask why the convolutions. I’m just giving you definitions. What are you doing?
- Another red herring. 
Okay, if you say so.


I agree. I don’t know how that disputes what I said. 
- I did my part. The rest is up to you.
Ummm okay.

- I'm all ears. Why are you wasting your time arguing concepts, when you can instead provide much needed proof for Evolution here & now. Bring me proof that confirms the scientific rigorousness of this theory, & I will cede your case.
I doubt it.
- You doubt your ability to bring proof? Or is that a concession that you can't bring proof?
I doubt you would cede your case.

Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Yassine

Not fully understanding something does not mean it doesn’t occur
- Does not mean it occurs either. Is that supposed to be your grand proof for Evolution? The floor is yours. Bring a single proof or evidence that shows the aforementioned postulate to be: plausible, simple, verifiable, falsifiable & accurate. If you do, I'm a new believer.
Okay I’ll tell you in common sense talk. YOU. ARE. GENETICALLY. RELATED. TO. YOUR. ANCESTORS. WHICH. GO. BACK. MILLIONS. OF. YEARS.
DNA can last up to 6.8 million years FYI. Far longer than modern humans have been around.

If it helps you cope; Allah did evolution. 


That was a tangent which turned into projection of internal fears you have as a Muslim.
- Even more red herrings. Hopeless. 
I’m just trying to understand you.

How does quantum mechanics indicate the theory of evolution is void? You might as well say that about general relativity. 
- Maybe this analogy will help. Back in the day they thought a duck is just a big clock, mechanical pieces attached together. It turns out it isn't. Evolution still looks at the duck as if it's a big clock. It really isn't. The problem with most people who believe Evolution is that they don't really understand its implications, but they trust the "experts" in what they tell them, because it's supposedly too technical. This is true for religion, where the followers trust in their leaders to have the knowledge they themselves do not have. Why is this the case here. Well established scientific theories in Physics can all be personally verifiable & checked with reasonable effort. You don't need a mathematician or a physicist to tell you the equation is accurate. This is not the case for Evolution.
It wasn’t a direct response to what I asked and said.
- It was, profoundly so. If only you paid attention. The duck story is a true story, though.
That’s nice.


So you do reaserch?
- No. I studied Fundamental Physics & Theoretical Mathematics. I did work in a lab as an intern though, not for me. I work freelance.
Has any of your work been peer reviewed. May I see?


Evolution like any other science is only a narrative if you make it one.
- False. That's the whole point, if you read the OP. The evolutionary narrative is a literary narrative, it is *not* a scientific narrative.
Because we don’t see fish turning into humans?

Just because it conflicts with your personal Islamic beliefs. 
- Red herring-fest. Sure, sure, sure... Still not gunna make evolutionation any less a mythological narrative. 
You can say Allah did evolution can’t you?

No, our understanding doesn’t. They may inform each other to one degree or another. But our understanding of everything else doesn’t derive from our understanding of quantum mechanics if that’s what you’re referring to.

- It strictly does. You don't know what I'm talking about that's why you don't understand me. Go ask a chemist. You can not have Molecular Biology without Chemistry. You can not have Chemistry without Quantum Physics. Else, these disciplines will shrink back to 19th century level. This applies to engineering as well, you can not have Material Science or Computer Science... without Quantum Physics.
You don’t need to be a quantum physicist to be a chemist. Seriously!..
- Um...? Chemistry rests wholly on a Physics foundation & builds up on results from quantum theory, particle physics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics...etc.
Which various chemists will know to one degree or another.   


You can acknowledge there’s mechanical properties of biology/chemistry/physics, etc while understanding there are quantum aspects.
- Mechanics are marginal in general biology, & virtually non-existent in Molecular Biology, unless in inter-disciplinary fields.
Well biology is a pretty big umbrella with inter-disciplinary fields.

The scientific fields that fall under evolution have. 
- No such thing. Evolution is a parasite narrative, leeching off everything else. Bring me a single useful thing that we have thanks to Evolution.
It’s not a narrative. We have genetic data today and genetic data going back millions of years. 
Again, it would probably help if you say Allah did it.

Wait, you say no they don’t. Could you please explain because I’ve been brainwashed. 
- Similarity =/= kinship. Do you assume any two similar things you see in the world that they are related? No. 
Maybe if you genetically test them.


We’ll just keep on finding more and more of our ancestors which we’re closely related to genetically. 
- No such thing. But I'm still willing to believe you, bring me a factual single one of those ancestors. I'm all ears.
Do you mean by giving links? Because I don’t have bones/genetic samples with papers on hand to send you. 

and again counterfactuals. If we weren’t related to other animals, specifically mammals, animal (medical) test trials wouldn’t be useful for humans.
- How do you figure that out?! This is your argument: Evolution is true, therefore animal medical trials are useful to humans, therefore Evolution is true. Try this, assume Evolution is *not* true, & proceed to find evidence to prove that it is. That might help.
Why do you conveniently miss out on responding to being related to other animals?

- I can provide proof for anything I believe in. I can provide evidence & proof here & now for the validity of the Schrodinger Equation, or for any established theory in Physics. Can you do the same for Evolution?
No, I can’t show you an animal turning into another animal. 

BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Yassine

.
Yassine, the runaway Muslim,

YOUR RUNAWAY QUOTE ONCE AGAIN BECAUSE YOU ARE SCARED?!!!: “So you've decided to debate me? Which topic?” 
 
H-E-L-L-O? I decided to debate you 6 posts ago as shown in the links below you runaway follower of Allah, the pedophile prophet and woman abuser, where the topic ONCE AGAIN for the 4th time is your Satanic faith of Islam, can you read my posts or not?!! 


ONCE AGAIN, do you want me to give you your impending bloodbath in your thread of “ Who's in for some fun challenges,” or do you want me to create a thread about your Satanic faith of Islam and go from there, YOU CHOOSE!  Either way, when I am done with you, you will have to change your moniker to save further embarrassment within this forum! LOL. Furthermore, I suggest that you stock up on this item because you are going to need them while in discussion with me of your Satanic faith: https://www.walmart.com/ip/Depend-Fit-Flex-Men-s-Maximum-Incontinence-Underwear-L-Grey-52-Count/537399246

Now, do you have the “cojones,” or will you represent what the following link presents you to be?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI7ni7zL8qU

.
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Reece101

By autocorrect I meant science has internal mechanisms that corrects itself; It doesn’t require corrections from the outside. 
But you would probably disagree with you being a strident Muslim. 
- Dunning-Kruger at its best.

You keep bringing up imaginary friends. Is that some sort of preemptive defence mechanism? 
- I'm not your therapist...

You’re assuming it’s wrong.
- No, actually, you are, & then aren't. A world of contradiction...
 
I keep on telling you we’re genetically related to our ancestors. All animals today have a common ancestor. 
- No we are not. You can't be serious... LMAO!

When you have a blood test and it shows you’re related to your family, do you just say that’s a scientific narrative?
- So you did a DNA sampling with a monkey & got a match?

It’s always good to challenge yourself. Willful ignorance is like a puzzle you have to try to work out. 
- That's a great advice you should take. Still does not save the evolutionationists from their cowardice. I feel so much excitement every time I argue with a flat-earther or any of the types challenging Physics because I'm confident I will destroy their fantasies. Evolutionationists are simply not confident they could do the same, that's why they run away.

Alright alright, calm down.
- Still won't help your case.
 
What do you consider a contribution to scientific understanding?
- A scientific discovery that fulfills a society's needs, improve a person's wellbeing, drive a company's profits, or increase our understanding of the world. What evolutionationists do is advance their biases & leech off other's works.

- Anything that conforms to your Islamic beliefs?
- It's so funny how abysmal your attempts of evasion are. Quite typical. Is this what they taught you? When in trouble, use religion... This is not going to save your claims any one bit.

Okay, Allah designed it so you can put earrings through it. Happy?
- I'm happy alright, about your absolute inability to defend your case. If they made you the apostle for Evolution, even Dawkins will abandon it. LMAO!

As far as I can see ‘founding ancestor’ is a non-evolutionary term that refers to human lineages.
- You have absolutely no freaking clue what I'm talking about or what you yourself are talking about. It's becoming increasingly obvious that your understanding of Evolutionary theory is of quantum proportions! Go educate yourself at least a little bit on a subject before you attempt an argument.

Did you even read it? And yes, I already knew about the replication crises, but come on, either you know squat, or you’re purposefully being disingenuous.
- What is your expertise? You don't seem to be the least bit familiar with research culture.

The Abrahamic God gives value to humans above the environment which humans are the centre of. It’s hard when you’re a devout person of faith and a biologist crushes your world view.
- If this is your best defense for the evolutionary mythology you so fanatically believe in, then even I feel like a bully now. Pathetic!

I doubt you would cede your case.
- Error 404 evidence not found...

Okay I’ll tell you in common sense talk. YOU. ARE. GENETICALLY. RELATED. TO. YOUR. ANCESTORS. WHICH. GO. BACK. MILLIONS. OF. YEARS. DNA can last up to 6.8 million years FYI. Far longer than modern humans have been around.
- HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!!! You cracked me up so hard! Yeah, NO. YOU. ARE. NOT... First of all, you have yet to produce a single piece of evidence for the claims of evolutionary theory. I'm still waiting. Second of all, I hate to break it to you, but your ideas about Evolution are... how to say it... fictitious. I don't know what you been reading, but they be lyin to ya. There is no such thing, like not at all. 

If it helps you cope; Allah did evolution. 
- In the imaginations of evolutionationists, of course.

I’m just trying to understand you.
- 'Evade' is the word you're looking for.

Has any of your work been peer reviewed. May I see?
- I tell you I did not do research & you ask for publications!? I want to eventually go back to university & finish some work I started. I have some math related projects in mind I want to publish. For now, it's freelance.

Because we don’t see fish turning into humans?
- If that, then it's an observation. Observation =/= theory. An observable fact is not Science. It's just a fact.

You can say Allah did evolution can’t you?
- I just noticed, you speak about this 'evolution' as if it is an observable fact, it's not. It's a theory, the Evolutionary Theory, albeit unscientific.

Which various chemists will know to one degree or another.
- Case in point.  

It’s not a narrative. We have genetic data today and genetic data going back millions of years. 
- What does this have to do with Evolution?! Genetics =/= Evolution. Clearly, you don't know anything about this. Evolution is just a story, a parasite story. You have yet to show me one single useful thing thanks to Evolution. 

Again, it would probably help if you say Allah did it.
- Is this your new 'get out of evidence free' card trick?

Maybe if you genetically test them.
- I don't blame you, I blame the education system. You are saying ludicrous things that are not even nonsense.

Do you mean by giving links? Because I don’t have bones/genetic samples with papers on hand to send you.
- Have at it. I'm waiting. Do your best. & I promise, if you bring me proof, I'm your believer.

Why do you conveniently miss out on responding to being related to other animals?
- Dude, what the f are you even talking about!! So embarrassing! They have so easy, people are indeed amazingly gullible.

No, I can’t show you an animal turning into another animal. 
- Reminder, the Evolutionary Theory postulates the following: ""Life emerged from spontaneous & compounded chemical reactions, to form a self-sustaining & self-reproducing single-cell organism, capable of gradual changes in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms of increasing complexity, giving rise to all biodiversity on Earth through descent of varying species from a common ancestor via undirected mechanisms, such as natural selection, random mutations, genetic drift, migration & gene flow". Request: provide a single evidence which makes this aforementioned postulate a scientific one, particularly, show that it is: verifiable (fits all the facts), falsifiable (predicts new facts), & accurate (with low margin of error). Good luck!


Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Yassine
Evolution is a framework using the most recent evidence to explain the development of organisms on Earth. The most verified, most accurate, and theory which has best predicted outcomes for decades - is Evolution. Those who typically reject Evolution are classified, scientifically speaking, as science deniers. 
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
Evolution is a framework using the most recent evidence to explain the development of organisms on Earth. The most verified, most accurate, and theory which has best predicted outcomes for decades - is Evolution.
- Wow! Quite impressive. Superlative galore. I'm sure you were about to give us irrefutable evidence for the verifiability, predictiveness, & accuracy of this awesome theory. Can't wait.

Those who typically reject Evolution are classified, scientifically speaking, as science deniers. 
- You're sounding a little dogmatic there, "believe me or you're a science denier"... lol!

Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Yassine
Well no - cuz' first of all - you are the one to have intially made the claim - furthermore - I am just describing you - you are denying science, therefore you are a science denier - pretty easy. 

As a scientific theory, however, which facts does evolutionary theory explain? One pivotal example is the succession in the fossil record. This evolution, namely, macroevolution, explains the larger evolutionary picture that is the appearance of the greater groups, such as the evolution of mammals, insects, and plants. Fossilized mammals are easily recognized, as they have distinct types of teeth, such as molars, canines, and incisors. These vertebrates are also very likely to fossilize on account of their rigid teeth and hard cranium. If mammals are so easily fossilized, how can we explain a rich fossil record full of vertebrates and invertebrates with no mammalian fossil before 300 million years ago?

Similarly, if we dig deeper still, disclosing 500 million years old layers, we find no hard skeleton vertebrates but plenty of fossilized invertebrates in a boost of diversity that we call the Cambrian Explosion. There are no vertebrates in this explosion because vertebrates appear in a much later explosion. Digging even deeper, to 600 million years old records, we find strata with soft-bodied Ediacaran animals but no hard-shelled invertebrates and no vertebrates. In one billion years old strata, we find only single-celled organisms.

How can we find, in old strata, many single celled organisms but not a single mammalian tooth? The only reasonable explanation for these facts is that 400 million years ago, mammals had not yet evolved; 500 million years ago, vertebrates had not yet evolved; 600 million years ago, hard-shelled invertebrates had not yet evolved; and one billion years ago,
multicellular life had not yet evolved. Smaller local successions are also observable in the fossil record; such as the beautiful strings of intermediate fossils that include amphibians (Kustchera and Elliot, 2013), birds, whales (Thewissen, 2009), horses, and humans. These successions in the fossil record are the most obvious evidence to macroevolution (Figure 2). In fact, the entire fossil record is a set of millions of intermediate fossils that provide solid evidence of how macroevolution worked in the past billion years.

Scientists also have gained an understanding of the processes by which new species originate. A new species is one in which the individuals cannot mate and produce viable descendants with individuals of a preexisting species. The split of one species into two often starts because a group of individuals becomes geographically separated from the rest. This is particularly apparent in distant remote islands, such as the Galápagos and the Hawaiian archipelago, whose great distance from the Americas and Asia means that arriving colonizers will have little or no opportunity to mate with individuals remaining on those continents. Mountains, rivers, lakes, and other natural barriers also account for geographic separation between populations that once belonged to the same species.

Once isolated, geographically separated groups of individuals become genetically differentiated as a consequence of mutation and other processes, including natural selection. The origin of a species is often a gradual process, so that at first the reproductive isolation between separated groups of organisms is only partial, but it eventually becomes complete. Scientists pay special attention to these intermediate situations, because they help to reconstruct the details of the process and to identify particular genes or sets of genes that account for the reproductive isolation between species.

A particularly compelling example of speciation involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin's finches. The ancestors of these finches appear to have immigrated from the South American mainland to the Galápagos. Today the different species of finches on the island have distinct habitats, diets, and behaviors, but the mechanisms involved in speciation continue to operate. A research group led by Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University has shown that a single year of drought on the islands can drive evolutionary changes in the finches. Drought diminishes supplies of easily cracked nuts but permits the survival of plants that produce larger, tougher nuts. Droughts thus favor birds with strong, wide beaks that can break these tougher seeds, producing populations of birds with these traits. The Grants have estimated that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

The evolutionary, structural, and biochemical information implicates segment 85-119 as of special functional significance. The physicochemical properties and finer structural details of its conserved residues now point to a more specific function for this segment. Fourteen of its 15 conserved positions are fixed for charged and strongly hydrophobic residues (Figure 3). This mix of charged and hydrophobic residues, with their outwardly projecting side chains, predicts a second binding site for Leptin-protein interactions, which is separate from that for its receptor (Figure 2Benner and Gerloff 1991). At least some of the six positions with NS substitutions in the stem hominoid, which are directly or indirectly related to segment 85-119, may then contribute new hydrophobic, charged, and smaller residues that may alter the secondary structure and specific binding properties of this second interaction site. For example, the conserved G118 of hominoids permits a more pronounced turn at the N terminus of this segment relative to that predicted for L118 of the other mammals. In these ways, segment 85-119 may underlie the functional differences between human and other nonhominoid Leptins (e.g., why this hormone is central to energy expenditure in mice, but apparently not in us; Mantzoros 1999Hofbauer and Huppertz 2002).

Even though you do have the Burden of Proof, I'll leave you with just a couple examples of some evidence.
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
Well no - cuz' first of all - you are the one to have intially made the claim
- And you initially made the contrary claim. 

furthermore - I am just describing you - you are denying science, therefore you are a science denier - pretty easy. 
- Blahblah... You're a science denier for denying Eugenics, & all the other hundreds of discarded scientific discoveries... This is not a very credible start to your case! 

As a scientific theory, however, which facts does evolutionary theory explain? One pivotal example is the succession in the fossil record. This evolution, namely, macroevolution, explains the larger evolutionary picture that is the appearance of the greater groups, such as the evolution of mammals, insects, and plants. Fossilized mammals are easily recognized, as they have distinct types of teeth, such as molars, canines, and incisors. These vertebrates are also very likely to fossilize on account of their rigid teeth and hard cranium. If mammals are so easily fossilized, how can we explain a rich fossil record full of vertebrates and invertebrates with no mammalian fossil before 300 million years ago?

Similarly, if we dig deeper still, disclosing 500 million years old layers, we find no hard skeleton vertebrates but plenty of fossilized invertebrates in a boost of diversity that we call the Cambrian Explosion. There are no vertebrates in this explosion because vertebrates appear in a much later explosion. Digging even deeper, to 600 million years old records, we find strata with soft-bodied Ediacaran animals but no hard-shelled invertebrates and no vertebrates. In one billion years old strata, we find only single-celled organisms.

How can we find, in old strata, many single celled organisms but not a single mammalian tooth? The only reasonable explanation for these facts is that 400 million years ago, mammals had not yet evolved; 500 million years ago, vertebrates had not yet evolved; 600 million years ago, hard-shelled invertebrates had not yet evolved; and one billion years ago,
multicellular life had not yet evolved. Smaller local successions are also observable in the fossil record; such as the beautiful strings of intermediate fossils that include amphibians (Kustchera and Elliot, 2013), birds, whales (Thewissen, 2009), horses, and humans. These successions in the fossil record are the most obvious evidence to macroevolution (Figure 2). In fact, the entire fossil record is a set of millions of intermediate fossils that provide solid evidence of how macroevolution worked in the past billion years.
- Species from different layers evolved from each-other, why? Because there are different species in different layers, why? Because they evolved from each-other. Brilliant. Regardless of the circular nature of this whole story, an argument for possibility is not an argument for existence, "it is possible that Harry killed Oliver, therefore Harry killed Oliver" is a logical fallacy. "it is possible that evolution happened, therefore evolution happened" is a joke! Most of Evolution is actually circular.

A particularly compelling example of speciation involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin's finches. The ancestors of these finches appear to have immigrated from the South American mainland to the Galápagos. Today the different species of finches on the island have distinct habitats, diets, and behaviors, but the mechanisms involved in speciation continue to operate. A research group led by Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University has shown that a single year of drought on the islands can drive evolutionary changes in the finches. Drought diminishes supplies of easily cracked nuts but permits the survival of plants that produce larger, tougher nuts. Droughts thus favor birds with strong, wide beaks that can break these tougher seeds, producing populations of birds with these traits. The Grants have estimated that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.
- Funny bit here. All the above is a lie. Finches are all inter-fertile. They are all actually the same species under the very definition of speciation. Confused? Don't be, the evolutionationists have a story, like they always do. The finches are actually not the same species even though they interbreed, no, no... they are different species & their interbreeding & actually hybridization. Solved! Just slap a new name & a new tale on the issue & you're safe. But hold on, there is more. Hybridization is actually another path for evolution on top of speciation... wonderful! This is like saying a bulldog & a poodle are different species, who can't interbreed, but the fact that they interbreed is because they are hybridizing. Isn't this the most beautiful dog tale you've heard? Wild imaginations... I'll tell you though, the stuff they teach you about evolution in highschool is 99% bullshit, you will forget all about it once you get into the field. 

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
- No such thing. We have human fossils & we have ape fossils. Nothing in between. They dropped that whole schtick a while ago. They don't say it's a human sequence anymore. That story couldn't pan out so they dropped it. The new story is the different "hominin" all have shared a common ancestor. Funnier still, the infamous Lucy being an ape and all, it had a posterior pelvis. This was of course unacceptable, how dare an ape skeleton which was supposed to be able to walk upright have a posterior pelvis like a regular ape?! The audacity!! So they brought a doctor who set it upright & invented this beautiful tale about how the pelvis was actually upright but it only looked posterior to us because the ape had a deadly accident where the bones were crushed making it posterior... true story! Oh, btw, the remains were scattered across a couple miles too.. You can't make this shit up!

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.
- Their creative imagination ability always amazes me. So delusional! 

The evolutionary, structural, and biochemical information implicates segment 85-119 as of special functional significance. The physicochemical properties and finer structural details of its conserved residues now point to a more specific function for this segment. Fourteen of its 15 conserved positions are fixed for charged and strongly hydrophobic residues (Figure 3). This mix of charged and hydrophobic residues, with their outwardly projecting side chains, predicts a second binding site for Leptin-protein interactions, which is separate from that for its receptor (Figure 2Benner and Gerloff 1991). At least some of the six positions with NS substitutions in the stem hominoid, which are directly or indirectly related to segment 85-119, may then contribute new hydrophobic, charged, and smaller residues that may alter the secondary structure and specific binding properties of this second interaction site. For example, the conserved G118 of hominoids permits a more pronounced turn at the N terminus of this segment relative to that predicted for L118 of the other mammals. In these ways, segment 85-119 may underlie the functional differences between human and other nonhominoid Leptins (e.g., why this hormone is central to energy expenditure in mice, but apparently not in us; Mantzoros 1999Hofbauer and Huppertz 2002).
- Yes...?


Even though you do have the Burden of Proof,
- You like just saying things don't you? You made a big claim, huuge, something about "the most verified, most accurate, and theory which has best predicted outcomes for decades".... that burden of proof is all yours to bear.

- I already provided my argument. If you didn't get it, let me write it into a simple syllogism for you:
P1. Richard Dawkins is most knowledgeable of Evolutionary Theory. [fact]
P2. Richard Dawkins knows the best arguments for Evolutionary Theory. [follows from P1]
P3. Richard Dawkins is most advocate for Evolutionary Theory. [fact]
P4. Richard Dawkins presents the best arguments for Evolutionary Theory. [follows from P2 & P3]
P5. Richard Dawkins has not presented any good arguments for the Evolutionary Theory. [my finding]
P6. The best arguments for Evolutionary Theory are not good arguments. [follows from P4 & P5]
C. There are no good arguments for Evolutionary Theory. [follows from P6]

I'll leave you with just a couple examples of some evidence.
- You gotta try a lot harder. Use your words. Make an argument with your words, since you're so confident. Where is this evidence? I'm asking for one. Just one.

Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Yassine
So you have... .a bunch of claims? Most of which are refuted by the exact data your trying to argue against? I see I don't need to waste my time - you are a liar - no need to spend more time on you. 
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Yassine
By autocorrect I meant science has internal mechanisms that corrects itself; It doesn’t require corrections from the outside. 
But you would probably disagree with you being a strident Muslim. 
- Dunning-Kruger at its best.
When Dunning-Kruger goes mainstream.

You keep bringing up imaginary friends. Is that some sort of preemptive defence mechanism? 
- I'm not your therapist...
And how does that make you feel?

You’re assuming it’s wrong.
- No, actually, you are, & then aren't. A world of contradiction...
Riiiiight.

 
I keep on telling you we’re genetically related to our ancestors. All animals today have a common ancestor. 
- No we are not. You can't be serious... LMAO!
This is basic knowledge. This should be an axiomatic concept in the modern world. 
It’s like talking to a Flat Earther.


When you have a blood test and it shows you’re related to your family, do you just say that’s a scientific narrative?
- So you did a DNA sampling with a monkey & got a match?
We’re more closely related to other apes than monkeys but yeah modern monkeys are distant cousins in the primate family.


It’s always good to challenge yourself. Willful ignorance is like a puzzle you have to try to work out. 
- That's a great advice you should take. Still does not save the evolutionationists from their cowardice. I feel so much excitement every time I argue with a flat-earther or any of the types challenging Physics because I'm confident I will destroy their fantasies. Evolutionationists are simply not confident they could do the same, that's why they run away.
I’m treating you how I would treat a Flat Earther. You’re not special. 

Alright alright, calm down.
- Still won't help your case.
It’s not worth the try. 

What do you consider a contribution to scientific understanding? 
- A scientific discovery that fulfills a society's needs, improve a person's wellbeing, drive a company's profits, or increase our understanding of the world. What evolutionationists do is advance their biases & leech off other's works.
’others’ work who also know evolution has and does occur. 

- Anything that conforms to your Islamic beliefs?
- It's so funny how abysmal your attempts of evasion are. Quite typical. Is this what they taught you? When in trouble, use religion... This is not going to save your claims any one bit.
They’re claims to you. 

Okay, Allah designed it so you can put earrings through it. Happy?
- I'm happy alright, about your absolute inability to defend your case. If they made you the apostle for Evolution, even Dawkins will abandon it. LMAO!
Yes, because you’re the arbiter of what’s true. Get off your over-inflated high horse. 

As far as I can see ‘founding ancestor’ is a non-evolutionary term that refers to human lineages.
- You have absolutely no freaking clue what I'm talking about or what you yourself are talking about. It's becoming increasingly obvious that your understanding of Evolutionary theory is of quantum proportions! Go educate yourself at least a little bit on a subject before you attempt an argument.
Like I said, this isn’t an argument. 

Did you even read it? And yes, I already knew about the replication crises, but come on, either you know squat, or you’re purposefully being disingenuous.
- What is your expertise? You don't seem to be the least bit familiar with research culture.
I don’t have expertise in anything. Go back, read what you said, and then read the link. 

The Abrahamic God gives value to humans above the environment which humans are the centre of. It’s hard when you’re a devout person of faith and a biologist crushes your world view.
- If this is your best defense for the evolutionary mythology you so fanatically believe in, then even I feel like a bully now. Pathetic!
Like I said, willful ignorance is a challenge. And I’m trying to better understand. 

I doubt you would cede your case.
- Error 404 evidence not found...
No, you’re a human. 

Okay I’ll tell you in common sense talk. YOU. ARE. GENETICALLY. RELATED. TO. YOUR. ANCESTORS. WHICH. GO. BACK. MILLIONS. OF. YEARS. DNA can last up to 6.8 million years FYI. Far longer than modern humans have been around.
- HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!!! You cracked me up so hard! Yeah, NO. YOU. ARE. NOT... First of all, you have yet to produce a single piece of evidence for the claims of evolutionary theory. I'm still waiting. Second of all, I hate to break it to you, but your ideas about Evolution are... how to say it... fictitious. I don't know what you been reading, but they be lyin to ya. There is no such thing, like not at all. 
You keep on denying fact and you say “they” are lying to me. Who exactly? The Jews?

If it helps you cope; Allah did evolution. 
- In the imaginations of evolutionationists, of course.
Yeah, Muslim ones.

I’m just trying to understand you.
- 'Evade' is the word you're looking for.
Evade what?

Has any of your work been peer reviewed. May I see?
- I tell you I did not do research & you ask for publications!? I want to eventually go back to university & finish some work I started. I have some math related projects in mind I want to publish. For now, it's freelance.
Well best of luck.

Because we don’t see fish turning into humans?
- If that, then it's an observation. Observation =/= theory. An observable fact is not Science. It's just a fact.
“An observable fact is not Science.” So you don’t believe science?


You can say Allah did evolution can’t you?
- I just noticed, you speak about this 'evolution' as if it is an observable fact, it's not. It's a theory, the Evolutionary Theory, albeit unscientific.
How is it unscientific? Are you saying it’s factual? 

Which various chemists will know to one degree or another. 
- Case in point.  
You had no case. It isn’t a strict rule for chemists to understand quantum physics. 

It’s not a narrative. We have genetic data today and genetic data going back millions of years. 
- What does this have to do with Evolution?! Genetics =/= Evolution. Clearly, you don't know anything about this. Evolution is just a story, a parasite story. You have yet to show me one single useful thing thanks to Evolution. 
Modern humans have only been around for about 300,000 years. Do the math. 

Again, it would probably help if you say Allah did it.
- Is this your new 'get out of evidence free' card trick?
For wilfully ignorant Muslims.


Maybe if you genetically test them.
- I don't blame you, I blame the education system. You are saying ludicrous things that are not even nonsense.
“Ludicrous” things that contradict your Islamic beliefs? Why are they ludicrous but also not nonsense?

Do you mean by giving links? Because I don’t have bones/genetic samples with papers on hand to send you.
- Have at it. I'm waiting. Do your best. & I promise, if you bring me proof, I'm your believer.
hmmmm nah, I still doubt it. 

Why do you conveniently miss out on responding to being related to other animals?
- Dude, what the f are you even talking about!! So embarrassing! They have so easy, people are indeed amazingly gullible.
Just imagine them as distant cousins and that Allah did it.

No, I can’t show you an animal turning into another animal. 
- Reminder, the Evolutionary Theory postulates the following: ""Life emerged from spontaneous & compounded chemical reactions, to form a self-sustaining & self-reproducing single-cell organism, capable of gradual changes in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms of increasing complexity, giving rise to all biodiversity on Earth through descent of varying species from a common ancestor via undirected mechanisms, such as natural selection, random mutations, genetic drift, migration & gene flow". Request: provide a single evidence which makes this aforementioned postulate a scientific one, particularly, show that it is: verifiable (fits all the facts), falsifiable (predicts new facts), & accurate (with low margin of error). Good luck!
Good luck with what?
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
So you have... .a bunch of claims? Most of which are refuted by the exact data your trying to argue against? I see I don't need to waste my time - you are a liar - no need to spend more time on you. 
- Isn't this exhilarating! The fact that you think I'm lying is proof enough of the mythos-like nature of the evolutionary narrative. They have to lie to get their believers to follow them. When I said most things they teach you about Evolution in high school are actually not true -according to the evolutionary narrative itself- I perfectly meant that. Don't take my word for it. Pick a story they taught you, say the famous finches story & speciation, then do your own fact checking. You will find what I said to be true. What they teach you in text books & what you find in the actual publications are vastly different things.
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Yassine
@Tradesecret


.
YASSINE, the RUNAWAY Muslim from debate,

!!!! NEWSFLASH DEBATEART !!!!

The hell bound weak-minded Muslim named YASSINE has now RUN AWAY from discussion of his Satanic faith of Islam with me "EIGHT TIMES " now as shown in the embarrassing links relative to this Muslim fool below!!!!



To the DEBATEART Religion Forum members,

Jesus and I suggest that when YASSINE stated he wanted to debate aspects of his Satanic religion, it was all a ruse because he is too wimpy to perform this act and continues to RUN AWAY from Jesus and I, where as shown, he could no more debate Islam than TRADESECRET and FAUXLAW could debate Christianity as I have easily shown here at DEBATEART!!! LOL

YASSINE = FAKE RUNAWAY FROM DEBATE MUSLIM!

NEXT?

.



Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Reece101

This is basic knowledge. This should be an axiomatic concept in the modern world. 
It’s like talking to a Flat Earther.
- Huh... it's axiomatic, I didn't even know! You're very funny... Who told you that? Or did you invent this on your own?

We’re more closely related to other apes than monkeys but yeah modern monkeys are distant cousins in the primate family.
- Blahblahblah... you got proof?

I’m treating you how I would treat a Flat Earther. You’re not special.
- Wow! Smoking gun argument right here boys! This is merely a display of your absolute inability to produce any proof or evidence whatsoever.

It’s not worth the try.
- Because you're unable to.

’others’ work who also know evolution has and does occur.
- Wishful thinking much!

They’re claims to you.
- & doctrines to you, yes.

Yes, because you’re the arbiter of what’s true. Get off your over-inflated high horse.
- You get off your high unicorn. Do you expect others to believe you just because you say so?! You claim Evolution to be a fact when you can't even produce proof for the case, then you get offended because people don't believe you!!!  

Like I said, this isn’t an argument.
- You're right it isn't. Still waiting for one though.

I don’t have expertise in anything. Go back, read what you said, and then read the link.
- Case in point.

Like I said, willful ignorance is a challenge. And I’m trying to better understand.
- Why are you wasting your time dodging & eluding, when you can just provide a single proof for evolution & be done with it.

No, you’re a human.
- LOL! Clever.

You keep on denying fact and you say “they” are lying to me. Who exactly? The Jews?
- I assume you got this false information you imagine to be fact from somewhere, 'they' = your sources. Unless you invented this yourself. 

Yeah, Muslim ones.
- Yeah, missed.

Evade what?
- Actually providing proof. Why don't we have a debate about this? You can show everyone all the axiomatic facts.

Well best of luck.
- Thank you. You as well.

“An observable fact is not Science.” So you don’t believe science?
- An observable fact is not Science. Science is the study of observable facts to reveal explanations thereof.

How is it unscientific? Are you saying it’s factual?
- Clever! Unscientific as in, not the following: 'plausible, simple, verifiable, falsifiable, consistent & accurate', which it obviously isn't.

You had no case. It isn’t a strict rule for chemists to understand quantum physics.
- No. But the field of Chemistry rests on Quantum foundations.

Modern humans have only been around for about 300,000 years. Do the math. 
- I don't see the part where the Theory of Evolution made useful contributions? So much back & forth & you can't find one useful thing the theory of Evolution brought us!

- Is this your new 'get out of evidence free' card trick?
For wilfully ignorant Muslims.
- Glad you're admitting that.

“Ludicrous” things that contradict your Islamic beliefs? Why are they ludicrous but also not nonsense?
- Not even nonsense = when you can't qualify the nonsensicalness of something for being too senseless. You seem to imagine that they take DNA samples from jellyfish & elephants & monkeys & conduct genealogical DNA tests to figure out the ancestry like 23andMe right? Yeah, that's not a thing! 

hmmmm nah, I still doubt it.
- Your inability to produce proof is because of your fear that I may not believe in Evolution...? Isn't that just so convenient!

Just imagine them as distant cousins and that Allah did it.
- I leave the imagination part to the evolutionationists. I'll stick with real science.

Good luck with what?
- Showing that the postulate of the Evolutionary Theory is actually scientific. In fact, let's have a debate about this.

Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
This is basic knowledge. This should be an axiomatic concept in the modern world. 
It’s like talking to a Flat Earther.
- Huh... it's axiomatic, I didn't even know! You're very funny... Who told you that? Or did you invent this on your own?
Natural selection has been scientific consensus for about 100 years.


We’re more closely related to other apes than monkeys but yeah modern monkeys are distant cousins in the primate family.
- Blahblahblah... you got proof?
It’s not worth it. 


I’m treating you how I would treat a Flat Earther. You’re not special.
- Wow! Smoking gun argument right here boys! This is merely a display of your absolute inability to produce any proof or evidence whatsoever.
Guilty as charged.


It’s not worth the try.
- Because you're unable to.
I’m unable to give you research which supports evolution? 
You’re a real bright one aren’t you.


’others’ work who also know evolution has and does occur.
- Wishful thinking much!
So which work are you referring to?

They’re claims to you.
- & doctrines to you, yes.
Doctrine is belief, while evolution is fact.


Yes, because you’re the arbiter of what’s true. Get off your over-inflated high horse.
- You get off your high unicorn. Do you expect others to believe you just because you say so?! You claim Evolution to be a fact when you can't even produce proof for the case, then you get offended because people don't believe you!!!  
Ignorant people don’t offend me. Maybe if you knew more about evolution than me I’ll get offended. 

Like I said, this isn’t an argument.
- You're right it isn't. Still waiting for one though.
I just need to understand your positions first. 

I don’t have expertise in anything. Go back, read what you said, and then read the link.
- Case in point.
Too afraid to make a direct point?

Like I said, willful ignorance is a challenge. And I’m trying to better understand.
- Why are you wasting your time dodging & eluding, when you can just provide a single proof for evolution & be done with it.
What would be the point?


You keep on denying fact and you say “they” are lying to me. Who exactly? The Jews?
- I assume you got this false information you imagine to be fact from somewhere, 'they' = your sources. Unless you invented this yourself. 
Evolution by natural selection has been a scientific consensus for about 100 years.

Evade what?
- Actually providing proof. Why don't we have a debate about this? You can show everyone all the axiomatic facts.
That inheritable mutations are only limited by whether an organism reproduces its genotype?

“An observable fact is not Science.” So you don’t believe science?
- An observable fact is not Science. Science is the study of observable facts to reveal explanations thereof.
I agree. 

How is it unscientific? Are you saying it’s factual?
- Clever! Unscientific as in, not the following: 'plausible, simple, verifiable, falsifiable, consistent & accurate', which it obviously isn't.
How so?

You had no case. It isn’t a strict rule for chemists to understand quantum physics.
- No. But the field of Chemistry rests on Quantum foundations. 
Alright so you’ve moved from the profession(s) of chemistry to the field of chemistry in general. 


Modern humans have only been around for about 300,000 years. Do the math. 
- I don't see the part where the Theory of Evolution made useful contributions? So much back & forth & you can't find one useful thing the theory of Evolution brought us!
It gave us a true understanding of the world and a framework which lets us fight diseases. 


Again, it would probably help if you say Allah did it.
- Is this your new 'get out of evidence free' card trick?
For wilfully ignorant Muslims.
- Glad you're admitting that.
I’m glad too

“Ludicrous” things that contradict your Islamic beliefs? Why are they ludicrous but also not nonsense?
- Not even nonsense = when you can't qualify the nonsensicalness of something for being too senseless. You seem to imagine that they take DNA samples from jellyfish & elephants & monkeys & conduct genealogical DNA tests to figure out the ancestry like 23andMe right? Yeah, that's not a thing! 
How do they do it?


hmmmm nah, I still doubt it.
- Your inability to produce proof is because of your fear that I may not believe in Evolution...? Isn't that just so convenient!
What do you mean? 

Just imagine them as distant cousins and that Allah did it.
- I leave the imagination part to the evolutionationists. I'll stick with real science.
What is the real science? 


Good luck with what?
- Showing that the postulate of the Evolutionary Theory is actually scientific. In fact, let's have a debate about this.
The postulate of any scientific theory is not science on its own. What other ones do you have?
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Reece101
Natural selection has been scientific consensus for about 100 years.
- False. Rather, for about 1200 years. Natural selection is an observable fact. Evolutionary descent of varying species from a common ancestor via natural selection, however, is not.

It’s not worth it. 
- No. It's not within your ability.

I’m unable to give you research which supports evolution? 
You’re a real bright one aren’t you.
- Give me one argument that supports evolution, just one. I'm not asking for much.

So which work are you referring to?
- You're digressing.

Doctrine is belief, while evolution is fact.
- Evolution is a doctrine to you though. If you had proof for the truth of evolutionary theory you've have already brought it. 

Ignorant people don’t offend me. Maybe if you knew more about evolution than me I’ll get offended. 
- It's tough when you don't know enough about a subject to think you know.

I just need to understand your positions first. 
- Do you understand yours?

What would be the point?
- So you'd rather waste your time dodging back & forth instead of showing proof to support your case.

Evolution by natural selection has been a scientific consensus for about 100 years.
- One, that's false. Two, the actual postulate of the theory itself has changed at least 5 times in that period, discarding old postulates with every new one; & the latest one is about to get the boot soon as well. It's not the same theory anymore when its formulation changes, even if under the same name. Three, *most* things that have been a scientific consensus at some point are not anymore. Finally, why are you talking like a religious person, "the priests said it". If you believe there are proofs & evidence for this, why can't you use you own words to prove it instead of "they said so".

That inheritable mutations are only limited by whether an organism reproduces its genotype?
- Debating: that Evolutionary Theory is a plausible, verifiable, predictive & accurate scientific theory. 

How so?
- Evolutionary theory is unverified, predicts nothing & is has no accuracy.

Alright so you’ve moved from the profession(s) of chemistry to the field of chemistry in general.
- You have it backwards. I said: "Our understanding of biology stems from our understanding of chemistry, which stems from our understanding of physics, which stems from our understanding of quantum theory." to which you responded: "No, our understanding doesn’t."... Case in point.

It gave us a true understanding of the world and a framework which lets us fight diseases. 
- That's false. Show me one single way or one single example Evolution helps us fight diseases, such that without it we wouldn't have been able to. The floor is yours.

How do they do it?
- Different species have different DNAs. DNA sequencing is used to determine the base pairs of the genome. Genome size can vary a lot between species, up to 200 times the size of the human genome (3 billion). The genome is sequenced into chapters, sentences & words, to determine genes, particularly protein genes (from coding DNA). Each gene can be copied to create various types of proteins responsible for different functions in the cell. The way DNA tests work is they check for snips (SNP) in the DNA sequence, which are known variants, to determine a person's hereditary traits. These variants, however, occupy a very tiny part of DNA (the order of 0.01%), the rest is identical. It's expected to see 1/2 of DNA from each parent, so when the tested DNA (of that 0.01%) alines with the reference sample, they know it's a match. The further back you go in lineage, the more recombinations are expected (within that 0.01%).

- This is impossible to do with different species, for they have different DNA. After DNA sequencing, the comparison of DNA from a human & another species works by juxtaposing the two together, contrasting the similar parts & discarding the rest. Between a human & a chimp for, for instance, 30% of the DNA are incomparable. Then comes the phase of comparing genes, especially protein coding genes, to figure out the difference in functionality between a human cell & another species's. 

What do you mean?
- Let's debate this & you can show everyone I'm wrong.

What is the real science? 
- Not evolutionary mythology.

- Showing that the postulate of the Evolutionary Theory is actually scientific. In fact, let's have a debate about
The postulate of any scientific theory is not science on its own. What other ones do you have?
- Wut...?! Is that a concession I'm seeing?
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Yassine
If you're a naturalist, what makes you believe in the truth of this story knowing that it's unscientific?
Evolution is the most well supported scientific theory that exists, with the most well tested and validated predictions out of any scientific theory that currently exists.

In terms of beliefs, there are really three types of people:

Those that have concluded that evolution is the best explanation of life as we see it, those who don’t understand evolution, and those who refuse to be honest about evolution.




Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Ramshutu
Evolution is the most well supported scientific theory that exists, with the most well tested and validated predictions out of any scientific theory that currently exists.
- Of course that's outright false. By design, literally every theory in the fields of Physics, Astronomy, Chemistry & the likes is better supported, better tested, better validated & more predictive. The best scientific theories are actually Quantum Theory & General Relativity, but I digress. I know the Evolutionary Theory is not validated, predicts nothing & has no accuracy. But you may help me see otherwise. Show me how evolutionary theory is predictive & accurate.

In terms of beliefs, there are really three types of people:

Those that have concluded that evolution is the best explanation of life as we see it, those who don’t understand evolution, and those who refuse to be honest about evolution.
- All these types are in effect one & the same. Instead of being all religious, you can instead provide proofs & evidence to support the theory. Ad populum is a fallacious argument. 
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Yassine
Just out of curiosity, what issue would you take with evolution being compatible with creationism? Meaning evolution as a creative procession of events of evolving things into existence through that process? your argument may be the same perhaps but I was interested what you think about evolution being presented not as a natural process but a creative process.
Since we know nothing is poofed into existence, God must have a process to take nothing but energy and element and create form out of those materials. If you shun the idea that God uses evolution to generate species on earth, how do you propose that God manifests creatures into existence including the physical body we call humanoid to become what they are?

Evolution is typically assumed to be a purely materialistic process I'm aware of that....and that the study of evolution has been proposed by atheistic doofuses as a means to show there's no need for a God but honestly, I always associate intelligent processes with a Creator, hence I have no real objection with evolution as a means to create something from nothing, or form from the formless. We clearly see there is a succession of processes that are involved to manifest the existence of our universe, this would indicate the same is true for species to exist.

Then again, I'm not a Biblical literalist so the creation story in Genesis is not what I consider a literal event.
Just know I'm not presenting this as an argument to your position, I'm just willing to hear what you have to say on the matter.