@Patje yo patje, i thought suboor was a liar ? why u watching a debate of a liar for 2 hours long ? btw u werent the guy who promised to go in speaker corner and destroy suboor ? i dont remember who it was...
@@curiosone8843 clearly he never watched it otherwise he wouldn't be making these statements from his fairytale fantasies within his own mind. Any neutral can see what happened. Only people who like to lie to themselves can conclude differently.
I love every time subboor bhai speaks, but sometimes i miss that smile on his face though 😊 May Allah Grant i era people neighbourhood of the prophet Mohammed (sa)..
Ever time he speaks it's lies Volume 9, Book 93, Number 506: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: That during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relation with them without impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interrupt us. The Prophet said, "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection." Qaza'a said, "I heard Abu Sa'id saying that the Prophet said, 'No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it."
He is so dishonest... Honestly if this man is a 'good Muslim' I am glad most other Muslims are not as good as him... As these lesser great defenders of Islam won't use strawmans, argument from ignorance and more fallicies.
Great debate. It was at times hard to listen to, but fortunately I had the time today. Brother Subboor is an impeccable debater. May Allah grant him more knowledge to spread the message of Islam. Ameen.
brother subhoor is totally dishonest, misquoting dawkins in the first five minutes. all he wants is to win arguments, he seems to have zero interest in honesty or his religion, remind me what is religion about? it's not about winning arguments.
@@HarryNicNicholas dishonest? What dishonest? You clearly don't have any idea of what you're talking about. "All he wants is to win argument" isn't that what you too will be doing? Winning argument. Stop being dishonesty with yourself and please stop that public shaming. Either you shut up and learn or just continue to be ignorant. I believe you don't learn anything from this debate. Truth hurts perhaps?
yes i agree, i fond of people who are atheists which are actually a people of knowledge, because they are tend to be a seeker of truth, most of the atheists today are sheeps who follow Richard Dawkins and Aron Ra blindly, which themselves are dishonest in most of their argument
@@Flaw93 prove Aron Ra, or Dawkins are dishonest (you mentioned them specifically which is why I did) Actually Aron Ra runs circles around an idiot like saboor, because Islam is rooted in myths that never happened and Aron Ra only deals with facts
Keith Ziegler watch Saboor's debate with Aron Ra and see how he absolutely schools him and Dawkins I mean are you really that blind? The dude lies almost daily trying to link science and atheism together, the dude has the audacity to speak on Islam even though he knows absolutely nothing about it, Islam is rooted in fact and truth my friend it's not the religions fault your ignorant and biased
I think as humans we should at least just stick 2 the basics like treating eachother regardless of what religious beliefs one holds with respect, help eachother when we can etc at the end of the day we all inhabit this tiny planet.
Evolution IS a demonstrable fact. It's directly observed in real life, new species have evolved in your own lifetime. Exactly what evolution is, it is directly observed. We observe the change of allele frequency in populations over generations (evolution), and we observe speciation (macroevolution). Showing that any two species are related by evolution is a simple matter of testing the nuclear DNA of the nucleus for paternity and the mitochondria in cells for maternity then looking for markers on the genomes in a codon for codon comparison.
6:52 again, completely pointless analogy here, saying that we're basing the theory of evolution of a insufficient sized data set because we don't have evidence for the majority of species that existed is an irrelevant point to make. Because the theory of evolution is not predicated on "the number of species" we can compare etc. We have an understanding of DNA, of environmental pressure, of heritable traits, we have qualitatively strong evidence, and that's what's needed, not quantitatively strong evidence. Again, we have never seen how gravity works on 99.99999999% of the planets directly, but we have one really fucking good example, the earth - and that's enough for us to assume that mass creates gravity everywhere.
example is so wrong Theory of gravity Einstein or newton doesn't work in quantum physics There's something working about it Event for beginning of universe
@Checks Cleared but Subhoor claiming that he has the objective truth isn't backed by anything. Evidence should adjust people's understanding on any topic. Saying that no evidence would adjust his understanding just means that he thinks he knows the answer regardless of evidence and that is silly arrogance
@@MrPakiman111 The Quran makes a claim of itself that it is from God, there are multiple 'litmus tests' if you will within the Quran which prove it's claim to be true. The most obvious is its linguistic excellence, consistency, affirmation of the torah and gospel while they were not available to the Prophet SAW who himself was illiterate.
@@alisaood9445 I would love to hear these litmus tests that the Qur'an sets itself and passes... Also linguistic excellence is subject and has been replicated numerous times at this point. I have heard Hamza Tzortsis claim the linguistic miracle of the Qur'an but would love an actual coherent explanation which does not rely on subjectivity. Affirmation and semi consistency with other religious texts doesn't affirm the divinity of the Qur'an in any way. Even if the prophet couldn't read, he was still in a society containing Jews and Christians and could easily know about their religion through contact
I can give you some of them, they are not in order right now. But I have collected most of the references mentioned. Maybe you can send me your email if you comfortable with that.
Subbour did not tackle one point from james' arguments. James provided genetic and fossil evidence in his first presentation. Subbour only spoke on what he knows about, philosophy of science, not science. He really should step aside from what he is ignorant about. He never talks about common descent. Talk about common descent man!!! All he says is it is an assumption. It is not, it is deduced from the overwhelming evidence
TBH, I think Subboor is very well versed on the topic but looks at it through the prism of life long indoctrination and investment into the truth of Islam.
@@divinity176 he looks at it like this: if Islam has a lot of evidence and if it's right I'll go to heaven, but evolution has a lot of evidence but if it's right it wouldn't matter, so he'll just prefer Islam over evolution 🤷♂️
@@mohammadnawar4193 my biology teacher who is an atheis says that Darwinism is a paganism and darwin was a pagan.but i don't know what type of evolution he believes
@@zhasan6561 First off let me tell you something, you dont have to be an atheist to accept evolution, you just need to be educated on science. I believe in God and I know evolution is a fact, simple. Second of all, pagan means polytheist, and charles darwin was a former christian who became agnostic at the end of his life so your "atheist" teacher is mistaken
Subboor agreed with James' point that a scientific antirealist has to be consistent. You can't cherry pick the theories you don't like to be antirealist about. Subboor would for example also have to be antirealist about heliocentrism. Subboor agreed with this point, and yet his actual position is that heliocentrism is an eternal truth. So he is not only inconsistent, but he is an extreme and naive realist when it comes to certain scientific theories. He doesn't actually understand what he is talking about. He simply knows a few technical terms, and can name drop a few people. Scratch the surface, and he is legitimately a total ignoramus.
The entire debate summary : Ahmed wanted to say that saying a science based on observation a fact has been going for a long time, and we been collecting evidence on each one and each one has god evidence based on the current time understanding However, with time they learned that some of it was not true Therefore we shouldn't worship science but worship god, and use science as a valid model to help the world regardless if it goes with or against religion, because human knowledge is limited by default and we can't fully understand everything or makes sure of anything, and every evidence we have on evolution has got answers to it from the other side and it is a debate on academic level so you shouldn't say it is a fact, rather a theory that has science evidence with it and against it and it shouldn't be worshipped And James Fodor introduced some Evolution evidence and Ahmed didn't go into them because it was not what was the debate about, it was about the word fact and should we worship science or not, so they don't get into a debate on the evidence but focus on the big picture Ahmed says Muslims across history had science going with and against them, we should use science and not worship science and see it as a valid model And James agrees on that to a degree My comment : I wish Ahmed did provide evidence on Islam because we got a lot of those so he says what Islam is based on and why Science is not the main factor there, historical evidence and Quranic Evidence and Scientific evidence "only the proven ones that Prophet Mohammed didn't know about" aka atmosphere, cloud mass, importance of mountains and all that stuff to show how Islam is not like the other religions that don't have evidence and just wants to fight science So that James would've seen this interesting instead of thinking it is just a philosophical debate like those atheists in the comments, and show how important it is to be a Muslim and to not take any science as a fact but a working model that can change over time which is true, Darwinian evolution is not the same as it was since Darwin at all, we got more evidence and less evidence and evidence fight evidence We don't do as other religions that we fight science, but we don't do like atheists do and worship it and take it for granted, we got evidence of our religion that cannot change over time since 1400 years in different topics, we use science to help the world, while also getting closer to god which is why we are here. Beautiful debate non the less
@@everyzan-m2q you think I'm hunting you down, watching your every move? Don't flatter yourself. Considering i left a comment on this video a year ago, I think it's you who followed me here.
Why is it that Subboor and other Muslims always try to debate evolution by referring to what one scientist's (Dawkins) worldview? Worldviews have nothing to do with the legitimacy of any scientific theory. Unfortunately, James got sucked into debating these unnecessary points.
Thank you for your efforts, I am following you and happy with your activities and your invitation to Islam, and I pray to you, I have a simple suggestion that you publish stories to your new Muslims in brief .. I pray you success
Am agnostic I just finished reading the Qur'an Today ☺️ So this my opinion: I found the recitation so beautiful , too repetitive , boring, unorganized, basically god god saying I'm great and praising him self in every page in the Qur'an , old testament vibe genocidal, too much talking about hell with sadistic words ,if you believe me you will go to jannah if not you will Go to jahanam.god being too angry ,and diss abo lahab ,some ayas about women shooked me ( in a bad way). I found that it has alot of good things in my opinion how much forgives every sin literally (except shirk) and how he love Muslims so much and that he says give charity, don't lie, don't steal,be kind , don't cut ties with your family and more also later Sura we so much better and nicer the maki once in general . 10% good principles to live by. 90% fear mongering, religious supremacy, hate. I would probably stopped reading it in the first few chapters if I read it in english. I read it in Arabic And it is so much better , also the Qur'an is not that easy for us Arabs so I used tafseer(additional sources for explaination) to help with some ayas.
I didn't have negative opinions about Islam now I surely have. I wasn't interested in reading about religions but my friend told me to read it and give chance and try it and I will find scientific miracle , best literature in the word no mistake amazing master piece , I found non of that then I read a fairy tale where god is the villain
in Quran Allah almighty has said every time that he is the most merciful and most gracious that's why according to islam if a person ask for forgiveness from Allah almighty from his true only one time he will be forgiven by Allah almighty and all his sin will be forgiven
Cool! I tried reading the English version, and you're right, it's despicable. I couldn't read more than a few pages. Allah punishes atheists for not believing, after he forces them not to believe. I've been told by Muslims that all the hate directed to 'non-believers' in there is a mistranslation, and really it means to be talking about people who oppress Islam.
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke you definetely have no idea what you are talking about. We as Muslims are fearful of hell and that should make us be better muslims. And “non believers go to hell” you are again wrong it depends if the person wasn’t properly introduced to Islam with it’s evidence and wasn’t convinced of it they WIL NOT go to hell. Only when they know the truth and their desires get in the way then it becomes the problem. If you seriously read the Quran and came to such conclusions I reccomend you to read it with a Tasfir (explanation of the verses) with it
The disagreement lies in the definition of "fact". Subhoor takes fact to mean it s 100% true, no discussion about it. James takes fact to mean it s not 100% true but there are a lot of things that can substantiate it. Then Subhoor challenged the data presented by James.
James was too polite to pick up on the point that all of what subboor was say was all very interesting and philosophical, but he failed to actually challenge any of evidence that James bought to the table.
@@aangellotti508Because their argument isn't based on science but faith. If, say tomorrow, evolution was proved beyond doubt, which is a practical impossibility, Muslims wouldn't stop believing in God, they'll just claim that evolution was already in the Qur'an by twisting a few words here and there. The argument isn't based on science.
@@only_fair23That’s what scientifically literate christians do. It’s harder for Muslims because their holy book was preemptively insulated against reason by claiming to be the literal and inerrant word of god.
I think the whole debate was more about philosophy of science than the evolution per se. Subboor point has taken inspiration in Kunh's theory of scientific revolutions, and about the problem of induction and the need to always see scientific theories as something that may not ever reach the "truth", as new evidences are always being discovered and putting the theory to test. Therefore is the need to distinguish science from a dogma, like in the case James ilustrates where we extrapolate the limits of Darwin's theory to justify internal beliefs.
That's because Subboor know that he cannot deny the facts. His only aim is to undermine the entire field of philosophical thought, because that's the only way he can hope to assert that evolution hasn't been reliably proven.
@Astrophile2345 subboor Ahmed is not arguing against all of evolution. He questions the Darwin's version of it and still not all of it. And, yes, as you said it would be stupid for learnt Muslims to completely deny any adaptation or all aspects that come under the term "evolution".
@@abyzayd2022It is being taught as a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of a natural phenomenon, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Natural Selection meets this criteria, just like Atomic Theory, General relativity, Cell theory etc.
@@LiamJCash But Darwinian evolution has never been repeatedly proven. It says a million years ago an ape changed into a human. It is a theory and not observed, and cannot be repeatedly confirmed. Change of kind has never been proven. Remember that "change of kind" is totally different than "adaptation" of certain species to some environment. One cannot say because a bird's beak was larger in Australia than in Europe, thus it proves that all species change; meaning change of kind, thus an ape became a human being. No my friend, it was just adaptation and not change of kind. They even never proved that a bird was becoming another kind of bird, let alone another animal. Think about it unbiased.
@@abyzayd2022 Judging by your response you either have no knowledge of evolutionary theory, or your knowledge is founded on gross misconceptions. I suggest you read up on natural selection, genetics, and cladistics. Molecular biology alone proves evolution and common ancestry between humans and the other great apes. I recommend you start there.
@@LiamJCash ok mr. Smart. Please explain and tell me what I dont know. Why cant you explain it here briefly? I have to read a book to understand you? Haha.
Mr. Foder stated that marsupials are only found in South America and Australia but in fact they are very common in North America as well. The Opossum is one of the most common forms of wildlife across the USA.
That's because the ancestors of Opssums crossed over continent and only them. Like how Native Americans were the first modern humans to crossover to the Americas from Asia 20,000 years ago. And I don't remember how Opossums crossed over. I'm gonna look it up
I cannot believe this debate is still going on. It doesn't matter what you call it; 'fact', 'theory', 'not with absolute certainty'.. these are all just words and language we use to manifest our thoughts into sounds. Truth is not who sounds more convincing, but the evidence that supports it. The evidence that all life shares common ancestors is overwhelming, the evidence that we are on the same family tree with all other life on this planet is overwhelming, and no matter how many times you have this debate it doesn't change that evidence. To ignore it is to put your head in the sand when truth is staring you in the face.
Skepticism means - Questioning the ideas which are commonly accepted as a fact. I think - The purpose of this debate was to clear that no matter how many people have started to accept darwinism as a fact but its never a certain to be called as ultimate truth. No matter how much overwhelmed you are with scientific findings (i.e data) to conclude darwinism as true, but you must know that you are ignoring that the same set of data can produce multiple outcome, and can even produce completely different outcome when we know that 99.99% of species are not been observed at all. Darwinism is just an idea that fits atheists world view, that's why it makes sense to them, while it can never make sense (completely) to those who believe in God and can provide logical evidences. This debate is again for those who challenges religious perspective of (beginning of Humanity) by using darwinism while undermining their own uncertainty. And thus darwinism can never be used as a tool to challenge religion (Especially Islam)
By "evidence" you mean the similarities between different organisms. But i think you forget the fact that we all live on the same planet thus similarities are going to exist life will be lifeless without similarities. Anything that is not similar to a living organism is not life. But to use this to say that all living things have a common ancestor Naoudhubillah is stupid. Only those who want to believe that the mechanism just exists or work "automatically" will believe this. I.e you are using your current information to support a narrative that you have created yourself. I.e Naoudhubillah you are using current information to support a narrative that is impossible. Allah is ONE and you can see Allah by looking at the universe.
@@moosaali9371 Can you tell us approximately when Allah instantly created the first humans?. Many thanks Islamic scholars are generally shy to give even a rough date.
@@iainrae6159 Similarities doesn't explain the origin of life. Evolution whether true or false doesn't contradict God existence. Remember I am talking about Evolution not Darwinian Evolution
Subboor's opening seemed to define 'fact' as an analytic truth, something that doesn't involve induction and cannot possibly be wrong. Yet his example was the shape of the Earth! He should have given an example like bachelors are unmarried or 1+1=2, because the shape of the Earth is supported in the same way as evolution.
@Abbas Abdullah Thanks for the response Abbas :) On that point, I disagree and think there's similarly lots of strong empirical evidence for evolution. Like we have images and videos from NASA, for evolution we have things like transitional fossils. BUT! I don't think that's important for the point I was making, I don't think we need to go there (although we can if you want). I can assume for the sake of argument that there's no empirical evidence supporting evolution. The point I was making is that Subboor's way of defining a fact means the empirical evidence of science _never_ produces facts. The shape of the Earth doesn't meet his criteria for a fact. Even though it's supported by images and videos, that doesn't make it an absolute logical certainty, in the sense that it cannot _possibly_ be wrong. For that, he should have chosen examples like 1+1=2, or that all bachelors are unmarried. Things that don't require our fallible empirical investigation, which can always possibly be wrong :)
@Abbas Abdullah Yes, that's it :) Subhoor's point applied to all of science. Science is too limited to prove anything absolutely, and doesn't ever give us 'facts' the way he is defining facts. That's why the shape of the Earth was a bad example of a fact, because it's supported by science, so it's not a fact in the way he was defining fact. It's not a big objection, it doesn't refute his argument or anything like that - I just think he picked an inappropriate example :)
@Abbas Abdullah Yes things can be very very powerfully supported by observations, beyond any reasonable doubt, and still not count as 'facts' in the absolute way that Subhoor is using the term. He hasn't defined it as things supported beyond reasonable doubt, but as things that couldn't even possibly be wrong. Things so certain that we didn't have to rely on our senses to make observations at all. Science doesn't _prove_ things in the technical and absolute sense, as you said. Any observational evidence can always be argued against as one day it might possibly be overturned. Anything supported by observations, relying on the senses, doesn't qualify for a 'fact' as Subhoor uses the word. Not even the shape of the Earth, which we used fallible science to figure out. The very thing Subhoor is arguing isn't 100% reliable, and so anywhere it conflicts with the Quran it can be mistaken.
@Abbas Abdullah *"seen not simply observed"* -- Seeing is a type of observation, I'm talking about seeing. It doesn't prove absolutely, it's still possible to be wrong after you see something (or, think you see something). It seemed to all our senses that we sent astronauts to the Moon, but it _could_ have been a vast illusion. It's completely unrealistic, but it's logically possible. And that means it's not a 'fact' that we went to the Moon, as Subboor has defined 'fact'. Given Subboor's really strict criteria for a fact, there would be no scientific facts about the world.
May I suggest that everyone actually reads Darwins book 'Origin of Species' and think for themselves, rather than been told 'this is what the public think ' by the speaker. I suspect very few folks who believe in instant creation of humans by the supernatural, have bothered to read it or looked at the overwhelming evidence.
Pfft lol. My condolences that you actually believe that. Perhaps you have the guts to challenge him on that? Or are you comfortable behind a screen and armed with a keyboard?
Darwin is a liar (literally), there is a lot of gaps in his theory, instead i suggest you read the books that is against his theory to know how many gaps in it.
To her a guy who has said that "“the Quran is a source of knowledge that we know with absolute certainty is true” talk about what's should count as a fact, is a special kind of irony.
A theory in Science means it has gone through the rigours of the scientific method. Scientific method is hypothesis - experiment - observation - control - conclusion.. Darwin's Theory of evolution has withstood the Scientific method employed by Darwin, so far for more than a 100 years since it was first propounded by Darwin in 1895. Evolution is already a fact and is reinforced by Genetics, Anthropology, Cosmology, Carbon-dating, etc. Debate on this today is so silly.
You don't know much do you? Did we species evolve from a common ancestor ? This is the question. Lets quote ATHEISTS scientists to refute the foundation of the "great" theory of evolution: Evolutionists argue that some mutations are good and change the features for the better. The problem is, to really change a feature, you need more than one good mutation, which occur simultaneously. Professor of biochemistry Michael Behe says about this: “If more than one [mutation] is needed, the probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse.” [3] Darwin realized (even without knowing about genetics) such a problem. In his book about evolution he dedicated a whole chapter to the problems of his theory. He says: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down“. [4] In 2004, Behe and the physicist from the Pittsburg University David Snoke concluded in a study, *that more generations need to pass for useful mutations to occur than there are generations in the history of Earth itself* .[5] Behe is a critic of Darwin, so predictably he provoked criticism. In 2008 two biologists tried to conduct a similar study in order to refute Behe and Snoke, but they ended up confirming them . For two useful mutations simultaneously to occur it would take more than 100 million years. Since humans exist fro only 6 million years, this is highly problematic for evolutionists. [6] Evolutionary biologist David S. Goodsell writes: "Only a small fraction of the possible combinations of amino acids will fold spontaneously into a stable structure. If you make a protein with a random sequence of amino acids, chances are that it will only form a gooey tangle when placed in water“ [ 7] Lynn Margulis was a atheist and evolutionary biologist and she admits: “ *new mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired* .” [8] She further explained in a 2011 interview: "Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change- led to new species. *I believed it until I looked for evidence* .“ [9] The same problem comes with other species like whales, who evolutionsits believe to have evolved from land animals to todays whales in less than 10 million years,[10] which is too short for all the mutations and changes that needed to occur. The evolutionary biologist Richrard Sternberg summarizes it: “Too many genetic re-wirings, too little time.“ There is another important aspect. Evolutionists believe that these mutations *happened randomly* and without any sense or purpose. For mutations to be deliberate and purposeful, you need intention and intelligence. You basically need a Creator, you need God. HERE ARE THE REFERENCES TO THE STATEMENTS QUOTED ABOVE : Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, Chapter 1 4 Charles Darwin, On the origin of species, London, 1859, p. 189 5 Michael Behe and David Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13: 2651-2664 (2004 [6]Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt, “Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution,” Genetics, 180:1501-1509 (2008). [7] David S. Goodsell, The Machinery of Life, pp. 17, 19 (2nd ed., Springer, 2009) [8] Lynn Margulis, quoted in Darry Madden, UMass Scientist to Lead Debate on Evolutionary Theory, Brattleboro (Vt.) Reformer (February 3, 2006). [9] Lynn Margulis quoted in “Lynn Margulis: Q + A,” Discover Magazine, p. 68 (April, 2011). [10] Alan Feduccia, “‘Big bang’ for tertiary birds?,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18: 172-176 (2003).
@@mohamudahmed6554 If you really want to dispute or dispel the evolution theory by Darwin, you should do the same or similar experiments he did and present a paper to disprove the theory. Next you should also do Genetic studies of different species and give your conclusion that different species have MATERIALLY different genetic codes. Until then, there is no scientific basis to dispel the evolution theory. Your narrow belief is called fundamentalist dogma.
@@henrylow2248 If you want to affirm and accept the theory of evolution, you should do the same or similar experiments he did and present a paper to affirm it. Sounds absurd doesn't it? Also, you are educated on Darwins theory. It is gone though multiple change and Darwin himself knew the issues his theory had. Today Darwin himself would need to study the current theory from his original theory. You clearly didn't know any of this. Lucky for me, i refer back to the scientists and quote their statements and these are the biggest isses with Darwinian Evolution. Hence, it is a theory, not a convincing one and not only that, it is based on assumptions that are impossible as stated. So do me a favour and stop talking about things you don't know.
@@mohamudahmed6554 You are simply unable to understand what is meant by the 'Scientific Method' even but instead base your childish understanding of evolution merely on ''quotes by Scientists". That makes you an uneducated ignoramus. Read first on what is Science and the Scientific Method, Mechanics of Evolution, Genetics, Anthropology, Cosmology etc before you talk. There are tons of reading material on this out there on this. Don't just limit yourself to one archaic book written 1,500 years ago.
@@mohamudahmed6554 ~340 scientific papers worth of evidence can be found in the references section of "evolution" on Wikipedia. That's not every scientific paper, it's just a handful of important ones. Handful being _340 scientific papers!_ So the legwork has already been done here: mountains of evidence have been collected, and they show evolution happens, and the evidence is _dramatically stronger_ than a handful of cherry-picked quotes (so it requires actual scientific papers to dispute, or requires that you somehow find fault in all of those 340 scientific papers)
James, that was really well done. Comprehensive and you tidied up every confused counter brought forth. The consistent dragging of the debate into the mire of philosophy by Subboor is the most tired and common tactic of the religious apologist, and you handled it beautifully. Very well done.
Gradualism is NOT a central assumption in evolution, evolution happens also in what is called "punctuated equilibrium". Also, what does it mean for natural selection to "work"? work for what? natural selection is a natural force it doesn't have an aim it happens regardless if you think it "works" or not.
What I find really fascinating about Subboor Ahmed is, why does he not have the same doubt about science as about Islam and God . If science could be wrong or incomplete than so can his religion. But he never doubts his religion does he?
because we have a falsification test that you can't get a verse like Quran whatever you did. you can search the people who tried and see it. and there are programs that if someone died you allow it to read the messages and then the program talks like him, you can reprogram them and use a supercomputer and try to get something like it?? you can raise a fund to do this by the help of other people
@@gaber42424 I'm sorry but I really did not understand exactly how this falsification test works, can you maybe link the site or explain it better? But if I understand your point correctly, your saying you can't make a book like Quaran and therefor it must be true and from a God. If that is your point then it's a invalide point. first of all you say you can't create a book like Quaran, my question is what is your criteria? If you talk about beauty or structure of verses then first it's a subjective criteria because you defination of a impeccable structure maybe differ from person to person there are a lot of poets who wrote books who are a lot better than the Quaran in my subjective opinion like Edgar allan poe . Second point even if you can't recreate something it does not mean necessarily that it came from a God. There is a lot of things that people did in the past that we can't do today in the same exact way they did them but they are still people not Gods. The rational and honest answer to the question is there a creator to this universe is we don't know that is if the universe was indeed created to begin with, and if we want to know we need a lot more information.
What a gem suboor is, he said said after after completing his speech at 20:05 every thing I said good in this presentation is from God and every mistake is of my own. Allah hu akbar
@@an9l1c1sm6this is a common saying according to Quran and Hadith bro lol he didn’t come up with it and it is said even if someone is 100% sure he is right
@@an9l1c1sm6 The Quran is speaking about the sunset lol I knew you would bring up this stupidity The verse is talking about a king called “Thu AlQarnayn” and it is describing his point of view of the sunset. Just like when someone sees the sun sets into the sea, mountains, fields, etc
I give Subboor credit. No matter how many times he is publicly disproven and embarrassed, he keeps picking himself off the ground and trying to do better. I think if he started with being honest that would be a great first step in improving his debates. I understand his motivation but he should not lie about such easily discoverable things. I do not think his audience is as lazy as he suspects & that they can and will check his words and discover his deception. Thank you and keep improving Subboor! 🙏.
Thought the same thing... Subboor is not saying the theory of evolution is bs or something like that, he is simply saying that its a theory, strong theory with a lot of research behind it, but a theory nonetheless, therefore it must remain debatable, not dogmatic.
@@brunochaves3887 Theory of Evolution is a "Scientific theory" not just regular "theory". Scientific theories are based on facts and evidences, they are not guess works! Evolution is a fact also, there is no denial in that because it's the fundamental backbone of Biology and modern day medicine!
@@AdvaiticOneness1 i did not say it was guesswork, i'm well aware that Theory of evolution is well accepted, but take in perspective the theory of relativity for example, it has overthrown our knowledge that was a fact back then. The whole point is that science cannot be about "facts" but about what we know until now. Unless there is a point where we can say that we know about everything in the universe science will always be about the most accepted.
@@brunochaves3887 You put "facts" in quote marks, because Subboor had to redefine the word to make his point, as something logically necessary, something we couldn't possibly be mistaken about. Science IS about facts, Subboor just doesn't know what a fact is. Or, he intentionally redefined the word, so that he could say evolution isn't a fact. That's just a scam, pandering to the creationists in his audience. Beefing up the people who really want to deny evolution.
If you find that bacteria, viruses, fungi, plants, animals (including humans) have the same genetic code, the same mechanism por making proteins, the same basic metabolic pathways, don’t you think that they share common ancestor, as evolution indicates?
If your listened to what subhoor said you would see that what you are saying is circular reasoning based upon assumption of Naturalistic Causes. Let's make it easy. If you decided to make a Creature to walk on this Earth, how would you do it? It needs to breath oxygen so it needs lungs, a heart to pump blood. It needs to eat so it needs a mouth, tongue stomach, intestines etc etc. It needs to see and smell. You would not expect them NOT to have any of these things. These things are vital to most creatures. If we were to state a designer made the Earth and its creatures, you would expect this. You would be crazy not to expect this. You assume common traits equals common decent, because you believe there is no designer and all animals commonly descend. That's what he means by circular reasoning. If someone 20,000 years ago in ancient egypt opened a dog, and they found a heart and lungs, they did not say common decent, they said, that's what we expect to find for a creature of the Earth.
@@redx11x there was no need for lungs because there was no oxygen in the atmosphere, just hydrogen and helium, later when the composition of the atmosphere changed lungs evolved from air sacs in fish, to breath oxygen, you need some science education
@@redx11x i would create subatomic particles to form atoms that by themselves can form molecules then biomolecules, once you have biomolecules like dna, rna, proteins you would eventually have elephants, you cannot start with something so complex as a human being, the process of organization of matter goes from the very simple to the more complex, again get some sci info
everyone here should enter this question in there computer: What is the hottest the earth has been? you will see a nice chart starting from when the earth was first formed until now. That will take care of people guessing what took place
I think adaptation is a fact because thats what we can view within our recorded history..beyond that its still a theory. The scientific evidence strongly suggests its a fact.
@Sharif Masum. The scientific fact about evolution is that it isn't an entity. The scientific fact is that only entities have ability to do something. Therefor evolution can't do anything. The scientific attributes of evolution are: Isn't an entity. Neither is a living or not living thing. Has no any ability. Has no any knowledge. Has no any power. In order for evolution to be even possible, it must have an entity working behind it. What is the entity???
@@zaggaona The scientific evidence strongly suggest that evolution is just a false guess [ a wrong idea, a wishful thinking of non believers ] and that; it is impossible to happen..
@@safetsalihovic8775 There is no such thing 'scentific fact' just like there is no such thing 'Darwinian evolution'. Its is just fact, and just evolution. Fact is something can be proven true. Change of season is a fact which can be proven true, and it has no entity.
@@safetsalihovic8775 science is not at all "wishful", its about looking at evidence and coming up with the most logical theory as to why. And true, science and the majority of its theories are just that, theories, but what they do is confirm a lot of wrong answers and wrong questions. Religion has no evidence to ANYTHING. Its ALL stories written by people. And its hard facts according to followers. And islam, and christianity, are heavily reliant on Judaism and their "stories" which they took a lot from Egyptian theism. WHEN, .. people, today in age, say they speak to god, or have visions of god and what they are instructed to do WE, as modern, reasonable people, look at the evidence from our society and come up with a reasonable and most logical conclusion.
Our instinct to want to help people actually corresponds perfectly with darwinian evolution. For humans and our previous ancestors to ensure their survival they would have to work together in tight nit communities. This would require the individuals having to help and share with others in order to be accepted and to be helped when needed. For example if someone hunts a large deer they would split the meat the light the community so that when the day comes when you haven’t had any successful hunts and you need to eat someone has your back.
You would argue the same for lion prides and Orca pods , If these traits are so successful why are they rare ? Or would you say because of their success they are thus rare
@@garsayfsomali it’s rare because most animals are not social. Within social animals it’s actually very common to hunt together, eat together and sleep together in order to ensure survival
@MatalixTheREAL historically giving to those less fortunate than yourself would propagate the survival of the tribe as a whole and therefore would benefit you by having an extra pair of hands when going hunting
Also how about killing of elder and disabled people they would be dead weight for the tribe it would be better if they were non-existent cuz as 'animals' we see lesser creatures like cows or sheep as somtjing we have the authority to kill why not the same for disabled and elderly people according to you theory.
If a cell that had just died a moment before, and we asked top origin-of-life researchers to engineer it back to life, they couldn’t do it. They’re not even close to being able to do it. And yet all the ingredients, all the building blocks of life are right there, all in one place, in the right proportions. And not only can scientists not engineer those ingredients back to life, they still can’t synthesize even a fraction of the building blocks essential to cellular life, despite decades and millions of dollars poured into the problem. And yet they assume that purely blind material processes turned prebiotic chemicals into all the key building blocks, and then mindlessly engineered those into the first self-reproducing cell on the early Earth. There are no models that would make such a scenario plausible. And the more we learn about cellular complexity, the harder the problem gets
@@darcymr353 It doesn't mean it's possible,.all you have is wishful thinking and hope. all the chemistry goes in the exact opposite direction of life. And if we did succeed in the lab all it would prove is intelligent design. The complex and highly orchestrated experimental protocols with unnatural starting materials further demonstrate that intelligent agency is an essential ingredient to life’s origin.
@@tonymaurice4157 this is just the god of the gaps. I didn't say whether or not it is possible. We simply don't know. Success in a lab wouldn't necessarily point to intelligent design. Please justify this assertion. Prove complexity requires orchestration.
@@KATOOMY this got nothing to do with telling lies... Evolution is a PROVEN scientific FACT and a theory.... Dont debate me ,dude . Just bring your own theory , present it to the scientific world.. and get Published. ONLY call me when you got your Nobel prize in science for turning the whole scientific world upside down.. good luck with that
an evolution simply means biological changes over time but darwinian evolution says we humans evolved from apes which Completely an assumption of homology
@@muhammadhussain5854 transition from apes to OTHER apes (like homosapiens) IS STILL CALLED EVOLUTION.... BY DEFENITION. We do not call gravity ... Newtons gravity.. do we? The person who made the theory is irrelevant. Its their theory itself that is relevant in science.
@@KATOOMY First you said "That evolution is a lie", then you mentioned an interesting transitional fossil. I don't get it, all evolution deniers are forced to deny transitional fossils exist. How haven't you just debunked yourself?
As I recall AronRa already schooled this bearded guy on a topic of evolution a few years ago, yet here he is, back with same crap over again. Classic creationism. Never learn, just keep pedaling the PRATT list.
@@SimpleReally it's like you all are incapable of producing anything substantial, yet still can't stfu. But apart from all debates, dude is arguing against fact. No amount of semantics and mental gymnastics will make it somehow magically go away.
It's very interesting that everyone in the comment section almost already made their mind and are watching this video on a completely biased perspective.
@@daviddinoger well for one its literally in the name.... "theory" of evolution. Theories by nature are not facts. Secondly there is problems with darwinian evolution and alternatives to it. If you think its a "fact" you either dont know anything about science since the closest truth in science is theory. I shouldnt need to explain this to anyone who even remotely understands the scientific method. Why dont you tell me how it is a fact? Become the first person to ever prove a scientific theory to be completely and objectively factual.. ill wait.
@@keelobrown4991 The problem with your claim is that its grounded on nihilism. In your argument, nothing can be proven, nothing can ever be right. We cannot prove that we exist, i cannot prove that the object in my hands (the phone) actually exists which would mean there is no fact, there is nothing in this world that can be proven, i could not even prove that i am a human, talking to you right now. Obviously that is the case, we cannot prove anything unfortunately with this mindset we cannot function as a society or even as individuals. Our world would fall into chaos if we all truly believed nothing is real, nothing is factual. The other part of your statement was that a theory is just the closest we get to truth. Yes, you are correct but we can expand that theory, just because we can expand the theory of evolution, doesn't make it wrong.
@@daviddinoger wow. Everything you just said about not existing and not being able to prove anything was a major strawman. The scientific method isnt the only way to seek truth. We know we exist and can interact with other existing things through logic and reasoning, which can be used to infer something. Inference basically means to make an assumption based on logical reasoning, which would actually be deduction. Thats different from the scientific method which uses induction to find truth. Induction is observation and testing (both of which are inherintly flawed) Induction can never be 100% true. I would really suggest you look into the scientific method and how it works and what is applicable with and more importantly what is not. Cos your literally comparing two different things (deduction) and (induction). Theres nothing nihilistic about that. If I was being nihilistic then I wouldnt even engage with this convo since the actual view of a nihilist "nothing matters, everything is just atoms and nothing has value or meaning in any way". What your describing is someone who is uncertain of anything. (Which as I've just pointed out is a false assesment on your part) Thats not the same as a nihilist. Also I never said the theory of evolution is wrong (another strawman) I said its not a fact. It very well could be true but that our understanding of it can be completely or partly wrong.
Looking forward to this debate and hoping that Subboor is also putting forth and suggesting an alternative to the darwinian world view. Many of these debates revolve around the factual/non factual reality of darwinism and not around an other explanation for natural phenomena. Whether or not the world is created is up to a logical debate and is something that even the most radical darwinians can subscribe to. "How" the world is created though is something to be discussed from on another level though. Excited to listen to both!
I don't really understand why muslims applaud this debate, this debate litterally proves nothing about islam being true, it's just a debate about evolution.
@@xmuhmd yeah okay bro keep believing in fairytales, yeah I ve read the quran actually, it's obviously man made. Also most of your countries are poor and have no liberties or democracy, that's why you all immigrate to the west.
@@troywalt4834 Um, yeah. This is a debate on evolution, not on Islam. Just like when Kent Hovind debates Aron Ra. He's not debating for christianity, he's debating against evolution.
The answer of yes combats the idea of science. Do not be so stupid. Science is dynamic and not absolute so how can darwinism, an idea centuries old, still be infallible to this day. Even Darwin knew his theories were fallible yet you still state such stupidity.
@@muzzyjk take your own advice and don’t be stupid. Your assertions about what Darwin did or didn’t think isn’t relevant. His theory of evolution stands today because it’s held up to scrutiny. The short answer IS yes.
@@darcymr353 🤦🏻♂️ they both mean the same thing silly 😝 what you’re really getting at is that you think since Darwin’s theory is able to evolve that you feel it’s not solid. That’s too bad my friend. Please be the first to successfully challenge it.
@@markusbaker1161 evolution by natural selection is a scientific fact. Darwin made some mistakes in his lifetime. That's the difference I'm referring to.
Just not to provided wrong info , Firstly, watch his UA-cam channel , I think he mentions it there a few times. He's studying Philosophy of science or sth like that
A real scientist wouldn't even waste his time on saboor to be honest, basically a young physics grad is at best all it takes to present the data, a real scientist will annihilate him on the spot
I don't understand why religious people want to keep falling on the sword of evolution. If you want to believe in a Creator or Designer why can't he have chosen evolution as the means for creating all this diversity. After all when the Quran says everything was created from water, they jump right up and say this is the evidence for it being divine. So on the one hand if the Quran says something agrees with science, it is evidence of the divine. If there is an apparent disagreement (Adam & Eve) then the whole scientific method is at fault. Hmm.
Actually the point Subhoor is trying to make is that religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive. It s just the naturalistic focus on the current status of evolution that makes it hard to accept the current developments and status. For example, if you re trying to make a case that some humans are superior to other humans and you only use the current state of the world as an argument, then you are going to get results which are extremely biased and unfair. As muslims we accept any scientific study even if it contradicts the Quran because we know that science is changing. For example, the most popular argument in the early 1900s was the argument that the universe was infinite. Today science changed its stance and now it is in line with Islam. Nevertheless, the philosophical discussion by muslims was always done in a similar way. What evolution brings as a problem, is that it is being pushed by an atheist dogma and is mishandled in such a way that alternarive theories that may explain things much better but are boycotted out since they may bring the theory more in line with religion. And because the theory has a very low empirical force of direct evidence, this can be done ad infinitum. So as muslims we are merely begging the question whether the idea of evolution is being done rationally and fair. Hope this clarifies my stance a bit more :).
@@AD4MANTIUM2166 E.g. piltdown man, after 30+years it turned out to be a hoax.. We have to separate ideologies from this field of research to find actual evidence and truths. Atheism has made a bad indent on evolution as a science, and it s hard to wash out the taste now. It s similar to how the church kept the earth flat for so long, lynching everyone that dared to say otherwise.
God Creates many organisms without common ancestors, even ones that look like they match in some ways under a microscope. Do you need to see it too or will you also accept this the same as you accept the earth orbits around the sun ?
@@HappyBloke81 One is based on millions of observations that have been tested repeatedly and have consistent results. The other is some guy on UA-cam made some claims. tell me how did you test? "God Creates many organisms without common ancestors" That as far as I can see is least 3 unfounded claims . That there is a god, That god made these organisms and That some of them don't have common ancestors. And I don't know how seeing them under a microscope can even show you how even one these claims are true or even likely.
I dont want to be offensive but why do these debates always tip toe around the major flaws of all religions. And that usually is the the acceptance of immoral acts either in their scripture, and/or modern day practices.. as a non believer, i dont want to claim moral high ground but these books claim to be of the most high, in regards to morality and claim that they transcend time? We, as a society, have deemed lots of stories, practices, rituals, from holy books as archaic, misguided, to downright barbaric, cruel, or just wrong. And no book between the three major religions is exempt.
@zaggaona. Did the 'WE", you are talking about deemed those things wrong using objective or subjective criterion? Did the "WE" in their judgement consider all of the possibilities for purpose and existence: possibility of afterlife being true and spiritual life being true or the "WE" have judged these things only trough naturalistic point of view. Could the "WE" be wrong in their judgement of what is right and what is wrong?
@@safetsalihovic8775 by "we" i mean non-fanatical, rational, modern people. And i believe, when it comes to the subject of morality it can only be subjective. Lets take slavery for instance, referenced and practiced during the writing of holy books, WE, as a society and subjectively, can agree that slavery is morally wrong.
@@zaggaona The "We" think of them selves as: non-fanatical, rational, modern people , and the "We" had agreed .on a lots of things. The same "We" have agreed on things as being all right which now you judge wrong. Those: "We":non-fanatical, rational, modern people bend their necks in the way that wind blows [ in a moment one way in the next moment the other way ] because they think that morality can only be subjective. Out of subjective morality come: murderers, robbers, thieves, dictators, and all the most horrible deeds a human being can imagine. The source of subjectivity [ peoples own whims, desires and wishes ] is their own selfishness. The selfishness is also the source of: self piety, racism, chauvinism [ what causes injustice ]. There is not one good thing that comes from selfishness, yet you think it's a source for morality. So don't talk to me about morals when your morals come from your selfishness. That's also the reason why the "We" think so highly about them self's as being: non-fanatical, rational, modern people while in the same time the "We" are the most fanatical and irrational. About " modern" [ as I understood it from your reply ] you think of it as being something good. Well it's modern to have a sexual intercourse before being married with: multiple partners some of them not even knowing who they are [ one night stands ] or having sexual intercourse while under influence of drugs and alcohol and not even knowing later who one has slept with. It's modern to have a lover or multiple lovers besides spouse. How many problems in societies this "modern" behaviors have caused. Families being broken, hatred among people, single parenting, abandoned children, murdered children, suicides. Causes incest [ people having sexual intercourse with close relatives or even marrying them without knowing that they are related ]. Modernity is the cause for disrespecting parents and elders because they are not modern. Modernity is the cause for many more awful disgusting and nasty things. Don't make me count them all. As for subjectivity, the source of modernity is also in selfishness . So those who believe in morality according to their own subjectivity are the most immoral and disgusting people. One can hide own deeds from people but words that come from ones mouth will uncover directly or indirectly what's hidden in ones hart.
@@zaggaona The ''we'' non-fanatical, rational, modern atheists who in the last 100 years have massacred more people than every abrahamic religion combined in their existence. Get a grip and get off your moral high horse please. Its embarrassing how you seem to think the modern atheist has some superior understanding of morals and ethics.
Ahmad says science is not absolute and it's everchanging. First of all, it only changes when valid facts are presented. And that is basically what science is. There is an absolute answer, we just need to find it. Somehow an intelligent person like yourself belives that that is called Allah. You are a person sure in something that what you were raised to be. Now imagine Ahmed was born into a Cristian family. His life is based on where he were born and not on what Ahmad called facts. So let's question ourselfs now. Are you right because of how you were raised or are the "scientist" right by formeing their ideas based on the world "facts". In other words. You believe in one thing and you critise people who believe in a search for an answer. Because of people like you, others will follow their absurd world views and are ignorant to others.
Jan Koščak Of course there is an absolute answer: evolution is either true or not that is an absolute answer, but which one of these is the absolute truth we can't find it trough science. Science doesn't have tools to deal with absolutes, one can't observe, measure or test it because all possibilities are not of the physical reality. To get to absolute truth one must examine all possibilities physical and metaphysical, but science can't do that. Doesn't matter in which ideology a person was born. Absolutes are the same for everyone, regardless if one believes in them or not. Believing in them or not will not change a thing about absolutes. We do have the ability [a way] to find absolutes and it's trough reason. With the reason [ rationality ]we come to know that a dependent thing or a dependent being can't exist without The Independent. The existence of The Independent is necessary because without its existence: the universe and everything in it wouldn't exist. Dependent things can't exist on their own or on depending just on other dependent things, as evolution would include only dependent things it's an impossible idea. Our existence [ existence of dependent things] proves that The Independent [ The Absolute ] exists. We don't need to observe The Independent to know it exists. World views which don't recognize these irrefutable facts don't matter at all. It is those world views: which don't recognize the limits of science and don't recognize our ability to get to the absolute truth trough reason that follow absurd ideas. Idea that everything must have a scientific [ naturalistic ] explanation is absurd idea, when one knows that even conscience and mind can't be explained scientifically. We use our rationality together with science in order to explain anything. Rationality and science compliment each other they are not enemies. With using only science we can't explain how light which has no mass moves, but with our rationality we can.
There are many people who were raised as either Christians or atheists and they accepted Islam. Does this mean that their belief is right becuase they accepted a belief that’s different to what they were exposed to when they were kids! Your argument is preposterous
@@safetsalihovic8775 of course conscience and mind can be explained scientifically. Your philosophy regarding the "independent" is doubtful, but even if it's correct, there's nothing to say that the independent entity is a mind or anything like a god. Occams Razor would rather slice away anything else than that the universe itself is in some sense the independent thing. Everything else just adds a layer of complexity without helping. Evolution is fact at least in the everyday sense of the word. It's possible we're all a computer simulation started two minutes ago, who knows, but assuming our existence is as it seems to be, evolution and common origin is a fact that can no longer be fundamentally overturned by science.
I realise that religion is just a belief and not the truth when it is told that God needs worship , that is narcissist traits which is does not make sense to put to the one responsible for the existence of the whole galaxies and stars , its projecting insecurities , All powerful being does not demand to be worship,dont ask to bow , that is human behaviour just like kings and queen and royalty system thinking they are special and deserve special treatment place and title .
"that is human behaviour just like kings and queen and royalty system thinking they are special and deserve special treatment place and title." Humans respect superiors, it is human nature. If you respect somebody like God you would follow what they say. If you respect your parents and they tell you do something, you would do it.
Can religious people please stop pretending they understand evolution. If you want to be religious just live your life and stop making fools of yourselves by talking about science.
superseded is the correct term newton discovered gravity, with a model that explained planetary revolution almost accurately what einstein did was not reverse gravity he evolved its understanding further that its actually the distortion in space due to the mass of matter. that was a thuderous question people dont need evidence to believe in god but even if there are countless evidences if it contradicts their belief then they doubt it to the utmost that they use tooth and nail to fight or argue
Subboorb lost the debate Islam has been proven false Volume 9, Book 93, Number 506: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: That during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relation with them without impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interrupt us. The Prophet said, "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection." Qaza'a said, "I heard Abu Sa'id saying that the Prophet said, 'No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it."
No no and no! Atheism is a lack of beliefs and a rejection of faith. Faith is exclusive to religion and by definition means to believe without evidence. It's the lack of evidence we refuse to fill with faith.
@@fh854 why do you think I'm joking ? it takes huge amount of blind faith to believe that nothing produce everything, non-life produces life, randomness produces fine-tuning, chaos produces information, unconsciousness produces consciousness, and non-reason produces reason. I just can't take that huge leap of faith.
@@theoathman8188 Your a joke because your misrepresenting atheist and lying to do so. Some atheist don't accept say evolution yet most Christians and Jews do. No one atheist or scienctist (can be atheist and theist) claims anything came from nothing. But the bible says God created everything from nothing using magic. The universe isn't fine tuned it just looks that way. It's actually ever changing chaos. 99.9 % of it us deadly to us as us most if the earth. It looks made for us because it made us. Also if we changed one tiny thing would it change the outcome? Especially as we know the moon is moving away at 1 and a half inch a year as much as your finger nails grow. It has done since day one yet here we are. You don't need faith for science it's evidence based. And to be atheist is a reaction of faith and no beliefs. If you say anything else your a laughing stock/joke. But creationist are a laughing stock even within Christianity.
This is dead simple, if you believe in evolution then you can point to evidence that suggests evolution. If you don't believe in evolution......then you need to point to evidence that suggests a different mechanism. Those with the most convincing evidence wins.
These theist are so funny …. Can they apply the same scrutiny to their religion as they do to the study of evolution. 100% God has not been observed but yet they don’t require data to believe in their myths
We have no problem with sayin i have faith in evolution for example(this would be a different conversation) but sayin it's a fact like 1+1=2 that's where we have a problem it's obvious from the debate.
@@ziadrafa3733 Nobody says it's a fact like 1+1=2. James in this debate said it is a fact like the fact that the earth orbits the sun. Which is correct.
That is because you can not use empiricism for God. God is a being that you can not use your senses or technology to detect but it does not mean he does not exist.
@ALPHA WOLF "Islamic prayer is the answer my brother to send food to your high self to lift your soul out of a rutt and send it higher where it belongs." - That is true, although I dont think any religion has exclusive ownership of the connection with what we as humans can call the higher power or the gift of conscience that can lead us to be what we know we ought to be.
@ALPHA WOLF Astute observations indeed The ego is always there to take credit for cosmic fate. There are many signs, I just do not think we can put the origin of those signs to one belief system.
James.. c'mon be honest! You just agreed in your opening statement that FACT has more than one meaning. General fact and probabilistic fact can mean two different things. Don't dumb down intellect of people by not differentiating between the two and most importantly when it comes to Darwinian evolution
This debate was just about semantics. Scientists would never say that Evolution is a fact because scientists are usually very humble. But pretty much all scientists on the planet would say that Evolution is demonstrably true and that no one thinks that we will ever find evidence that will drastically change our current understanding of Evolution, at best new discoveries will only change minor details.
@@prabhuthomas8770 well technically when you think about it it is a fact. I think a better way of saying it is by saying, it is a fact that there’s no such thing as the first two Homo sapiens that were created by God
@@loganredding1621 Are you kidding by adding "that were created by God" or are you serious? I agree with this if what is being suggested is that there is no such thing as the first two Homo sapiens that resemble us entirely today.
Subboor is the very definition of a Sophist. Dancing around words and definitions completely disregarding the scientific method. Meanwhile he believes Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged Horse and that humans are made of clay.
Theories explain facts , the theories may be modified the facts the theories try to explain remain facts. The reason that certain groups of religious people can not accept evolution...is for religious reasons, not scientific reasons.
But do we know the facts? If we know them then we wouldnt call them theories anymore. You know what you did there its called circlar reasoning i think. theories explain facts and facts cant change but theories do but what theories explain are facts?
Bgyvcc Ggn Keep thinking 👍 The word theory is used differently in science, than if you or I were to use it , A scientific theory is not just some idea a scientist has, A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. Here are a few more theories Biology: cell theory, theory of evolution (modern evolutionary synthesis), germ theory, particulate inheritance theory, dual inheritance theory Chemistry: collision theory, kinetic theory of gases, Lewis theory, molecular theory, molecular orbital theory, transition state theory, valence bond theory Physics: atomic theory, Big Bang theory, Dynamo theory, perturbation theory, theory of relativity (successor to classical mechanics), quantum field theory Plate tectonics
@@mickqQ so if i refuse the Big Bang "THEORY" im still a religious fanatic? Is this theory still explainging a fact? Your telling me that you have "evidence" that the Big Bang actualy happened, except deduction?!
Jon Nav Yes, the CMB It’s a fact the universe is expanding, not only is it expanding, the expansion is accelerating. The Big Bang theory explains the observations. It’s the best possible explanation from the evidence at hand. What you or I believe is, is irrelevant to what is. You can accept or reject any scientific theory you like. Out of interest is there any other theories you reject Gravitational theory Germ theory Theory of tectonic plates Nuclear theory Cell theory Collision theory Molecular theory Information theory Oxygen theory of combustion Special relatively / general relativity The theory of heliocentric solar system Theory of matter and energy Atomic theory Your in the unfortunate position where the religion you happed to be convinced is true, also has a history of rejecting aspects of reality that conflict with their religious book .
@@mickqQ i rejected isacs theory of gravity when people were fanatical about it, i used to look for other theories of gravity then i came across ainstain's... So in conclusion, you fanaticaly call religious people delusional while so stubornly insisting that you know something that we dont, while at the same time your explenation changes from time to time but your ridicule never stops. I got nothink more to say to you.
Ok, so facts aren't certain....sounds kind of like a theory then? We can say the Earth revolves around the Sun as an observable phenomena. We can't observe the first living organism 3.5 billion years ago. Big difference.
alex ojideagu 🤣🤣 are you that ignorant 😭 so you’re are telling me that everything all forms of life...bacteria, rocks, plants, fish, birds, and humans share a common ancestor? This is a proven fact? 🤯 since when ?? 😒What is your definition of fact, son?
were you even watching the debate? how an earth did you come up with such a silly and obviously false conclusion? did subboor ever outright deny the theory of evolution? watch the video again and i suggest this time paying attention
@@harun3811 It is simple all his objections can be said to almost any theory in science Let's take big bang for example 1 we only witnessed 0.00..% of living being ( we only witnessed 0.00..% of galaxies redshift) 2 there is disagreement among scientists although they are a minority ( guess what the same thing can be said to the big bang theory (inflation, big crunsh and so on)) 3 the majority of scientists don't fellow the original Darwin theory ( the majority of scientists don't fellowthe original big bang theory I mean even its name has changed to lambda CDM model) Now you have to admit that you either have a bias against ToE or as Fodor wanted to say that you will have to sub to scientific anti-realism.
@@anflas7200 you're an absolute fool, he's making a case for instrumentalism as a valid way to interpret scientific data, and from your spelling I can see how much of the debate you've actually absorbed. he's simply asserting that darwinism (natural selection), as with any other scientific theory that attempts to explain the mechanism of a certain event can be disproved or adjusted in such a way that is no longer recognisable due to the problem of induction, underdetermination and other philosophical factors. suboor frequently mentions this and his stance is not outright rejection of all scientific theories, but rather a more nuanced take that you've obviously failed to grasp. the debate isnt as intense, its more focused on things like semantics and definitions, both the interlockers have far more to agree with than disagree.
@@harun3811 First of all thanks for your kind words. But my objection stands if you only bring these problems to a debate about a specific theory then all I have to point out is those same problems affect other theories that my opponent believes like quantum or big bang or even heliocentric theories since he mentioned that earth going around the sun as a FACT So you have 2 choices 1 accept evolution 2 doubt all other theories equally (and that what fodor point out before the open discussion)
@@anflas7200 The problem is that Subboor, being a total imbecile, believes that heliocentrism is a "direct observation". This is why he had this entire debate without realising his inconsistency. He literally believes heliocentrism is not science, but rather an observation.
Darwinian evolution is just as factual as the limitless genders people identify as these days. Btw I identify as the halal kangaroo referenced in the vid.
Ahh a decent debate without going 2 war. Very good. 1 thing tho he sais scientific facts change over time, like newton vs Einstein. Religion has done the same Christianity and islam r less than 2000 years old b4 that there was greek religion etc and our current religions borrow from old religious beliefs. If thier is a Greater power than ourselves maybe its reasons for and how creation happened is far beyond our compression, maybe at least just stick 2 the basics treat eachother regardless of what we believe with respect help eachother when we can etc.
Not true Islam has been there from the first day that Adam was created, Christianity and Judaism are not religions these are human made religions as Muslims we consider all prophets are Muslims and that's why as Muslims say that the prophet Muhammad peace be with him is the last prophet which means all prophets who came before him were preaching the same message which is submission to the will of the almighty.
That's because you atheists have got religion all wrong. And it seems like you never want to understand it. Forst off stop calling it religion as if all the religions are the same because they are not.
And he didn't even talk about the beginning of life from random chemical events, he can't. Because that's impossible. And when forming life is impossible through random chemical processes, the main assumtption of Darwinian Evolution which is Universal Common Ancestry, gets broken into miniature pieces.
Abiogenesis (life from non-living materials) has nothing to do with evolution. It's true that evolution requires life to exist in order to work but it doesn't require that life to have come via abiogenesis. Regarding abiogenesis, is it really that absurd? Unless life has always existed it means that life from non-living materials is a logical necessity. There was once a time when no life existed on the planet, the only matter was non-living.
@@chimpanzeethat3802 You misunderstood my point . It falls under faith to believe that first life came from chemical processes that too random. That's a faith needed more than believing in magic.
I wouldn't exactly call it faith. It's certainly not magic. Anything that happens in the natural world cannot be magic by definition. Magic falls under the umbrella of the supernatural. There is a fair amount of evidence for abiogenesis but not enough for it to become a scientific theory. Abiogenesis is still just a hypothesis at the moment, it hasn't been elevated from a hypothesis to a theory yet because it hasn't been effectively demonstrated yet. Evolution on the other hand, including universal common descent, is a demonstrable fact backed by a huge amount of evidence. Don't make the mistake of thinking that evolution can't be proved until abiogenesis is proven. They're two completely different fields of science, neither is predicated or dependant on the other.
@@chimpanzeethat3802 "Evolution on the other hand is a demonstrable fact". This is just not true and even you acknowledge that. Had there been a *demonstration* as to how Species evolved from one to another, there was no need for debates. And certainly for Universal Common Ancestry, you gotta first prove Abiogenesis is true. If it remains as an assumption, which it is, the whole Evolutionary scheme remains hollow. Most of the evolutionary Biologists acknowledge this problem and ignore it via saying "Science will one day do it". And it is not a fact. I agree that it is a valid theory but that doesn't necessarily negate that it is true. It can be called a fact in the sense that it's factual accuracy is nowhere near to the factual accuracy of a mathematical truth. So in that case, Evolution (widely presented and preached one) can't be a fact due to the very limitations of science. Further evidences can lead us to the problem of induction or the problem of underdetermination of theory by evidence. And as Suboor said it is based on PAD- Probabilistic Framework, core assumptions and dispute at an academic level. Aforementioned 3 things can't allow a theory to be a fact, which is a fact. Now I do believe in evolution in the sense that change occurs but to discuss it as a theoretical construct, there's a lot to talk about. Furthermore, our ability to reason, objective morality, inner subjective experience, shame and desire to discover can't be explained through a naturalistic process. Not because we have lack of scientific knowledge about those but because they are truly a problem and mainly refer to the immaterial aspects. There are myriad of assumptions from Universal Common Ancestry to Homology and objections from a genetic level to an immaterial output. Therefore, it is not a fact.
Pay close attention. Exactly what evolution IS, it is exactly what is observed. It can be summarily defined as descent with inherent genetic modification but, as it is correctly defined in science, evolution is the change of allele frequency in populations over generations. That's exactly what evolution IS: "the change of allele frequency in populations over generations". We observe the change of allele frequency in populations over generations (evolution), and we observe speciation (macroevolution). Ergo, both microevolution and macroevolution are directly observed in real life. Dozens of new species have evolved in our own lifetimes, both in the laboratory and in nature. The evidence is contained within the 30,000 plus scientific papers on the subject that include hundreds of examples of observed microevolution, dozens of examples of observed macroevolution, and thousands of different evolution experiments. You can find all of these 30,000 plus scientific papers at either Google Scholar or PubMed, the two websites where all the published scientific literature can be found catalogued online in its entirety. Your ignorance of the subject does not change it from being a demonstrable fact of population genetics.
Amazing and very friendly debate ما شاء الله James ended up agreeing with approx 90% of Subboor’s narrative.
@Patje yo patje, i thought suboor was a liar ? why u watching a debate of a liar for 2 hours long ? btw u werent the guy who promised to go in speaker corner and destroy suboor ? i dont remember who it was...
@@ocerco93 who is @potje here ?
@@AtheismLeadsToIrrationality moat probably someone who ran away with their tail between their legs
Walter De wit
Did u watch 2 hours?
@@curiosone8843 clearly he never watched it otherwise he wouldn't be making these statements from his fairytale fantasies within his own mind. Any neutral can see what happened. Only people who like to lie to themselves can conclude differently.
James seems like a really genuine guy, may Allah guide him.
And may reason and logic guide you and other Muslims:
@@tonyronta are you pissed of?😂😂
@@tonyronta why do you use reason and logic ?? what kind atheist are you :V
O Modesta Unico
Not pissed off, just a bit concerned.
Isbie Iskandar
An atheist?!?
I love every time subboor bhai speaks, but sometimes i miss that smile on his face though 😊
May Allah Grant i era people neighbourhood of the prophet Mohammed (sa)..
Ever time he speaks it's lies
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 506:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
That during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relation with them without impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interrupt us. The Prophet said, "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection." Qaza'a said, "I heard Abu Sa'id saying that the Prophet said, 'No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it."
He is so dishonest... Honestly if this man is a 'good Muslim' I am glad most other Muslims are not as good as him... As these lesser great defenders of Islam won't use strawmans, argument from ignorance and more fallicies.
Ameen and for us
آمين يا رب العالمين
@@walterroberts9431 wdym?
Great debate. It was at times hard to listen to, but fortunately I had the time today. Brother Subboor is an impeccable debater. May Allah grant him more knowledge to spread the message of Islam. Ameen.
brother subhoor is totally dishonest, misquoting dawkins in the first five minutes. all he wants is to win arguments, he seems to have zero interest in honesty or his religion, remind me what is religion about? it's not about winning arguments.
@@HarryNicNicholas dishonest? What dishonest? You clearly don't have any idea of what you're talking about. "All he wants is to win argument" isn't that what you too will be doing? Winning argument. Stop being dishonesty with yourself and please stop that public shaming. Either you shut up and learn or just continue to be ignorant. I believe you don't learn anything from this debate. Truth hurts perhaps?
That guy, Subboor is the greatest scientific nitwit ever.
@@dreadinside654 are you still ignorant of evolution, now a year later?
he has never won a debate, how is this impeccable?
James was a seeker of the truth i would suggest. May Allah guide him
yes i agree, i fond of people who are atheists which are actually a people of knowledge, because they are tend to be a seeker of truth, most of the atheists today are sheeps who follow Richard Dawkins and Aron Ra blindly, which themselves are dishonest in most of their argument
@@Flaw93 prove Aron Ra, or Dawkins are dishonest (you mentioned them specifically which is why I did)
Actually Aron Ra runs circles around an idiot like saboor, because Islam is rooted in myths that never happened and Aron Ra only deals with facts
Keith Ziegler watch Saboor's debate with Aron Ra and see how he absolutely schools him and Dawkins I mean are you really that blind? The dude lies almost daily trying to link science and atheism together, the dude has the audacity to speak on Islam even though he knows absolutely nothing about it, Islam is rooted in fact and truth my friend it's not the religions fault your ignorant and biased
@@Flaw93 at least I can verify these guys on what they are teaching instead of following blindly a book that doesn't have any proof to back it up
@@Saber23 "Islam is rooted in fact and truth" islam is rooted in the wors of A man.
Both speakers excellent. As a Muslim, I found James' presentation was graciously done, and although I'm not convinced, James came across well.
I think as humans we should at least just stick 2 the basics like treating eachother regardless of what religious beliefs one holds with respect, help eachother when we can etc at the end of the day we all inhabit this tiny planet.
@John Matrix Did you even watch the video?
@John Matrix There's no hope then.
@John Matrix did you just said fact ?
omg 😂😂😂
Evolution IS a demonstrable fact. It's directly observed in real life, new species have evolved in your own lifetime.
Exactly what evolution is, it is directly observed. We observe the change of allele frequency in populations over generations (evolution), and we observe speciation (macroevolution).
Showing that any two species are related by evolution is a simple matter of testing the nuclear DNA of the nucleus for paternity and the mitochondria in cells for maternity then looking for markers on the genomes in a codon for codon comparison.
We want to see more James debates with Suboor. Both are very good.
James is such a respectful guy , this was such a calm and respectful debate . May Allah guide him towards the real truth . Ameen.
I love stawberry cakes.
@@Real_Gigachaddi k
Guide him to where ? Suicide bombing ?
@@Кенжетайұлы Suicide is haram/ prohibited . Let alone bombing other innocent humans. Peace !
@@user-bi8uh5fq3q True
It's always a pleasure to see subboor doing his best. Mashallah
6:52 again, completely pointless analogy here, saying that we're basing the theory of evolution of a insufficient sized data set because we don't have evidence for the majority of species that existed is an irrelevant point to make. Because the theory of evolution is not predicated on "the number of species" we can compare etc. We have an understanding of DNA, of environmental pressure, of heritable traits, we have qualitatively strong evidence, and that's what's needed, not quantitatively strong evidence. Again, we have never seen how gravity works on 99.99999999% of the planets directly, but we have one really fucking good example, the earth - and that's enough for us to assume that mass creates gravity everywhere.
example is so wrong
Theory of gravity Einstein or newton doesn't work in quantum physics
There's something working about it
Event for beginning of universe
I think its telling that Subboor basically said that no evidence would make him change his mind in this debate
@Checks Cleared but Subhoor claiming that he has the objective truth isn't backed by anything. Evidence should adjust people's understanding on any topic. Saying that no evidence would adjust his understanding just means that he thinks he knows the answer regardless of evidence and that is silly arrogance
@Checks Cleared you mean you claim that Allah has revealed the objective truth....
But we can't really verify whether that is true
@@MrPakiman111 The Quran makes a claim of itself that it is from God, there are multiple 'litmus tests' if you will within the Quran which prove it's claim to be true. The most obvious is its linguistic excellence, consistency, affirmation of the torah and gospel while they were not available to the Prophet SAW who himself was illiterate.
@@alisaood9445 I would love to hear these litmus tests that the Qur'an sets itself and passes...
Also linguistic excellence is subject and has been replicated numerous times at this point. I have heard Hamza Tzortsis claim the linguistic miracle of the Qur'an but would love an actual coherent explanation which does not rely on subjectivity. Affirmation and semi consistency with other religious texts doesn't affirm the divinity of the Qur'an in any way. Even if the prophet couldn't read, he was still in a society containing Jews and Christians and could easily know about their religion through contact
@@MrPakiman111 What about the scientific verses and preservation of the text?
Why I haven’t seen this video before 🥴 Alhamdulilah I’m so glad that I’m at least listening now 💪🏾
dissentfromdarwinDOTorg
Is it possible to have access to the presentations of the lecturers and the list of references they used for their arguments?
thank you
I can give you some of them, they are not in order right now. But I have collected most of the references mentioned. Maybe you can send me your email if you comfortable with that.
@@leonardodavinci7983 hey could I sent u my email I'd like to look at it
@@Hello-ri9dd of course, leave your email akhi
Would really appreciate if you could share the references with me too bro
Subbour did not tackle one point from james' arguments. James provided genetic and fossil evidence in his first presentation. Subbour only spoke on what he knows about, philosophy of science, not science. He really should step aside from what he is ignorant about. He never talks about common descent. Talk about common descent man!!! All he says is it is an assumption. It is not, it is deduced from the overwhelming evidence
TBH, I think Subboor is very well versed on the topic but looks at it through the prism of life long indoctrination and investment into the truth of Islam.
@@divinity176 he looks at it like this: if Islam has a lot of evidence and if it's right I'll go to heaven, but evolution has a lot of evidence but if it's right it wouldn't matter, so he'll just prefer Islam over evolution 🤷♂️
@@mohammadnawar4193 my biology teacher who is an atheis says that Darwinism is a paganism and darwin was a pagan.but i don't know what type of evolution he believes
@@zhasan6561 First off let me tell you something, you dont have to be an atheist to accept evolution, you just need to be educated on science. I believe in God and I know evolution is a fact, simple. Second of all, pagan means polytheist, and charles darwin was a former christian who became agnostic at the end of his life so your "atheist" teacher is mistaken
@@mohammadnawar4193 my teacher has 3-4 degree in biologe what u have??and pagan means not only polytheists but also idolatries.nature worshipers...
Subboor agreed with James' point that a scientific antirealist has to be consistent. You can't cherry pick the theories you don't like to be antirealist about. Subboor would for example also have to be antirealist about heliocentrism.
Subboor agreed with this point, and yet his actual position is that heliocentrism is an eternal truth. So he is not only inconsistent, but he is an extreme and naive realist when it comes to certain scientific theories.
He doesn't actually understand what he is talking about. He simply knows a few technical terms, and can name drop a few people. Scratch the surface, and he is legitimately a total ignoramus.
The entire debate summary :
Ahmed wanted to say that saying a science based on observation a fact has been going for a long time, and we been collecting evidence on each one and each one has god evidence based on the current time understanding
However, with time they learned that some of it was not true
Therefore we shouldn't worship science but worship god, and use science as a valid model to help the world regardless if it goes with or against religion, because human knowledge is limited by default and we can't fully understand everything or makes sure of anything, and every evidence we have on evolution has got answers to it from the other side and it is a debate on academic level so you shouldn't say it is a fact, rather a theory that has science evidence with it and against it and it shouldn't be worshipped
And James Fodor introduced some Evolution evidence and Ahmed didn't go into them because it was not what was the debate about, it was about the word fact and should we worship science or not, so they don't get into a debate on the evidence but focus on the big picture
Ahmed says Muslims across history had science going with and against them, we should use science and not worship science and see it as a valid model
And James agrees on that to a degree
My comment :
I wish Ahmed did provide evidence on Islam because we got a lot of those so he says what Islam is based on and why Science is not the main factor there, historical evidence and Quranic Evidence and Scientific evidence "only the proven ones that Prophet Mohammed didn't know about" aka atmosphere, cloud mass, importance of mountains and all that stuff to show how Islam is not like the other religions that don't have evidence and just wants to fight science
So that James would've seen this interesting instead of thinking it is just a philosophical debate like those atheists in the comments, and show how important it is to be a Muslim and to not take any science as a fact but a working model that can change over time which is true, Darwinian evolution is not the same as it was since Darwin at all, we got more evidence and less evidence and evidence fight evidence
We don't do as other religions that we fight science, but we don't do like atheists do and worship it and take it for granted, we got evidence of our religion that cannot change over time since 1400 years in different topics, we use science to help the world, while also getting closer to god which is why we are here.
Beautiful debate non the less
Looks like James Fodor handily won this debate.
incredible - you got something right!
@@bengreen171 Yep, that usually happens as when I spanked you in debate. But it seems like IP got it right: you really do go around trolling. ROFL.
@@everyzan-m2q
because i left a comment on a video? wow. Does that mean you're trolling here now? You have a very weird sense of things.
@@bengreen171 Mans literally stalking my comment on other videos ROFL
@@everyzan-m2q
you think I'm hunting you down, watching your every move? Don't flatter yourself. Considering i left a comment on this video a year ago, I think it's you who followed me here.
Why is it that Subboor and other Muslims always try to debate evolution by referring to what one scientist's (Dawkins) worldview? Worldviews have nothing to do with the legitimacy of any scientific theory. Unfortunately, James got sucked into debating these unnecessary points.
Thank you for your efforts, I am following you and happy with your activities and your invitation to Islam, and I pray to you, I have a simple suggestion that you publish stories to your new Muslims in brief .. I pray you success
Am agnostic I just finished reading the Qur'an Today ☺️
So this my opinion: I found the recitation so beautiful , too repetitive , boring, unorganized, basically god god saying I'm great and praising him self in every page in the Qur'an , old testament vibe genocidal, too much talking about hell with sadistic words ,if you believe me you will go to jannah if not you will Go to jahanam.god being too angry ,and diss abo lahab ,some ayas about women shooked me ( in a bad way). I found that it has alot of good things in my opinion how much forgives every sin literally (except shirk) and how he love Muslims so much and that he says give charity, don't lie, don't steal,be kind , don't cut ties with your family and more also later Sura we so much better and nicer the maki once in general .
10% good principles to live by.
90% fear mongering, religious supremacy, hate.
I would probably stopped reading it in the first few chapters if I read it in english. I read it in Arabic And it is so much better , also the Qur'an is not that easy for us Arabs so I used tafseer(additional sources for explaination) to help with some ayas.
I didn't have negative opinions about Islam now I surely have.
I wasn't interested in reading about religions but my friend told me to read it and give chance and try it and I will find scientific miracle , best literature in the word no mistake amazing master piece , I found non of that then I read a fairy tale where god is the villain
in Quran Allah almighty has said every time that he is the most merciful and most gracious that's why according to islam if a person ask for forgiveness from Allah almighty from his true only one time he will be forgiven by Allah almighty and all his sin will be forgiven
Cool! I tried reading the English version, and you're right, it's despicable. I couldn't read more than a few pages. Allah punishes atheists for not believing, after he forces them not to believe. I've been told by Muslims that all the hate directed to 'non-believers' in there is a mistranslation, and really it means to be talking about people who oppress Islam.
@@aishaaisha6626 hahaha oh my :D
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke you definetely have no idea what you are talking about. We as Muslims are fearful of hell and that should make us be better muslims. And “non believers go to hell” you are again wrong it depends if the person wasn’t properly introduced to Islam with it’s evidence and wasn’t convinced of it they WIL NOT go to hell. Only when they know the truth and their desires get in the way then it becomes the problem. If you seriously read the Quran and came to such conclusions I reccomend you to read it with a Tasfir (explanation of the verses) with it
Great discussion! However, where was the real disagreement in the debate.
@@JEA- evolution against religion as allah created adam directly in heaven which is a dumb story for kids
@@evillogic7724 My condolences to your parents for having given birth to someone as ignorant as you.
The disagreement lies in the definition of "fact".
Subhoor takes fact to mean it s 100% true, no discussion about it.
James takes fact to mean it s not 100% true but there are a lot of things that can substantiate it.
Then Subhoor challenged the data presented by James.
@@evillogic7724 gz you came to a debate and left dumber than you entered.
Sometimes, a good discussion is better than argumentative debate.
James was too polite to pick up on the point that all of what subboor was say was all very interesting and philosophical, but he failed to actually challenge any of evidence that James bought to the table.
This is Subboor's tactic. He quotes other people, rambles incoherently then says "you can't do that". He never presents actual scientific evidence.
@@aangellotti508 Subboor destroyed him handedly
@@aangellotti508Because their argument isn't based on science but faith. If, say tomorrow, evolution was proved beyond doubt, which is a practical impossibility, Muslims wouldn't stop believing in God, they'll just claim that evolution was already in the Qur'an by twisting a few words here and there.
The argument isn't based on science.
@@only_fair23That’s what scientifically literate christians do. It’s harder for Muslims because their holy book was preemptively insulated against reason by claiming to be the literal and inerrant word of god.
I think the whole debate was more about philosophy of science than the evolution per se.
Subboor point has taken inspiration in Kunh's theory of scientific revolutions, and about the problem of induction and the need to always see scientific theories as something that may not ever reach the "truth", as new evidences are always being discovered and putting the theory to test.
Therefore is the need to distinguish science from a dogma, like in the case James ilustrates where we extrapolate the limits of Darwin's theory to justify internal beliefs.
That's because Subboor know that he cannot deny the facts. His only aim is to undermine the entire field of philosophical thought, because that's the only way he can hope to assert that evolution hasn't been reliably proven.
What's the difference when you justify the theory as a fact because of much empirical evidence knowing there are limits?
That was the topic of Debate
@Astrophile2345 subboor Ahmed is not arguing against all of evolution. He questions the Darwin's version of it and still not all of it. And, yes, as you said it would be stupid for learnt Muslims to completely deny any adaptation or all aspects that come under the term "evolution".
This issue was settled a century and a half ago. Why are people still trying and failing to bring it down ?
Because it was not true and just a theory while now it is been educated as a fact. Opposing the creation of the world by God.
@@abyzayd2022It is being taught as a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of a natural phenomenon, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
Natural Selection meets this criteria, just like Atomic Theory, General relativity, Cell theory etc.
@@LiamJCash But Darwinian evolution has never been repeatedly proven. It says a million years ago an ape changed into a human. It is a theory and not observed, and cannot be repeatedly confirmed.
Change of kind has never been proven.
Remember that "change of kind" is totally different than "adaptation" of certain species to some environment.
One cannot say because a bird's beak was larger in Australia than in Europe, thus it proves that all species change; meaning change of kind, thus an ape became a human being.
No my friend, it was just adaptation and not change of kind.
They even never proved that a bird was becoming another kind of bird, let alone another animal.
Think about it unbiased.
@@abyzayd2022 Judging by your response you either have no knowledge of evolutionary theory, or your knowledge is founded on gross misconceptions. I suggest you read up on natural selection, genetics, and cladistics.
Molecular biology alone proves evolution and common ancestry between humans and the other great apes. I recommend you start there.
@@LiamJCash ok mr. Smart. Please explain and tell me what I dont know. Why cant you explain it here briefly?
I have to read a book to understand you? Haha.
Mr. Foder stated that marsupials are only found in South America and Australia but in fact they are very common in North America as well. The Opossum is one of the most common forms of wildlife across the USA.
That's because the ancestors of Opssums crossed over continent and only them. Like how Native Americans were the first modern humans to crossover to the Americas from Asia 20,000 years ago. And I don't remember how Opossums crossed over. I'm gonna look it up
I cannot believe this debate is still going on. It doesn't matter what you call it; 'fact', 'theory', 'not with absolute certainty'.. these are all just words and language we use to manifest our thoughts into sounds. Truth is not who sounds more convincing, but the evidence that supports it. The evidence that all life shares common ancestors is overwhelming, the evidence that we are on the same family tree with all other life on this planet is overwhelming, and no matter how many times you have this debate it doesn't change that evidence. To ignore it is to put your head in the sand when truth is staring you in the face.
Skepticism means - Questioning the ideas which are commonly accepted as a fact.
I think - The purpose of this debate was to clear that no matter how many people have started to accept darwinism as a fact but its never a certain to be called as ultimate truth.
No matter how much overwhelmed you are with scientific findings (i.e data) to conclude darwinism as true, but you must know that you are ignoring that the same set of data can produce multiple outcome, and can even produce completely different outcome when we know that 99.99% of species are not been observed at all.
Darwinism is just an idea that fits atheists world view, that's why it makes sense to them, while it can never make sense (completely) to those who believe in God and can provide logical evidences.
This debate is again for those who challenges religious perspective of (beginning of Humanity) by using darwinism while undermining their own uncertainty.
And thus darwinism can never be used as a tool to challenge religion (Especially Islam)
By "evidence" you mean the similarities between different organisms. But i think you forget the fact that we all live on the same planet thus similarities are going to exist life will be lifeless without similarities. Anything that is not similar to a living organism is not life. But to use this to say that all living things have a common ancestor Naoudhubillah is stupid. Only those who want to believe that the mechanism just exists or work "automatically" will believe this. I.e you are using your current information to support a narrative that you have created yourself. I.e Naoudhubillah you are using current information to support a narrative that is impossible. Allah is ONE and you can see Allah by looking at the universe.
@@moosaali9371
Can you tell us approximately when Allah instantly created the first humans?.
Many thanks
Islamic scholars are generally shy to give even a rough date.
@Muksid Khan
Thankyou for your honest reply.
Best wishes.
@@iainrae6159 Similarities doesn't explain the origin of life. Evolution whether true or false doesn't contradict God existence. Remember I am talking about Evolution not Darwinian Evolution
I honestly liked both of them. Fortunately both of their speeches are not following Dawkinian Method.
You are on twitter?
@@justabeardedguythatisahero9848
yep
How do you understand evolution and what is your take on Islam and Evolution? If you don't mind me asking!
Great conversation! Though his name is "FodOr" not "FodEr" :D
Subboor's opening seemed to define 'fact' as an analytic truth, something that doesn't involve induction and cannot possibly be wrong. Yet his example was the shape of the Earth! He should have given an example like bachelors are unmarried or 1+1=2, because the shape of the Earth is supported in the same way as evolution.
@Abbas Abdullah Thanks for the response Abbas :)
On that point, I disagree and think there's similarly lots of strong empirical evidence for evolution. Like we have images and videos from NASA, for evolution we have things like transitional fossils. BUT! I don't think that's important for the point I was making, I don't think we need to go there (although we can if you want). I can assume for the sake of argument that there's no empirical evidence supporting evolution.
The point I was making is that Subboor's way of defining a fact means the empirical evidence of science _never_ produces facts. The shape of the Earth doesn't meet his criteria for a fact. Even though it's supported by images and videos, that doesn't make it an absolute logical certainty, in the sense that it cannot _possibly_ be wrong. For that, he should have chosen examples like 1+1=2, or that all bachelors are unmarried. Things that don't require our fallible empirical investigation, which can always possibly be wrong :)
@Abbas Abdullah Yes, that's it :) Subhoor's point applied to all of science. Science is too limited to prove anything absolutely, and doesn't ever give us 'facts' the way he is defining facts.
That's why the shape of the Earth was a bad example of a fact, because it's supported by science, so it's not a fact in the way he was defining fact.
It's not a big objection, it doesn't refute his argument or anything like that - I just think he picked an inappropriate example :)
@Abbas Abdullah Yes things can be very very powerfully supported by observations, beyond any reasonable doubt, and still not count as 'facts' in the absolute way that Subhoor is using the term.
He hasn't defined it as things supported beyond reasonable doubt, but as things that couldn't even possibly be wrong. Things so certain that we didn't have to rely on our senses to make observations at all.
Science doesn't _prove_ things in the technical and absolute sense, as you said. Any observational evidence can always be argued against as one day it might possibly be overturned.
Anything supported by observations, relying on the senses, doesn't qualify for a 'fact' as Subhoor uses the word. Not even the shape of the Earth, which we used fallible science to figure out. The very thing Subhoor is arguing isn't 100% reliable, and so anywhere it conflicts with the Quran it can be mistaken.
@Abbas Abdullah *"seen not simply observed"*
-- Seeing is a type of observation, I'm talking about seeing. It doesn't prove absolutely, it's still possible to be wrong after you see something (or, think you see something).
It seemed to all our senses that we sent astronauts to the Moon, but it _could_ have been a vast illusion. It's completely unrealistic, but it's logically possible. And that means it's not a 'fact' that we went to the Moon, as Subboor has defined 'fact'.
Given Subboor's really strict criteria for a fact, there would be no scientific facts about the world.
@Abbas Abdullah try going into any university and make that statement. They won't laugh at you in your face, but they will once you leave.
May I suggest that everyone actually reads Darwins book 'Origin of Species' and think for themselves, rather than been told 'this is what the public think ' by the speaker.
I suspect very few folks who believe in instant creation of humans by the supernatural, have bothered to read it or looked at the overwhelming evidence.
Pfft lol. My condolences that you actually believe that. Perhaps you have the guts to challenge him on that? Or are you comfortable behind a screen and armed with a keyboard?
@@MansMan42069 if you at least argued against her points i wouldnt mind you starting all of your sentences with pfft lol
Darwin is a liar (literally), there is a lot of gaps in his theory, instead i suggest you read the books that is against his theory to know how many gaps in it.
In school i was told by teachers as if this was facts
@@abbas4604 Yes, this is one of the important reasons why there's a lot of people who won't even suspect it, they deal with it as a fact.
Genius suboor..
There's no butler in the game of Cluedo. He's clueless on this point.
To her a guy who has said that "“the Quran is a source of knowledge that we know with absolute certainty is true” talk about what's should count as a fact, is a special kind of irony.
A theory in Science means it has gone through the rigours of the scientific method. Scientific method is hypothesis - experiment - observation - control - conclusion.. Darwin's Theory of evolution has withstood the Scientific method employed by Darwin, so far for more than a 100 years since it was first propounded by Darwin in 1895. Evolution is already a fact and is reinforced by Genetics, Anthropology, Cosmology, Carbon-dating, etc. Debate on this today is so silly.
You don't know much do you?
Did we species evolve from a common ancestor ? This is the question. Lets quote ATHEISTS scientists to refute the foundation of the "great" theory of evolution:
Evolutionists argue that some mutations are good and change the features for the better. The problem is, to really change a feature, you need more than one good mutation, which occur simultaneously.
Professor of biochemistry Michael Behe says about this:
“If more than one [mutation] is needed, the probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse.” [3]
Darwin realized (even without knowing about genetics) such a problem. In his book about evolution he dedicated a whole chapter to the problems of his theory. He says:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down“. [4]
In 2004, Behe and the physicist from the Pittsburg University David Snoke concluded in a study, *that more generations need to pass for useful mutations to occur than there are generations in the history of Earth itself* .[5]
Behe is a critic of Darwin, so predictably he provoked criticism.
In 2008 two biologists tried to conduct a similar study in order to refute Behe and Snoke, but they ended up confirming them . For two useful mutations simultaneously to occur it would take more than 100 million years. Since humans exist fro only 6 million years, this is highly problematic for evolutionists. [6]
Evolutionary biologist David S. Goodsell writes:
"Only a small fraction of the possible combinations of amino acids will fold spontaneously into a stable structure. If you make a protein with a random sequence of amino acids, chances are that it will only form a gooey tangle when placed in water“ [ 7]
Lynn Margulis was a atheist and evolutionary biologist and she admits: “ *new mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired* .” [8]
She further explained in a 2011 interview:
"Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change- led to new species. *I believed it until I looked for evidence* .“ [9]
The same problem comes with other species like whales, who evolutionsits believe to have evolved from land animals to todays whales in less than 10 million years,[10] which is too short for all the mutations and changes that needed to occur. The evolutionary biologist Richrard Sternberg summarizes it:
“Too many genetic re-wirings, too little time.“
There is another important aspect. Evolutionists believe that these mutations *happened randomly* and without any sense or purpose. For mutations to be deliberate and purposeful, you need intention and intelligence. You basically need a Creator, you need God.
HERE ARE THE REFERENCES TO THE STATEMENTS QUOTED ABOVE :
Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, Chapter 1 4 Charles Darwin, On the origin of species, London, 1859, p. 189 5 Michael Behe and David Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13: 2651-2664 (2004
[6]Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt, “Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution,” Genetics, 180:1501-1509 (2008).
[7] David S. Goodsell, The Machinery of Life, pp. 17, 19 (2nd ed., Springer, 2009)
[8] Lynn Margulis, quoted in Darry Madden, UMass Scientist to Lead Debate on Evolutionary Theory, Brattleboro (Vt.) Reformer (February 3, 2006).
[9] Lynn Margulis quoted in “Lynn Margulis: Q + A,” Discover Magazine, p. 68 (April, 2011).
[10] Alan Feduccia, “‘Big bang’ for tertiary birds?,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18: 172-176 (2003).
@@mohamudahmed6554 If you really want to dispute or dispel the evolution theory by Darwin, you should do the same or similar experiments he did and present a paper to disprove the theory.
Next you should also do Genetic studies of different species and give your conclusion that different species have MATERIALLY different genetic codes.
Until then, there is no scientific basis to dispel the evolution theory. Your narrow belief is called fundamentalist dogma.
@@henrylow2248 If you want to affirm and accept the theory of evolution, you should do the same or similar experiments he did and present a paper to affirm it.
Sounds absurd doesn't it? Also, you are educated on Darwins theory. It is gone though multiple change and Darwin himself knew the issues his theory had. Today Darwin himself would need to study the current theory from his original theory. You clearly didn't know any of this.
Lucky for me, i refer back to the scientists and quote their statements and these are the biggest isses with Darwinian Evolution.
Hence, it is a theory, not a convincing one and not only that, it is based on assumptions that are impossible as stated.
So do me a favour and stop talking about things you don't know.
@@mohamudahmed6554 You are simply unable to understand what is meant by the 'Scientific Method' even but instead base your childish understanding of evolution merely on ''quotes by Scientists". That makes you an uneducated ignoramus. Read first on what is Science and the Scientific Method, Mechanics of Evolution, Genetics, Anthropology, Cosmology etc before you talk. There are tons of reading material on this out there on this. Don't just limit yourself to one archaic book written 1,500 years ago.
@@mohamudahmed6554 ~340 scientific papers worth of evidence can be found in the references section of "evolution" on Wikipedia. That's not every scientific paper, it's just a handful of important ones. Handful being _340 scientific papers!_ So the legwork has already been done here: mountains of evidence have been collected, and they show evolution happens, and the evidence is _dramatically stronger_ than a handful of cherry-picked quotes (so it requires actual scientific papers to dispute, or requires that you somehow find fault in all of those 340 scientific papers)
James bringing the FIREEE
James, that was really well done. Comprehensive and you tidied up every confused counter brought forth. The consistent dragging of the debate into the mire of philosophy by Subboor is the most tired and common tactic of the religious apologist, and you handled it beautifully. Very well done.
Pfft lol
Gradualism is NOT a central assumption in evolution, evolution happens also in what is called "punctuated equilibrium". Also, what does it mean for natural selection to "work"? work for what? natural selection is a natural force it doesn't have an aim it happens regardless if you think it "works" or not.
When evolutionists face a challenge to their theory .. they give the challenge a "scientific" name and oops it becomes part of the theory
Very vague explanation.
@@ALMA3LOMATCHANNEL this is what Dr Eyad Qunaibi said.When science disprove their myth,they come with modification and giving new names 🤣🤣
@@muslimboyilyas775 school has failed you if you don't understand that evolution is true. You should ask for you money back.
@@ALMA3LOMATCHANNEL so, two years have gone by. Do you still not understand that evolution is true? Has your understanding improved in any way?
What I find really fascinating about Subboor Ahmed is, why does he not have the same doubt about science as about Islam and God . If science could be wrong or incomplete than so can his religion. But he never doubts his religion does he?
because we have a falsification test that you can't get a verse like Quran whatever you did.
you can search the people who tried and see it.
and there are programs that if someone died you allow it to read the messages and then the program talks like him, you can reprogram them and use a supercomputer and try to get something like it??
you can raise a fund to do this by the help of other people
@@gaber42424 I'm sorry but I really did not understand exactly how this falsification test works, can you maybe link the site or explain it better?
But if I understand your point correctly, your saying you can't make a book like Quaran and therefor it must be true and from a God.
If that is your point then it's a invalide point.
first of all you say you can't create a book like Quaran, my question is what is your criteria?
If you talk about beauty or structure of verses then first it's a subjective criteria because you defination of a impeccable structure maybe differ from person to person there are a lot of poets who wrote books who are a lot better than the Quaran in my subjective opinion like Edgar allan poe .
Second point even if you can't recreate something it does not mean necessarily that it came from a God.
There is a lot of things that people did in the past that we can't do today in the same exact way they did them but they are still people not Gods.
The rational and honest answer to the question is there a creator to this universe is we don't know that is if the universe was indeed created to begin with, and if we want to know we need a lot more information.
Read holy Quran find problems with it and ask Suboor .... Then only you can ask this question 😃
@@hakimo3417 nows thats what I say is an honest answer...I am amuslim and I would like to invite you to read quran
Especially since there's so much BS in the quran.
What a gem suboor is, he said said after after completing his speech at 20:05 every thing I said good in this presentation is from God and every mistake is of my own. Allah hu akbar
He is doing this to cover his back.
@@an9l1c1sm6this is a common saying according to Quran and Hadith bro lol he didn’t come up with it and it is said even if someone is 100% sure he is right
@@MR.33133 Same thing.
Since you are so knowledgeable about hadiths, where does the sun go at night?
@@an9l1c1sm6
The Quran is speaking about the sunset lol I knew you would bring up this stupidity
The verse is talking about a king called “Thu AlQarnayn” and it is describing his point of view of the sunset. Just like when someone sees the sun sets into the sea, mountains, fields, etc
@@MR.33133 No, I'm talking about a hadith:
Sahih al-Bukhari 3199
44:23 - 44:38
Subboor's stupidity is beyond help.
There's nothing circular here. Homology is evidence that supports common ancestry.
I give Subboor credit. No matter how many times he is publicly disproven and embarrassed, he keeps picking himself off the ground and trying to do better. I think if he started with being honest that would be a great first step in improving his debates. I understand his motivation but he should not lie about such easily discoverable things. I do not think his audience is as lazy as he suspects & that they can and will check his words and discover his deception. Thank you and keep improving Subboor! 🙏.
Biological Evolution is a FACT and the Theory of Evolution is our explanation of that FACT.
I am pretty surprised as to how many atheists misunderstand the argument. Most of them do.
Thought the same thing... Subboor is not saying the theory of evolution is bs or something like that, he is simply saying that its a theory, strong theory with a lot of research behind it, but a theory nonetheless, therefore it must remain debatable, not dogmatic.
@@brunochaves3887 Absolutely.
@@brunochaves3887 Theory of Evolution is a "Scientific theory" not just regular "theory". Scientific theories are based on facts and evidences, they are not guess works! Evolution is a fact also, there is no denial in that because it's the fundamental backbone of Biology and modern day medicine!
@@AdvaiticOneness1 i did not say it was guesswork, i'm well aware that Theory of evolution is well accepted, but take in perspective the theory of relativity for example, it has overthrown our knowledge that was a fact back then.
The whole point is that science cannot be about "facts" but about what we know until now.
Unless there is a point where we can say that we know about everything in the universe science will always be about the most accepted.
@@brunochaves3887 You put "facts" in quote marks, because Subboor had to redefine the word to make his point, as something logically necessary, something we couldn't possibly be mistaken about. Science IS about facts, Subboor just doesn't know what a fact is.
Or, he intentionally redefined the word, so that he could say evolution isn't a fact. That's just a scam, pandering to the creationists in his audience. Beefing up the people who really want to deny evolution.
If you find that bacteria, viruses, fungi, plants, animals (including humans) have the same genetic code, the same mechanism por making proteins, the same basic metabolic pathways, don’t you think that they share common ancestor, as evolution indicates?
If your listened to what subhoor said you would see that what you are saying is circular reasoning based upon assumption of Naturalistic Causes.
Let's make it easy. If you decided to make a Creature to walk on this Earth, how would you do it?
It needs to breath oxygen so it needs lungs, a heart to pump blood. It needs to eat so it needs a mouth, tongue stomach, intestines etc etc.
It needs to see and smell.
You would not expect them NOT to have any of these things. These things are vital to most creatures.
If we were to state a designer made the Earth and its creatures, you would expect this. You would be crazy not to expect this.
You assume common traits equals common decent, because you believe there is no designer and all animals commonly descend. That's what he means by circular reasoning.
If someone 20,000 years ago in ancient egypt opened a dog, and they found a heart and lungs, they did not say common decent, they said, that's what we expect to find for a creature of the Earth.
@@redx11x there was no need for lungs because there was no oxygen in the atmosphere, just hydrogen and helium, later when the composition of the atmosphere changed lungs evolved from air sacs in fish, to breath oxygen, you need some science education
@@salvadoralvarado8685 🤦
@@salvadoralvarado8685 Did you not even read my message and understand my point.
@@redx11x i would create subatomic particles to form atoms that by themselves can form molecules then biomolecules, once you have biomolecules like dna, rna, proteins you would eventually have elephants, you cannot start with something so complex as a human being, the process of organization of matter goes from the very simple to the more complex,
again get some sci info
everyone here should enter this question in there computer: What is the hottest the earth has been? you will see a nice chart starting from when the earth was first formed until now. That will take care of people guessing what took place
Evolution is fact. Theory of evolution is the explanation of that fact.
I think adaptation is a fact because thats what we can view within our recorded history..beyond that its still a theory. The scientific evidence strongly suggests its a fact.
@Sharif Masum.
The scientific fact about evolution is that it isn't an entity. The scientific fact is that only entities have ability to do something. Therefor evolution can't do anything.
The scientific attributes of evolution are:
Isn't an entity.
Neither is a living or not living thing.
Has no any ability.
Has no any knowledge.
Has no any power.
In order for evolution to be even possible, it must have an entity working behind it.
What is the entity???
@@zaggaona
The scientific evidence strongly suggest that evolution is just a false guess [ a wrong idea, a wishful thinking of non believers ] and that; it is impossible to happen..
@@safetsalihovic8775 There is no such thing 'scentific fact' just like there is no such thing 'Darwinian evolution'. Its is just fact, and just evolution. Fact is something can be proven true. Change of season is a fact which can be proven true, and it has no entity.
@@safetsalihovic8775 science is not at all "wishful", its about looking at evidence and coming up with the most logical theory as to why. And true, science and the majority of its theories are just that, theories, but what they do is confirm a lot of wrong answers and wrong questions. Religion has no evidence to ANYTHING. Its ALL stories written by people. And its hard facts according to followers. And islam, and christianity, are heavily reliant on Judaism and their "stories" which they took a lot from Egyptian theism. WHEN, .. people, today in age, say they speak to god, or have visions of god and what they are instructed to do WE, as modern, reasonable people, look at the evidence from our society and come up with a reasonable and most logical conclusion.
such debates could be rendered unnecessary if creationists could provide EVIDENCE of 1, just 1, creature springing forth from the dust fully formed
Our instinct to want to help people actually corresponds perfectly with darwinian evolution. For humans and our previous ancestors to ensure their survival they would have to work together in tight nit communities. This would require the individuals having to help and share with others in order to be accepted and to be helped when needed. For example if someone hunts a large deer they would split the meat the light the community so that when the day comes when you haven’t had any successful hunts and you need to eat someone has your back.
You would argue the same for lion prides and Orca pods ,
If these traits are so successful why are they rare ?
Or would you say because of their success they are thus rare
@@garsayfsomali it’s rare because most animals are not social. Within social animals it’s actually very common to hunt together, eat together and sleep together in order to ensure survival
@MatalixTheREAL historically giving to those less fortunate than yourself would propagate the survival of the tribe as a whole and therefore would benefit you by having an extra pair of hands when going hunting
Explain why some chemicals in a water randomly formed a perfect chain of dna to cause the first prokaryotic bacteria u can't because its not possible
Also how about killing of elder and disabled people they would be dead weight for the tribe it would be better if they were non-existent cuz as 'animals' we see lesser creatures like cows or sheep as somtjing we have the authority to kill why not the same for disabled and elderly people according to you theory.
If a cell that had just died a moment before, and we asked top origin-of-life researchers to engineer it back to life, they couldn’t do it. They’re not even close to being able to do it. And yet all the ingredients, all the building blocks of life are right there, all in one place, in the right proportions. And not only can scientists not engineer those ingredients back to life, they still can’t synthesize even a fraction of the building blocks essential to cellular life, despite decades and millions of dollars poured into the problem. And yet they assume that purely blind material processes turned prebiotic chemicals into all the key building blocks, and then mindlessly engineered those into the first self-reproducing cell on the early Earth.
There are no models that would make such a scenario plausible. And the more we learn about cellular complexity, the harder the problem gets
What's your point?
@@darcymr353 Exactly what it says.
Abiogenesis fails
@@tonymaurice4157 not necessarily. Just because we can't currently replicate it in a lab, doesn't mean it's impossible.
@@darcymr353 It doesn't mean it's possible,.all you have is wishful thinking and hope. all the chemistry goes in the exact opposite direction of life.
And if we did succeed in the lab all it would prove is intelligent design.
The complex and highly orchestrated experimental protocols with unnatural starting materials further demonstrate that intelligent agency is an essential ingredient to life’s origin.
@@tonymaurice4157 this is just the god of the gaps.
I didn't say whether or not it is possible. We simply don't know.
Success in a lab wouldn't necessarily point to intelligent design. Please justify this assertion.
Prove complexity requires orchestration.
So both agree Darwinian is best explanation for life on Earth. Cool 😎
because it is, all evidence point to it, there are no contradictions or large gaps/mysteries and also there is literally no competition.
This needs more views machallah brothers
Not for muslims.They might start using common sense and leave religion.Keep them primitive…
'Darwinian' evolution is already a weird title. As if there is a difference between darwinian and normal evolution....
It's just called evolution ...
@@KATOOMY this got nothing to do with telling lies...
Evolution is a PROVEN scientific FACT and a theory....
Dont debate me ,dude .
Just bring your own theory , present it to the scientific world.. and get Published.
ONLY call me when you got your Nobel prize in science for turning the whole scientific world upside down..
good luck with that
@@arvitt pezosiren portelli a walking manatte
an evolution simply means biological changes over time but darwinian evolution says we humans evolved from apes which Completely an assumption of homology
@@muhammadhussain5854 transition from apes to OTHER apes (like homosapiens) IS STILL CALLED EVOLUTION.... BY DEFENITION.
We do not call gravity ... Newtons gravity.. do we?
The person who made the theory is irrelevant. Its their theory itself that is relevant in science.
@@KATOOMY First you said "That evolution is a lie", then you mentioned an interesting transitional fossil. I don't get it, all evolution deniers are forced to deny transitional fossils exist. How haven't you just debunked yourself?
As I recall AronRa already schooled this bearded guy on a topic of evolution a few years ago, yet here he is, back with same crap over again. Classic creationism. Never learn, just keep pedaling the PRATT list.
You mean where Aaron shat himself in public when suboor asked him 5 questions?
@@person81045 which questions exactly? In which part of debate? I don't recall Aron losing any argument or confidence at all.
@@smashexentertainment676 it's hard to recall anything when you're blinded by prejudice and fanboyism
@@SimpleReally it's like you all are incapable of producing anything substantial, yet still can't stfu.
But apart from all debates, dude is arguing against fact. No amount of semantics and mental gymnastics will make it somehow magically go away.
It's very interesting that everyone in the comment section almost already made their mind and are watching this video on a completely biased perspective.
The topic of the debate is wether evolution is a fact. Every scientist on earth will tell you its not a fact. Its not bias to agree with the truth.
@@keelobrown4991 "Every scientist will tell you it's not a fact". Got any evidence to back up that claim?
@@daviddinoger well for one its literally in the name.... "theory" of evolution. Theories by nature are not facts. Secondly there is problems with darwinian evolution and alternatives to it. If you think its a "fact" you either dont know anything about science since the closest truth in science is theory. I shouldnt need to explain this to anyone who even remotely understands the scientific method. Why dont you tell me how it is a fact? Become the first person to ever prove a scientific theory to be completely and objectively factual.. ill wait.
@@keelobrown4991 The problem with your claim is that its grounded on nihilism. In your argument, nothing can be proven, nothing can ever be right.
We cannot prove that we exist, i cannot prove that the object in my hands (the phone) actually exists which would mean there is no fact, there is nothing in this world that can be proven, i could not even prove that i am a human, talking to you right now.
Obviously that is the case, we cannot prove anything unfortunately with this mindset we cannot function as a society or even as individuals. Our world would fall into chaos if we all truly believed nothing is real, nothing is factual.
The other part of your statement was that a theory is just the closest we get to truth. Yes, you are correct but we can expand that theory, just because we can expand the theory of evolution, doesn't make it wrong.
@@daviddinoger wow. Everything you just said about not existing and not being able to prove anything was a major strawman. The scientific method isnt the only way to seek truth. We know we exist and can interact with other existing things through logic and reasoning, which can be used to infer something. Inference basically means to make an assumption based on logical reasoning, which would actually be deduction. Thats different from the scientific method which uses induction to find truth. Induction is observation and testing (both of which are inherintly flawed) Induction can never be 100% true. I would really suggest you look into the scientific method and how it works and what is applicable with and more importantly what is not. Cos your literally comparing two different things (deduction) and (induction). Theres nothing nihilistic about that. If I was being nihilistic then I wouldnt even engage with this convo since the actual view of a nihilist "nothing matters, everything is just atoms and nothing has value or meaning in any way". What your describing is someone who is uncertain of anything. (Which as I've just pointed out is a false assesment on your part) Thats not the same as a nihilist. Also I never said the theory of evolution is wrong (another strawman) I said its not a fact. It very well could be true but that our understanding of it can be completely or partly wrong.
Looking forward to this debate and hoping that Subboor is also putting forth and suggesting an alternative to the darwinian world view. Many of these debates revolve around the factual/non factual reality of darwinism and not around an other explanation for natural phenomena. Whether or not the world is created is up to a logical debate and is something that even the most radical darwinians can subscribe to. "How" the world is created though is something to be discussed from on another level though. Excited to listen to both!
There are no alternatives, the train left the station many decades ago. Common origin is fact.
@@jesan733 not even remotely close to the truth.
@@kaleemthedream9450 so you're a science denier?
@@jesan733 did you even watch the video
@@Adnan-wl7wx so long ago, so not sure. Seems like a waste to spend 2h listening to the worst kind of science denialism though.
I don't really understand why muslims applaud this debate, this debate litterally proves nothing about islam being true, it's just a debate about evolution.
Sure
But we want you to be in heaven with ❤️🌹
I ask you to read Quran
If you did
Please read it again but without bias 🌹❤️
@@xmuhmd yeah okay bro keep believing in fairytales, yeah I ve read the quran actually, it's obviously man made. Also most of your countries are poor and have no liberties or democracy, that's why you all immigrate to the west.
@@troywalt4834
Um, yeah.
This is a debate on evolution, not on Islam.
Just like when Kent Hovind debates Aron Ra. He's not debating for christianity, he's debating against evolution.
@@troywalt4834 it's called staying on topic, something youtube atheist struggle with in comment sections.
Short answer: Yes.
The answer of yes combats the idea of science. Do not be so stupid. Science is dynamic and not absolute so how can darwinism, an idea centuries old, still be infallible to this day. Even Darwin knew his theories were fallible yet you still state such stupidity.
@@muzzyjk take your own advice and don’t be stupid. Your assertions about what Darwin did or didn’t think isn’t relevant. His theory of evolution stands today because it’s held up to scrutiny. The short answer IS yes.
@@muzzyjk you're confusing darwinism with evolution by natural selection. The latter is a fact.
@@darcymr353 🤦🏻♂️ they both mean the same thing silly 😝 what you’re really getting at is that you think since Darwin’s theory is able to evolve that you feel it’s not solid. That’s too bad my friend. Please be the first to successfully challenge it.
@@markusbaker1161 evolution by natural selection is a scientific fact. Darwin made some mistakes in his lifetime. That's the difference I'm referring to.
First question
Is saboor a scientist? It is a genuine question
If he was a scientist he should have his qualifications revoked.
Just not to provided wrong info ,
Firstly, watch his UA-cam channel , I think he mentions it there a few times.
He's studying Philosophy of science or sth like that
A real scientist wouldn't even waste his time on saboor to be honest, basically a young physics grad is at best all it takes to present the data, a real scientist will annihilate him on the spot
@@TripleAceAAA just like lawrence krauss did with hamza?? LOL. come out of emotions there is no place of emotions in materialism.
MidnightRyder Maybe like Prof Lawrence Kraus, when he wrote a universe from nothing and then tried to define what nothing is ;) Quite deceptive.
Lots of throat clearing from John. I sense an existential crisis. But he seems like a nice guy.
It is James
@@prasetyoardi7912 lol
Anyone paying the slightest bit of attention would no matter what you believe 🤷🏽♂️
@@prasetyoardi7912 it’s jerry
I don't understand why religious people want to keep falling on the sword of evolution. If you want to believe in a Creator or Designer why can't he have chosen evolution as the means for creating all this diversity. After all when the Quran says everything was created from water, they jump right up and say this is the evidence for it being divine.
So on the one hand if the Quran says something agrees with science, it is evidence of the divine. If there is an apparent disagreement (Adam & Eve) then the whole scientific method is at fault. Hmm.
Actually the point Subhoor is trying to make is that religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive. It s just the naturalistic focus on the current status of evolution that makes it hard to accept the current developments and status.
For example, if you re trying to make a case that some humans are superior to other humans and you only use the current state of the world as an argument, then you are going to get results which are extremely biased and unfair.
As muslims we accept any scientific study even if it contradicts the Quran because we know that science is changing. For example, the most popular argument in the early 1900s was the argument that the universe was infinite. Today science changed its stance and now it is in line with Islam. Nevertheless, the philosophical discussion by muslims was always done in a similar way.
What evolution brings as a problem, is that it is being pushed by an atheist dogma and is mishandled in such a way that alternarive theories that may explain things much better but are boycotted out since they may bring the theory more in line with religion. And because the theory has a very low empirical force of direct evidence, this can be done ad infinitum. So as muslims we are merely begging the question whether the idea of evolution is being done rationally and fair.
Hope this clarifies my stance a bit more :).
@@dadush4 but aren’t the neantherdals and early hominids evidence of human evolution
@@AD4MANTIUM2166 i cant comment for some reason :D.. so ill try it in parts
@@AD4MANTIUM2166 depends if you wanna believe a single tooth or a piece of the jaw is sufficient evidence for the entire theory of Neanderthals.
@@AD4MANTIUM2166 E.g. piltdown man, after 30+years it turned out to be a hoax..
We have to separate ideologies from this field of research to find actual evidence and truths. Atheism has made a bad indent on evolution as a science, and it s hard to wash out the taste now. It s similar to how the church kept the earth flat for so long, lynching everyone that dared to say otherwise.
We have not seen the earth go on its orbit around the sun 99.9% of the time so I guess I need to doubt this too?
God Creates many organisms without common ancestors, even ones that look like they match in some ways under a microscope. Do you need to see it too or will you also accept this the same as you accept the earth orbits around the sun ?
@@HappyBloke81 One is based on millions of observations that have been tested repeatedly and have consistent results. The other is some guy on UA-cam made some claims. tell me how did you test? "God Creates many organisms without common ancestors" That as far as I can see is least 3 unfounded claims . That there is a god, That god made these organisms and That some of them don't have common ancestors. And I don't know how seeing them under a microscope can even show you how even one these claims are true or even likely.
Great debate between the two individuals😊😊😊
Uh oh, semantic time for the word fact 😂😂
I dont want to be offensive but why do these debates always tip toe around the major flaws of all religions. And that usually is the the acceptance of immoral acts either in their scripture, and/or modern day practices.. as a non believer, i dont want to claim moral high ground but these books claim to be of the most high, in regards to morality and claim that they transcend time? We, as a society, have deemed lots of stories, practices, rituals, from holy books as archaic, misguided, to downright barbaric, cruel, or just wrong. And no book between the three major religions is exempt.
@zaggaona.
Did the 'WE", you are talking about deemed those things wrong using objective or subjective criterion?
Did the "WE" in their judgement consider all of the possibilities for purpose and existence: possibility of afterlife being true and spiritual life being true or the "WE" have judged these things only trough naturalistic point of view.
Could the "WE" be wrong in their judgement of what is right and what is wrong?
@@safetsalihovic8775 by "we" i mean non-fanatical, rational, modern people. And i believe, when it comes to the subject of morality it can only be subjective. Lets take slavery for instance, referenced and practiced during the writing of holy books, WE, as a society and subjectively, can agree that slavery is morally wrong.
@@zaggaona
The "We" think of them selves as: non-fanatical, rational, modern people , and the "We" had agreed .on a lots of things. The same "We" have agreed on things as being all right which now you judge wrong. Those: "We":non-fanatical, rational, modern people bend their necks in the way that wind blows [ in a moment one way in the next moment the other way ] because they think that morality can only be subjective.
Out of subjective morality come: murderers, robbers, thieves, dictators, and all the most horrible deeds a human being can imagine.
The source of subjectivity [ peoples own whims, desires and wishes ] is their own selfishness.
The selfishness is also the source of: self piety, racism, chauvinism [ what causes injustice ].
There is not one good thing that comes from selfishness, yet you think it's a source for morality.
So don't talk to me about morals when your morals come from your selfishness. That's also the reason why the "We" think so highly about them self's as being: non-fanatical, rational, modern people while in the same time the "We" are the most fanatical and irrational.
About " modern" [ as I understood it from your reply ] you think of it as being something good.
Well it's modern to have a sexual intercourse before being married with: multiple partners some of them not even knowing who they are [ one night stands ] or having sexual intercourse while under influence of drugs and alcohol and not even knowing later who one has slept with. It's modern to have a lover or multiple lovers besides spouse.
How many problems in societies this "modern" behaviors have caused.
Families being broken, hatred among people, single parenting, abandoned children, murdered children, suicides. Causes incest [ people having sexual intercourse with close relatives or even marrying them without knowing that they are related ].
Modernity is the cause for disrespecting parents and elders because they are not modern.
Modernity is the cause for many more awful disgusting and nasty things. Don't make me count them all.
As for subjectivity, the source of modernity is also in selfishness . So those who believe in morality according to their own subjectivity are the most immoral and disgusting people.
One can hide own deeds from people but words that come from ones mouth will uncover directly or indirectly what's hidden in ones hart.
Man,
You know that thus debate topic Is different right?
Islam is another topic
@@zaggaona The ''we'' non-fanatical, rational, modern atheists who in the last 100 years have massacred more people than every abrahamic religion combined in their existence. Get a grip and get off your moral high horse please. Its embarrassing how you seem to think the modern atheist has some superior understanding of morals and ethics.
Assalamo alaykom w.w masha Allah tabarak ALLAH
Aleykum Salam
Can you share the powerpoint of james? @iERA
Ahmad says science is not absolute and it's everchanging. First of all, it only changes when valid facts are presented. And that is basically what science is. There is an absolute answer, we just need to find it.
Somehow an intelligent person like yourself belives that that is called Allah. You are a person sure in something that what you were raised to be.
Now imagine Ahmed was born into a Cristian family. His life is based on where he were born and not on what Ahmad called facts.
So let's question ourselfs now. Are you right because of how you were raised or are the "scientist" right by formeing their ideas based on the world "facts".
In other words. You believe in one thing and you critise people who believe in a search for an answer.
Because of people like you, others will follow their absurd world views and are ignorant to others.
Jan Koščak
Of course there is an absolute answer: evolution is either true or not that is an absolute answer, but which one of these is the absolute truth we can't find it trough science. Science doesn't have tools to deal with absolutes, one can't observe, measure or test it because all possibilities are not of the physical reality. To get to absolute truth one must examine all possibilities physical and metaphysical, but science can't do that.
Doesn't matter in which ideology a person was born. Absolutes are the same for everyone, regardless if one believes in them or not. Believing in them or not will not change a thing about absolutes.
We do have the ability [a way] to find absolutes and it's trough reason. With the reason [ rationality ]we come to know that a dependent thing or a dependent being can't exist without The Independent. The existence of The Independent is necessary because without its existence: the universe and everything in it wouldn't exist. Dependent things can't exist on their own or on depending just on other dependent things, as evolution would include only dependent things it's an impossible idea. Our existence [ existence of dependent things] proves that The Independent [ The Absolute ] exists. We don't need to observe The Independent to know it exists. World views which don't recognize these irrefutable facts don't matter at all.
It is those world views: which don't recognize the limits of science and don't recognize our ability to get to the absolute truth trough reason that follow absurd ideas.
Idea that everything must have a scientific [ naturalistic ] explanation is absurd idea, when one knows that even conscience and mind can't be explained scientifically.
We use our rationality together with science in order to explain anything. Rationality and science compliment each other they are not enemies. With using only science we can't explain how light which has no mass moves, but with our rationality we can.
There are many people who were raised as either Christians or atheists and they accepted Islam. Does this mean that their belief is right becuase they accepted a belief that’s different to what they were exposed to when they were kids!
Your argument is preposterous
@@safetsalihovic8775 of course conscience and mind can be explained scientifically. Your philosophy regarding the "independent" is doubtful, but even if it's correct, there's nothing to say that the independent entity is a mind or anything like a god. Occams Razor would rather slice away anything else than that the universe itself is in some sense the independent thing. Everything else just adds a layer of complexity without helping.
Evolution is fact at least in the everyday sense of the word. It's possible we're all a computer simulation started two minutes ago, who knows, but assuming our existence is as it seems to be, evolution and common origin is a fact that can no longer be fundamentally overturned by science.
Knowledge from Mr. Foder and a heaping helping of word salad from Mr. Ahmad.
I realise that religion is just a belief and not the truth when it is told that God needs worship , that is narcissist traits which is does not make sense to put to the one responsible for the existence of the whole galaxies and stars , its projecting insecurities , All powerful being does not demand to be worship,dont ask to bow , that is human behaviour just like kings and queen and royalty system thinking they are special and deserve special treatment place and title .
this is subjective analysis. fallible argument.
fix your grammar
"that is human behaviour just like kings and queen and royalty system thinking they are special and deserve special treatment place and title." Humans respect superiors, it is human nature. If you respect somebody like God you would follow what they say. If you respect your parents and they tell you do something, you would do it.
@@muzzyjk how can anyone respect the idea of a god? It’s man made superstition 😂
@@muzzyjk there is a different between respect and worship , well human worship , that is in their nature they like to adore idol people with power
Out of curiosity, what is that flashing red light in front of the speakers?
Lol now I know why IERA never opened the comment section of the debate between Aron and Saboor Ahmed
so much well poisoning in the incipit.
Subboor destroyed Aron the clown. Aron doesn't even know what Darwinian evolution is
Evolution of the soul and evolution of the body are actually propelled by intelligence in overcoming obstacles.
Can religious people please stop pretending they understand evolution. If you want to be religious just live your life and stop making fools of yourselves by talking about science.
in other words:
Science belongs to atheists and not religious people
🙄
@@rbeinstitute5639 not at all....but if you believe in the Adam and Eve nonsense you really should stay quiet about evolution.
you spelled his name wrong
Is Darwinian Evolution a Fact?
"Yes"
Could have saved yourself 2:02:54 of this video.
superseded is the correct term newton discovered gravity, with a model that explained planetary revolution almost accurately what einstein did was not reverse gravity he evolved its understanding further that its actually the distortion in space due to the mass of matter. that was a thuderous question people dont need evidence to believe in god but even if there are countless evidences if it contradicts their belief then they doubt it to the utmost that they use tooth and nail to fight or argue
MashaAllah! Wow Wow Wow!!
Subboorb lost the debate Islam has been proven false
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 506:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
That during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relation with them without impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interrupt us. The Prophet said, "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection." Qaza'a said, "I heard Abu Sa'id saying that the Prophet said, 'No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it."
Suboor Ahmad is one of the most dishonest lier on internet, i hope people will not fall into his trap
Atheism requires a LOT of blind faith. I just don't know how someone can be an atheist.
No no and no!
Atheism is a lack of beliefs and a rejection of faith.
Faith is exclusive to religion and by definition means to believe without evidence.
It's the lack of evidence we refuse to fill with faith.
Is this a joke? The whole basis of religion is blind faith. I actually hope you’re joking around
@@fh854 why do you think I'm joking ? it takes huge amount of blind faith to believe that nothing produce everything, non-life produces life, randomness produces fine-tuning, chaos produces information, unconsciousness produces consciousness, and non-reason produces reason. I just can't take that huge leap of faith.
@@theoathman8188
Your a joke because your misrepresenting atheist and lying to do so.
Some atheist don't accept say evolution yet most Christians and Jews do.
No one atheist or scienctist (can be atheist and theist) claims anything came from nothing.
But the bible says God created everything from nothing using magic.
The universe isn't fine tuned it just looks that way.
It's actually ever changing chaos.
99.9 % of it us deadly to us as us most if the earth.
It looks made for us because it made us.
Also if we changed one tiny thing would it change the outcome?
Especially as we know the moon is moving away at 1 and a half inch a year as much as your finger nails grow.
It has done since day one yet here we are.
You don't need faith for science it's evidence based.
And to be atheist is a reaction of faith and no beliefs.
If you say anything else your a laughing stock/joke.
But creationist are a laughing stock even within Christianity.
Agnosticism is a lack of belief. Atheism is the belief that there is no God.@@jameswright...
IS'NT IT TRUE THAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION HAS MORE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT THAN THE BIG BANG THEORY?
no
@@muzzyjk Why do you say that?
I hope that's a rhetorical question looking for bites..
@@seanleigh Yes it is a rhetorical question.
Plz translate to arabic may allah bless you
This is dead simple, if you believe in evolution then you can point to evidence that suggests evolution. If you don't believe in evolution......then you need to point to evidence that suggests a different mechanism.
Those with the most convincing evidence wins.
These theist are so funny ….
Can they apply the same scrutiny to their religion as they do to the study of evolution.
100% God has not been observed but yet they don’t require data to believe in their myths
We have no problem with sayin i have faith in evolution for example(this would be a different conversation) but sayin it's a fact like 1+1=2 that's where we have a problem it's obvious from the debate.
@@ziadrafa3733 evolution is more of a fact than your imaginary god
@@ziadrafa3733 Nobody says it's a fact like 1+1=2. James in this debate said it is a fact like the fact that the earth orbits the sun. Which is correct.
@@xxchippendalexx well said.
That is because you can not use empiricism for God. God is a being that you can not use your senses or technology to detect but it does not mean he does not exist.
We've moved on from Darwin and science from 150 years ago.
Allah creates all.
Allah causes all.
Such a mad lad. Making the cosmos - just cause he can - Allah yer some guy.
ALLAH is such a MAD LAD
@ALPHA WOLF
SOUNDS LIKE A MAD LAD TO ME
@ALPHA WOLF
"Islamic prayer is the answer my brother to send food to your high self to lift your soul out of a rutt and send it higher where it belongs." - That is true, although I dont think any religion has exclusive ownership of the connection with what we as humans can call the higher power or the gift of conscience that can lead us to be what we know we ought to be.
@ALPHA WOLF
Astute observations indeed
The ego is always there to take credit for cosmic fate.
There are many signs, I just do not think we can put the origin of those signs to one belief system.
I do not think that you need evolution to be true or false to be a good christian, buddhist, muslim, or a good person in general.
James.. c'mon be honest! You just agreed in your opening statement that FACT has more than one meaning. General fact and probabilistic fact can mean two different things. Don't dumb down intellect of people by not differentiating between the two and most importantly when it comes to Darwinian evolution
@Ayub Khan
It is a general fact that there is no such thing as the first two homo sapiens, just as there is no such thing as the first two chipmunks.
Evolution is a demonstrated fact
This debate was just about semantics.
Scientists would never say that Evolution is a fact because scientists are usually very humble.
But pretty much all scientists on the planet would say that Evolution is demonstrably true and that no one thinks that we will ever find evidence that will drastically change our current understanding of Evolution, at best new discoveries will only change minor details.
@@prabhuthomas8770 well technically when you think about it it is a fact. I think a better way of saying it is by saying, it is a fact that there’s no such thing as the first two Homo sapiens that were created by God
@@loganredding1621 Are you kidding by adding "that were created by God" or are you serious? I agree with this if what is being suggested is that there is no such thing as the first two Homo sapiens that resemble us entirely today.
You should have shown his presentation.
Subboor is the very definition of a Sophist. Dancing around words and definitions completely disregarding the scientific method. Meanwhile he believes Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged Horse and that humans are made of clay.
Burn and keep burning 😂😂😂
lol the only people who ever agree with him are other Muslims. Muslims as people are cool, I wish I could just free them from this primitive thinking.
@@alexojideagu
Primitive thinking when you're the one who thinks we evolved from primitive creatures... how ironic.
@@Kolesha It's a fact. Covid evolved from more primitive viruses. And it keeps evolving. If you can't face facts that's your problem
Why is someone who isn’t qualified to be debating this subject.. debating it.
Theories explain facts , the theories may be modified the facts the theories try to explain remain facts.
The reason that certain groups of religious people can not accept evolution...is for religious reasons, not scientific reasons.
But do we know the facts?
If we know them then we wouldnt call them theories anymore.
You know what you did there its called circlar reasoning i think.
theories explain facts and facts cant change but theories do but what theories explain are facts?
Bgyvcc Ggn
Keep thinking 👍
The word theory is used differently in science, than if you or I were to use it ,
A scientific theory is not just some idea a scientist has,
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.
Here are a few more theories
Biology: cell theory, theory of evolution (modern evolutionary synthesis), germ theory, particulate inheritance theory, dual inheritance theory
Chemistry: collision theory, kinetic theory of gases, Lewis theory, molecular theory, molecular orbital theory, transition state theory, valence bond theory
Physics: atomic theory, Big Bang theory, Dynamo theory, perturbation theory, theory of relativity (successor to classical mechanics), quantum field theory
Plate tectonics
@@mickqQ so if i refuse the Big Bang "THEORY" im still a religious fanatic? Is this theory still explainging a fact? Your telling me that you have "evidence" that the Big Bang actualy happened, except deduction?!
Jon Nav
Yes, the CMB
It’s a fact the universe is expanding, not only is it expanding, the expansion is accelerating.
The Big Bang theory explains the observations.
It’s the best possible explanation from the evidence at hand.
What you or I believe is, is irrelevant to what is.
You can accept or reject any scientific theory you like.
Out of interest is there any other theories you reject
Gravitational theory
Germ theory
Theory of tectonic plates
Nuclear theory
Cell theory
Collision theory
Molecular theory
Information theory
Oxygen theory of combustion
Special relatively / general relativity
The theory of heliocentric solar system
Theory of matter and energy
Atomic theory
Your in the unfortunate position where the religion you happed to be convinced is true, also has a history of rejecting aspects of reality that conflict with their religious book .
@@mickqQ i rejected isacs theory of gravity when people were fanatical about it, i used to look for other theories of gravity then i came across ainstain's...
So in conclusion, you fanaticaly call religious people delusional while so stubornly insisting that you know something that we dont, while at the same time your explenation changes from time to time but your ridicule never stops.
I got nothink more to say to you.
Ok, so facts aren't certain....sounds kind of like a theory then? We can say the Earth revolves around the Sun as an observable phenomena. We can't observe the first living organism 3.5 billion years ago. Big difference.
Have you ever heard of interpolation?
@@fitzburg63 As a direct observation? Or mathematical model?
@@tahabennett7388 OK, bye.
@@fitzburg63 Bye
They need to stop teaching Darwinism in school as a fact. 😒
Evolution is a fact.
Angie P. I never said evolution isn’t a fact. The common ancestor and macroevolution is NOT a fact!
Mirror so should they stop teaching Gravity is a fact too? How about Electricity?
Mirror Evolution is a fact. There is no such thing as Macro or Micro evolution. Those are creationist terms.
alex ojideagu 🤣🤣 are you that ignorant 😭 so you’re are telling me that everything all forms of life...bacteria, rocks, plants, fish, birds, and humans share a common ancestor? This is a proven fact? 🤯 since when ?? 😒What is your definition of fact, son?
Sorry, I must have missed the bit about the peer reviewed scientist that claims "God did it". Anyone know the time stamp?
Conclusion:
If you deny evolution you have no leg to stand on to believe other scientific theories
Good luck 😁
were you even watching the debate? how an earth did you come up with such a silly and obviously false conclusion? did subboor ever outright deny the theory of evolution? watch the video again and i suggest this time paying attention
@@harun3811
It is simple all his objections can be said to almost any theory in science
Let's take big bang for example
1 we only witnessed 0.00..% of living being ( we only witnessed 0.00..% of galaxies redshift)
2 there is disagreement among scientists although they are a minority ( guess what the same thing can be said to the big bang theory (inflation, big crunsh and so on))
3 the majority of scientists don't fellow the original Darwin theory ( the majority of scientists don't fellowthe original big bang theory I mean even its name has changed to lambda CDM model)
Now you have to admit that you either have a bias against ToE or as Fodor wanted to say that you will have to sub to scientific anti-realism.
@@anflas7200 you're an absolute fool, he's making a case for instrumentalism as a valid way to interpret scientific data, and from your spelling I can see how much of the debate you've actually absorbed. he's simply asserting that darwinism (natural selection), as with any other scientific theory that attempts to explain the mechanism of a certain event can be disproved or adjusted in such a way that is no longer recognisable due to the problem of induction, underdetermination and other philosophical factors. suboor frequently mentions this and his stance is not outright rejection of all scientific theories, but rather a more nuanced take that you've obviously failed to grasp. the debate isnt as intense, its more focused on things like semantics and definitions, both the interlockers have far more to agree with than disagree.
@@harun3811
First of all thanks for your kind words.
But my objection stands if you only bring these problems to a debate about a specific theory then all I have to point out is those same problems affect other theories that my opponent believes like quantum or big bang or even heliocentric theories since he mentioned that earth going around the sun as a FACT
So you have 2 choices
1 accept evolution
2 doubt all other theories equally (and that what fodor point out before the open discussion)
@@anflas7200 The problem is that Subboor, being a total imbecile, believes that heliocentrism is a "direct observation". This is why he had this entire debate without realising his inconsistency. He literally believes heliocentrism is not science, but rather an observation.
Darwinian evolution is just as factual as the limitless genders people identify as these days.
Btw I identify as the halal kangaroo referenced in the vid.
Does that mean you think species do not adapt to better suit their environment over time, through variation and natural selection?
May Allah set James to the straight path.
Ameen.
May allah curse the Jews and the Christians - Prophet Muhammad on his deathbed
@@MrWick-oe5ij not tru but ok
@@Mo74mmad Sahih al bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 660
He did already.He gave him common sense
Ahh a decent debate without going 2 war. Very good. 1 thing tho he sais scientific facts change over time, like newton vs Einstein. Religion has done the same Christianity and islam r less than 2000 years old b4 that there was greek religion etc and our current religions borrow from old religious beliefs. If thier is a Greater power than ourselves maybe its reasons for and how creation happened is far beyond our compression, maybe at least just stick 2 the basics treat eachother regardless of what we believe with respect help eachother when we can etc.
Not true
Islam has been there from the first day that Adam was created, Christianity and Judaism are not religions these are human made religions as Muslims we consider all prophets are Muslims and that's why as Muslims say that the prophet Muhammad peace be with him is the last prophet which means all prophets who came before him were preaching the same message which is submission to the will of the almighty.
That's because you atheists have got religion all wrong. And it seems like you never want to understand it. Forst off stop calling it religion as if all the religions are the same because they are not.
@@tylerdordon99 atheists dont believe in any religion u fool, and u getting all religious cuz of a pandemic sad
Islam is on tawheed all prophets were on tawheed
And he didn't even talk about the beginning of life from random chemical events, he can't. Because that's impossible. And when forming life is impossible through random chemical processes, the main assumtption of Darwinian Evolution which is Universal Common Ancestry, gets broken into miniature pieces.
Abiogenesis (life from non-living materials) has nothing to do with evolution. It's true that evolution requires life to exist in order to work but it doesn't require that life to have come via abiogenesis.
Regarding abiogenesis, is it really that absurd? Unless life has always existed it means that life from non-living materials is a logical necessity. There was once a time when no life existed on the planet, the only matter was non-living.
@@chimpanzeethat3802 You misunderstood my point . It falls under faith to believe that first life came from chemical processes that too random. That's a faith needed more than believing in magic.
I wouldn't exactly call it faith. It's certainly not magic. Anything that happens in the natural world cannot be magic by definition. Magic falls under the umbrella of the supernatural.
There is a fair amount of evidence for abiogenesis but not enough for it to become a scientific theory. Abiogenesis is still just a hypothesis at the moment, it hasn't been elevated from a hypothesis to a theory yet because it hasn't been effectively demonstrated yet.
Evolution on the other hand, including universal common descent, is a demonstrable fact backed by a huge amount of evidence.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that evolution can't be proved until abiogenesis is proven. They're two completely different fields of science, neither is predicated or dependant on the other.
@@chimpanzeethat3802 "Evolution on the other hand is a demonstrable fact". This is just not true and even you acknowledge that. Had there been a *demonstration* as to how Species evolved from one to another, there was no need for debates. And certainly for Universal Common Ancestry, you gotta first prove Abiogenesis is true. If it remains as an assumption, which it is, the whole Evolutionary scheme remains hollow. Most of the evolutionary Biologists acknowledge this problem and ignore it via saying "Science will one day do it". And it is not a fact. I agree that it is a valid theory but that doesn't necessarily negate that it is true. It can be called a fact in the sense that it's factual accuracy is nowhere near to the factual accuracy of a mathematical truth. So in that case, Evolution (widely presented and preached one) can't be a fact due to the very limitations of science. Further evidences can lead us to the problem of induction or the problem of underdetermination of theory by evidence. And as Suboor said it is based on PAD- Probabilistic Framework, core assumptions and dispute at an academic level. Aforementioned 3 things can't allow a theory to be a fact, which is a fact. Now I do believe in evolution in the sense that change occurs but to discuss it as a theoretical construct, there's a lot to talk about. Furthermore, our ability to reason, objective morality, inner subjective experience, shame and desire to discover can't be explained through a naturalistic process. Not because we have lack of scientific knowledge about those but because they are truly a problem and mainly refer to the immaterial aspects. There are myriad of assumptions from Universal Common Ancestry to Homology and objections from a genetic level to an immaterial output. Therefore, it is not a fact.
Pay close attention.
Exactly what evolution IS, it is exactly what is observed.
It can be summarily defined as descent with inherent genetic modification but, as it is correctly defined in science, evolution is the change of allele frequency in populations over generations.
That's exactly what evolution IS: "the change of allele frequency in populations over generations".
We observe the change of allele frequency in populations over generations (evolution), and we observe speciation (macroevolution).
Ergo, both microevolution and macroevolution are directly observed in real life. Dozens of new species have evolved in our own lifetimes, both in the laboratory and in nature.
The evidence is contained within the 30,000 plus scientific papers on the subject that include hundreds of examples of observed microevolution, dozens of examples of observed macroevolution, and thousands of different evolution experiments.
You can find all of these 30,000 plus scientific papers at either Google Scholar or PubMed, the two websites where all the published scientific literature can be found catalogued online in its entirety.
Your ignorance of the subject does not change it from being a demonstrable fact of population genetics.
sorry james i would've liked to hear your rebuttals but subhoor is so dishonest in everything he says.
12:12