Muslim Provides "Evidence" for a Creator
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2023
- Let's take a look at this public debate between a muslim and an atheist.
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/user?u=3308388
Follow me on Twitter: / stickprofessor
Become a Member: / @professorstick
Check out my merch: teespring.com/stores/professo...
Original Video: • 50-Year-Old Atheist VS...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This video may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
I 100% believe that this is just a random person on the street and this conversation was not staged in any way. 100%.
Yeah, the way that "atheist" pronounced "Allah" and mentioned energy tells me he is another Muslim participating in this little skit.
Also, the voice of the "interviewer" is obviously dubbed, which is why he is wearing a mask below his nose, which has no function other than to hide his mouth.
@@jayfrank1913. It’s all dubbed.
It is probably dubbed in different languages.
@@grahvis
1. I 25% Believe That This Is Just A Random Person On Off 📴 The Street And This Conversation Was Not Staged In Out Inbetween Outbetween Anyway 25%.
2. I 50% Believe That This Is Just A Random Person On Off 📴 The Street And This Conversation Was Not Staged In Out Inbetween Outbetween Anyway 50%.
3. I 75% Believe That This Is Just A Random Person On Off 📴 The Street And This Conversation Was Not Staged In Out Inbetween Outbetween Anyway 75%.
4. I 100% Believe That This Is Just A Random Person On Off 📴 The Street And This Conversation Was Not Staged In Out Inbetween Outbetween Anyway 100%.
Iron oxidizes… so it disappears?? The iron is still there, it’s just attached to an oxygen now. Literally a grade school education of chemistry.
"Atheists _deny_ the existence of a god".
Nice loaded statement right there.
I would call it a dissinginous.
also incorrect
There are very few absolute certainties in this world. That their gods don't exist is one of those.
If you can't beat them with sound reasoning, argue with a straw version of their claim and declare victory.
Seems "definitional"?
Not only do I believe in energy, but I also believe in matter, but I repeat myself.
And space. And time also.
See that's what the matter is here, spending so much energy on the topic.
Interesting. they deny that evolution occurs to the point to create large genetic diversity, yet an entire population with the amount of diversity we see is able to stem from two single individuals.
they deny evolution just to propose more absurd alternatives
For example: descendants of only two individuals somehow have four blood groups.
@@FrikInCasualMode and somehow those 2 individuals had all the information for the subgroups
@@FrikInCasualModeThat is possible. But only under specific conditions, and 4 is the maximum possible (2 possible alleles for each of the 2 parents). As the video said, good luck trying to get the thousand of possible alleles for other genes....
Isn't it 8 blood groups if you count negative and positive separately?
‘You could call me an atheist, deist or many other things…’
At which point we can already stop watching this video.
Right.
I agree that the "atheist" in this video was an actor, a compliant prop for the zealot's weak arguments. In his own way, that presenter was no better than any of the YECs.
So far I have never heard a muslim offer what could be called a viable argument in favour of their faith. Of course I say the same thing about other religions too. 😁
it is funny that the only atheists that loses in arguments are the ones in memory or prerecorded videos
1:56 Perfect example of modern religious sophistry where the speaker is using semantics in place of making a coherent argument that actually applies to reality. There's no having a discussion with someone who presents arguments like this.
What's more, he even had to get a living strawman to set it up precisely for him to "debunk".
Nothing modern about it, they've been repeating the same nonsense for centuries...
7:34 "There was not nothing before the big bang."
Correct, but not because there was something, but because there was not a *before.*
They always forget the time portion
Watchmakers arguement. It's always the watchmakers arguement. I can't do this anymore man...
Try an superconducting supercollider then. "While walking down the beach one day I spied in the sands a superconducting supercollider..."
It's always one ontological argument or another...
Yet theist have never demonstrated that their omnipotent God is able to create anything that requires manual input. Even something as simple as a metal pin is beyond God.
@@agimasoschandir isn't that absolutely massive and only kept away from shattering by manual labour?
I was wondering what this "proof" was. Turns out, just more logical fallacies and very little research on genetics once again. What the guy is saying, especially in his second point, literally wouldn't work without magic being involved.
Oh and by the way, calling this a debate would be giving them too much credit. This just quickly turns into a one-sided presentation of "proof that God exists".
Yup, a being(of ANY kind) who would "deliberately" create a universe where ALL of its inhabitants MUST literally eat each other just to survive is a HARD sell. In fact, I'd bet on virtually anything else, if I was a betting man.
Yeah, why not have us all live directly off solar energy, for example? That would have been *way* more convenient. I would have missed my chocolate, though.
@@reformCopyright here here
@@reformCopyright Of course. A loving creator could have created a world of only plants. Sentient, lord-worshipping, free-willing plants if you want. No theist has been able to explain why this arrangement wouldn't work, only the 'mysterious ways' defence.
@juanausensi499 to be fair he could LOVE killing... He used to take sacrifices after all
Howz that a hard sell? What if that being is capable of creating anything perfect or flawed creations it wills but chooses so? how does it effect its supremacy or necessary existence? The universe being its property
Evoultion can't exist but a magic man in the sky is totally rational. 🙄
The creator argument only moves the problem back another step. Who created that creator?
The metacreator, obviously, who lives outside of the outside of time and space.
For a body of people who are trying to defend the Absolute Truth about the universe and morality, it seems strange that they would invariably use dishonest lines of reasoning. It's almost as if they are trying to use reason to defend something which is not supported by reason.
It all started with a comical story that involved a talking snake, and two humans who spoke the same language as the snake. Not exactly rocket science, is it?
You forgot about the fruit... a pomegranate was it?
@@agimasoschandir I think it was a lemon 🙂
Before there was time, before there was anything, there was nothing...
and before there was nothing...
There were
*monsters*
And before the monsters there was a dark dark closed closet...
I could tell that this "conversation" was scripted after the first time you interrupted. How did I know? The apologist let the alleged atheist talk for way too long while giving his strawman babble, an actual apologist would have interrupted him early and frequently, needing to steer the conversation onto a script. He let the guy go on because it was already on script.
I say this for nearly every single creationism video, because they butcher physics like this almost every time:
*The second law of thermodynamics is nothing creationists say it is.* It's not about matter decaying, it doesn't really apply to systems which are not isolated (meaning literally anything within the universe, because nothing is truly isolated), and "order" is not the opposite of entropy. It exclusively means that if energy is not added, heat energy will spread out across the system so that there's not a heat differential to perform physical work.
*Also, the law of conservation flies in the face of the idea of a creator.* They literally said in this video that a creator must have made everything from nothing. Yet, frequently, creationists will cite the law of conservation to try and oppose the Big Bang (which, by the way, has nothing to say about whether the energy came from anything). It's ironic, then, that they explicitly state the universe was created when the law notes that energy and matter have never been observed to be created and there is no known mechanism by which that would even be possible.
I. e. they use special pleading all the time - something coming from nothing is impossible, but when their god does do that, it suddenly is no problem at all. :D
If William Lane Craig ever finds out that Muslims are using his arguments to prove that Allah is the only One True God, WLC will have a fit.
If Muslim Apologists ever find out the WLC is using their arguments to prove that YAHWEH is the only One True God, they will have a fit.
Has William Lane Craig copyrighted his Kalam Cosmological Argument yet? Or does Islam still own the 1,000 year old rights?
To be fair, he stole it from Muslims first.
That argument comes from a Muslim philosopher
@@thomasfplm Yup, that's why I pointed this out in my comment.
@@tomsenior7405, so I misunderstood your comment.
Imagine you walk along a beach.
In the sand you find a rotting fish.
Does that not imply a watchmaker?
Gotta love the "false dilemma" fallacy.
I thought that was Jackson Dinkleberg for a moment there.
I got a stereo at a supermarket, so doesn't it stand to reason that they grow in corn fields?
wtf? ... I just got hired to do the follow up video.
Creationists trying to explain something "scientifically" is one of my favourite traps.
For example, "oh you're going to use science? Okay then, scientifically, since Adam's transgender-clone-sister-wife shares his DNA, how did all of the incest not cause humans to go extinct?"
If they attempt to try and change the subject or throw god magic into the mix you can just hold them accountable to what they said; "ah hold on there, you said you'll explain it scientifically. So, can you explain the mechanisms involved with preventing diseases caused from inbreeding? And can you explain why these mechanisms were missing from The Hapsburgs?"
If they haven't ran by then, just ask them to be honest and admit that they don't know what they're talking about, or if they just want to keep on lying in the name of their god.
It's also worth noting that Islam -- like Christianity -- still claims every human being _besides_ the family of Noah died in a great flood. I wonder how much of Adam and Eve's "supergenetics" were lost in that flood? However diverse we are today, we would've been _much_ more diverse without that flood wiping most of it out.
Yay new video!
Finally, I've been waiting for a good islam directed debunking video for a while now. It feels as if the athiest community tends to forget Islam or shy away from it sometimes, but I can understand why that would be the case since most athiest videos tend to be made by people who live in areas dominated by Christianity. Still, having Islam debunking videos is nice in my opinion
...and Allah provided that debunking. Praise be.
Have a look at Aron Ra.
Shying away from debunking Islam? What about shying away from debunking Judaism? You'll never, ever see it. However, if Judaism is debunked; the religions based on it also fall apart. The mythology of the ancient Hebrews is obviously the easiest, most effective target but atheists seem to avoid it like the plague.
To be fair, muslim apologetics tend to be very childish, so they are truly low-hanging fruit, and make uninteresting videos.
As an closeted ex-muslim atheist, realizing that a majority of leftist are too afraid to criticize islam in a secular countries really makes me frustrated and depressed.
3 Mins in and these are two Muslims doing a dawah bs thing.
Good video, PS! Your channel has inspired me to learn more about genetics and I have been watching an excellent series of UA-cam videos on Stanford's channel about Human Behavior Biology by Professor Robert Sapolsky. Do you know his work? He is awesome!. So are you! Keep up the good work!
That strawman had a good beard, at least!
Hello, small remark, apparently the human bottleneck hypothesis down to a few thousand after a volcano eruption is no longer that well supported, since it isnt reflected in the plant genepool reflected in the genepool of plants
I don't think plants have much to do with what the human population was at the point of the bottleneck
@@zr_3757 I've heard this from Dr. Dan from Creation Myths, no idea how well researched it is
@@XraynPR . I think you are taking information out of context and misunderstanding localized and global.
@@robertt9342 wasnt stick referring to that volcano bottleneck?
Again, heard this from a population geneticist
Bottlenecks may have happened. But OT proposes two* of them, and the two of them are too extreme to fit with actual data.
*The first bottleneck of only two people (creation), and the second of only eight people (flood)
The Adam and Eve analogy is even worse: It wasn't two different people - Eve was created from Adam's rib. Other than one chromosome, they have the same DNA.
You wanna make it worse? Islam's first human was made from mud. I don't remember any mud having DNA sequence of a person.
Thanks for the video :)
I’d LOVE to see more debunking of Islam
This is the Muslim version of a John and Jane video
Someone needs to tell them that when something rusts it doesn't just disappear. I've had enough cars rust away to know that the material that was in place of the rusting hole ends up being tiny little fragments on the ground, if not then big chunks of that hole.
Indeed, the iron still exists, just in a different form.
@@grahvis Right.
I find the video you are discussing there very strange: The voiceover and the many, many cuts... sometimes several in a second or two.
An awful lot of non-sequiters in his argument. My favourite was how to build a sandcastle therefore a baby born every three seconds.
Before even watching this I will predict his evidence also proves other religions/creators/gods and thus the argument(s) disproves itself.
I can't stand when they misuse badly understood scientific concepts to argue for their religious views. It feels so disingenuous, no one can be that stupid, right?
I don’t believe in a creator… I believe in carburetors … and perhaps non sequiturs.
About the plant thing.
Wouldn't something well new mean that two different things crossbreed?
Lets say an apple and a banana.
It could look like a banana and taste like an apple or the otherway around.
So this would mean to get a new person you would need to different persons.
Or he just said something completely nonsensical
It's comforting to see how universal creationist arguments are. Literally the only change was the use of "Allah" instead of "Jesus", "Hashem", or just "God".
Every 3 seconds a new person is born? Nope. 385,000 babies per day mean in 3 seconds it’s over 13 new people are born.
Since my mind is preoccupied by heraldry right now the idea of "Christianity rampant" brings up interesting images.
I… I simply cannot get over the constant jumpy cuts. Is that on purpose?
Wow, what an insane example of equivocation, lol. "We say plants and animals are constructed, but construction requires will and action and whatever". The obvious conclusion, then, is that no, they are not "constructed" (or "created" in a more usual phrasing). The attempt to so blatantly switch "created" as in "to start existing" for "created" as in "manufactured" is just ludicrous.
When RAY COMFORT is your inspiration?🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I know is not the point but I love that according to the bible we are all descended of two really incestuous families. First Adam and Eve, (At least for 3 generations, full on brother and sister incest) and then Noah again. At least with Noah it was only cousin incest but still that explain a lot of the moral of the world today 🙂
And all of these Noah best of the best abandoned ANY of their monotheistic certainty and resumed the cultures of the eradicated, local civilizatíons that the God that their immediate ancestors had experienced first hand has eradicated.
Makes total sense -
NOT
even when you return home drunk from several "Mass" of beer on the REAL Oktoberfest in Munich.
Unfortunately, this has been dubbed so there is no way to know what was actually said and whether it was correctly translated.
Hmm, I have full faith and belief that what Towards Eternity said is in accordance to what was dubbed over. The old man, however, may have just said he had a nice meal from the neighbour's wife a few days ago
Here they come
...walkin' down the street
They get the funniest looks from every one we meet
0:08 amen to that
But matter/energy _is_ eternal. So his argument directly contradicts our observations.
His 4 requirements for sandcastles are also demonstrably not required to "construct a single structure." Waves, wind, etc. have no knowledge, will, or life, but they create structures in the sand all the time.
Only the One True Church of Tesla can save your polyphasic intrinsic bioelectric field, known to laymen as the soul
Okay, but the watchmaker had parents, who are your gods parents? Checkmate every monotheistic religion!
I need you to do a Trump episode!
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Adam and Eve did contain enough genetic information to pass on to all 8 billion of us currently on Earth. Okay, we said it. Even then, it is still nearly impossible for two humans to have produced all of us with this much genetic diversity over the course of all these millennia because:
1. Adam and Eve would have to have at least 2 children, one would have to be born male and the other female.
2. The male and female siblings born from Adam and Eve would have to have sex with each other, which is basically incest, and then they would have to have their own male and female kids. This is essentially inbreeding because all of their harmful recessive genes would be passed on to their offspring.
3. Even if this inbreeding was able to keep the human population alive for over 12 generations, by that point, the population would become extremely homogeneous. To have all this genetic diversity by then would be an impossibility.
Simply put, even if Adam and Eve did contain that much genetic diversity in just two humans, it would still be impossible for all 8 billion of us to have all these genetic differences. If almost everybody was Thanos-snapped out of existence right this very moment, you would realistically need at least 500 humans to repopulate the Earth while preventing inbreeding and genetic drift (and even that might be too few humans). If I had the ability to populate a whole new planet with band new life, I wouldn’t just start with one male and one female, I would start with a bunch of them.
Some apologist freely admit that the children of Adam and Eve practised incest - but then go on claiming that this was no problem at all, since their genes were "pure"... :D
I don't think those two people actually says what is heard. It appears to be edited.
It's Cleary dubbed. Those aren't those people's voices. Audio is too vlean to be from outside, zero background noise
It is translated from Arabic, I think.
Both are speaking arabic so its dubbed
"Evidence" for a Creator. Man, really it's getting boringggggg.
8:00 "That entity is already inherent in nothingness."
What on Earth is that supposed to even mean?! :D It's a contradiction in itself. And that the man who was interviewed here didn't immediately spot that this sentence is totally nonsensical show that he either hasn't ever really thought about science and atheism - or even more probably, that he is actually a paid actor.
my personal favorite is family guys version. God got high with his room mate and kit a fart. The lighting of the fart was the big bang. I mean why not? For all we know that's what could've happened.
Two things about the video you reviewed. First, the interviewer clearly doesn't know what the phrase "Hapsburg Jaw" means. If he did, he wouldn't spout the nonsense about two humans reproducing and creating the diversity of physical features humanity displays today.
Second, it's obvious the interviewer doesn't know anything about complex, adaptive, self-organizing systems. It isn't at ALL necessary for an unobserved, unprovable being supposed to be able to do anything to exist. But there is evidence that such a being doesn't exist: just look at the structure and function of the human body. I've had three surgeries to correct a hiatal hernia. Intelligent design? I DON'T THINK SO! More like designed by a civil engineer: who else would cite a waste disposal facility so close to a recreation area?
neat
i would say try believing in yourself, but unfortunately, you can't, because there's no peer reviewed evidence or facts for it
cool
1. Cool 😎🥶❄️🧊
2. Cold 😎🥶❄️🧊
3. Freezing 😎🥶❄️🧊
4. Warm 😎🔥🥵🌋
5. Hot 😎🔥🥵🌋
6. Boiling 😎🥵🔥🌋
If nothing can last forever how can God be forever. He must also be made of something. Nothing comes out of nothing except God. What a weak argument.
[{God} must also be made of something.]
Must it now?
@@agimasoschandir If it is made of nothing, then you're saying something came from nothing, which defeats the point of these arguments.
Because special pleading. Even when it's Vishnu VS Allah, it'll be a contest of special pleading like make a (double-edged) argument, and then special plead that your case is different.
@@agimasoschandir If god is made of nothing then he is nothing. If there is a god then he must consist of something. And if nothing can come out of nothing, something must have created god.
Based Muslim.
If something changes it can’t be eternal. OK. I guess none of your gods are eternal because doing something is a change by definition.
This whole religion vs non-religion arguement is like one idiot is saying the cup's half empty while the other's saying the cup's half full. Either way you have half a cup of water, who cares, just drink the damn thing.
That's not even similar. A cult and koolaid would demonstrate the problem with that argument.
@@robertt9342 Im talking about the general argument regarding whether the universe was made by a god or not, in regards to faith vs science. The philosophy of one completely subverts the philosophy of the other. Its a debate that will never end because the arguments are built on opposing forms of logic that are not compatible. When one ideology tries to represent itself within the logic of the other, it fails, and the other side remains unconvinced. This is how it's been since the beginning of humanity. Saddest part is, the universe doesn't give a shit. the world is still moving the same it was a millennia ago. No matter who convinces who of what, the universe will remain stoic and unchanged.
It's of course a different story if one group tries to kill others or themselves. That has no longer anything to do with the debate, thats a safety crisis.
Then your analogy is flawed. The key difference you're missing on would be the influence. Having a God who says things with absolute anything is like North Korean leader who says things. Do as I say or get antagonised. So yea, I care when religion is trying to poison the minds of my child's peers and then my child gets antagonised for not believing in a God.
I am ready to convert to Master Handism.
10:15 Another completely nonsensical claim. E. g. stars form from pre-existing matter, without any knowledge, will or life necessary for that.
0:23 what?? Deist =/= atheist 😮
Where was Allah before 700 ad?
Probably busy checking how low is the minimum age for marriage.
Hail Sagan
You could take any interview and over dub ANY argument.
Given the guy is wearing a mask and the other guy has a splendid beard adds less credence to the video.
The poor editing to extend one persons "speech" shows even more flaws in the video.
There's no genetic diversity btn Adam & Eve according to the story, because she came from his rib.
Can two persons have the genetic diversity needed for the variety we see today? Taking their story at face value, it would be possible. Consider the story has a demiurge creating the first generation from scratch. Wouldn't it be reasonable for that first set of gonads to contain a Whitman's Sampler of genes? Each ovum and sperm could have completely original genetics, meaning genetically each second generation offspring would technically not even be siblings. Now, of course this story is undermined by the Noachian Flood bottleneck. The other issue I have is that Genesis tells us it took over 100 years for Seth to replace Abel, and each subsequent generation did not have children until each patriarch was nearly 100 years old. How do you establish a population that slowly? Regardless, I am willing to concede that it is possible for Adam and Eve to have had far more genetic diversity in their reproduction than the rest of humanity.
So they were actively imbued with magic gametes? Because they didn't pass that magic on to further generations as far as we can tell. If you want to invoke magic, don't be surprised when no one takes you seriously.
Women already have all of the ovum in them that they would ever have, they're just in early stages but with the genes already there. So she would have been created with them already there since she was made as an adult.@@Mezza_Luca
Do not take the bible as a source. It is corrupted and has a lot of mistakes. Also Nuh PBUH had an upwards of 80 people in his ark.
@@MuammarQadaffi Even if I give that to you, that only covers half the 'magic gametes' but you're still missing the other half that *would* definitely have to be genetic in origin and able to interact with magical "overly stuffed" gametes. How exactly does that work? Does it still work? How would we know? Because it should have been heritable if it was genetic. Even then, you're starting a race of people with half of the genetic material being almost completely stagnate, a hypothesis that doesn't show up in genetic testing. Just say magic, be done with it, and no one takes you seriously.
@@Mezza_Luca It's not even magic. Consider the story. "God" manufactures the first human being and his mate from scratch. He just loads the first set of gonads with hundreds (or millions in the case of man) of unique genetic sets off the work bench and then it goes from there. Picture a gumball machine with all the colors and flavors. Each offspring has its own unique genes and passes those on, exclusively. Since subsequent generations only have their sets of genes, acquired through traditional inheritance, life goes on as expected. "Adam and Eve" are unique in that they did not acquire their genes via inheritance but from direct manufacture so they aren't beheld to genetic laws.
Jesus radit, sed solum crura!!
Whales are mammals. Mammals are hairy. So shave the whales.
@@neiloflongbeck5705earthworms are hairy too...
@@babotond yes, and they need to be shaved too.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 got it!
sorry I don't speak pre-Italian
At this point in his argument, or should I say word salad, before you ended your video, I see no difference between the fast talk coming out of his translated mouth and that which comes out of Christian creationist apologetics mouths. But just like Christian creationists, I am sure he is leading to (by jumping through hoops) the fact that all this silly stuff leads up to a "therefore, Allah must be god and Islam is the one true religion" conclusion. ~roll my eyes~
I will give him credit, it's not the same exact argument that we always hear from our Christian friends. Shame it's all still garbage 🤷
It's their same argument in their channel, though. The part on knowledge, will, power and one more I forgot, that has been used for umpteen times. Knowledge cuz Al-Aleem. Will because in their Qur'an, it's all about Allah's will. Power, cuz Al-Qadir. This, of course, is due to the usage of their argument that one cannot give what they do not have, so since Allah has these properties, then He can bestow that to others. Absolute bonkers, if you ask me
Ah Islam my ex religion. By the way many muslim also believe if adam and eve were 30 meter tall
Was that a 'public debate'? That really looks like a staged and scripted interaction - and more, we don't even know that what they are saying in the video is what they actually said (it looks like the lips don't match up with the speech), if this was in an Islamic country, it is very unlikely that an atheist would permit himself to be filmed. In any case, why not give us the actual audio since they are using subtitles anyways...
PoliticsImma1st
The Quran promises fruit as one of the rewards for believers in Paradise, which is why muslim apologists are so obsessed with using it as an analogy. How can fruit come from the unthinking soil which does not contain the property of 'fruitiness'?
Thank you professor stick. But i advice you let to people who are actually trained on the field
Anyone Wanna watch me destroy Islam?
Well here I go
the Quran is the word of Allah isn't it ? meaning the Quran is the word of Allah isn't it ? meaning the Quran is the words of the creator of the universe an all powerful being. So that means the Quran can't have any errors if it does it can't be the word of the creator. Even the Quran acknowledges this (quran:4:82) . Even if the Quran has one error one single error someone can easily discard it as a false religion.
That was the premise
"Do you not see that Allah causes the night to enter the day and causes the day to enter the night and has subjected the sun and the moon, each running [its course] for a specified term, and that Allah, with whatever you do, is Acquainted?"
(QS. Luqman 31: Verse 29)
This specific Quran verses makes it very clear that the Quran supports geocentrism. The verse says ( do you not see) that ( Allah has subjected the sun running in it's orbit or a specific term) meaning what ever the sun's orbit is something that can be seen .Other translations says ( do you not not consider) implying that the orbit of the sun is something that was acknowledged at the time But the galactic orbit can't be seen nor was it known at that time. So it CAN'T be taking about the galactic orbit which has no relevance to the day and night cycle.the only orbit that the sun seemingly makes is the orbit from East to west This is the only orbit of the sun that can be seen by the people are was acknowledged as an orbit at the time. And in the ancient times it was a absolutely universal belief that the sun orbits the earthThe verse says ( do you not see) that ( Allah has subjected the sun running in it's orbit or a specific term) meaning what ever the sun's orbit is something that can be seen .Other translations says ( do you not not consider) implying that the orbit of the sun is something that was acknowledged at the time But the galactic orbit can't be seen nor was it known at that time. So it CAN'T be taking about the galactic orbit which has no relevance to the day and night cycle.the only orbit that the sun seemingly makes is the orbit from East to west This is the only orbit of the sun that can be seen by the people and was acknowledged as an orbit at the time. And in the ancient times it was a absolutely universal belief that the sun orbits the earth. And this verse is clearly referring to that ancient belief .
So since Islam undoubtedly supports geocentrism than Islam is false.
Come on people pack it up . Find something better to do with your life
This is SO bad. I think a lot was lost in the scripting… err… translation.
The creator is the same now as He was before creating the universe. Before creating the universe, God had nothing to condemn. God MUST be the same now, right? No? Yes? Both?
All the races came from Adam and Eve..... Congratulations, you just described evolution.
This video you are commenting about sounds just to scripted to me. Even given the translation. I have issue of the 'simple' example to build a sand castle or the matter, creator example. Just too scripted.
Peace
Um, what about mitochondrial-Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam? Also, lifespans were much shorter in the early days, so there were a lot more generations being churned through. Moreover, there are at least four primary drivers of genetic mutation, biological, chemical, radiological, and random transcription errors. Why is it impossible for all the diversity to have come from few progenitors? Even with evolution, all life started from a single primordial organism that spawned from the soup. It's possible that multiple amoeba generated from the amino-acids and proteins in the early-Earth, but it's equally likely that just one happened to spawn that was able to divide.
Wow.... everything you said there shows a deep deep misunderstanding of evolution. It would take pages to correct it all. Did you 'learn' all that from creationists?
I'll just correct one: both mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam were a member of an entire species counting tens of thousands of members. They also lived millennia apart....
Well allright, a bonus one. Amoebas are modern..... they are nothing like proto life would've been, nor is there any reason to think proto life was a single thing.
The Eve and Adam of which you spoke are not the first two individuals of our species. Nor were they the only ones alive at the time, nor did they exist at the same time, let alone breed. They are simply the last common ancestor of either sex that is shared by the current population. The fact that all living humans share a common ancestor in no way means that we do not also have unshared ancestors.
One genetic bottleneck about 70,000 y.a. has been found where the surviving population of humans is estimated to come from only a few thousand individuals. If it had ever been as few as two, we would be able to see it in our DNA.
Those "Adams" and "Eves" only refer to that those two people's genes can be found in everyone, not that they are the ONLY genes.
Not even starting that the evidence places them thousands of years apart...
Don't forget the OP didn't understand lifespans, mortality rates and reproductive cycle. Seems like someone needs to read many books
P R O M O S M 💐
Boooooo~! Gunna have to boo you here cuz you cut the video short just when it got to its dumbest argument