Total posts: 1,201
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Dude - some of the claims you made were literally contrdicted by the data in the source.
- Dude! One: that's not data, that's narrative. There is a difference. Two: I specifically said they are lying, no sh*t they contradict what I said, cz dey lyin! Three: your unfamiliarity with the literature is not justification to call me a liar. If you had bothered to check, you would've realized what I said to be true. For example: "A new species is one in which the individuals cannot mate and produce viable descendants with individuals of a preexisting species.""a particularly compelling example of speciation involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands." < This is a literal lie. Those species of finches can, as a matter fo fact, inter-mate.
Furthermore, I've yet to see a single piece of evidence to support your conjecture... which, thus far, is all I see - conjecture
- One: I'm not the one with the theory to be asked for evidence! I'm the one asking for it. Two: I've already laid down my argument, if you have a problem with it, by all means. Three: the evolutionary narrative is the most elaborate conjecture ever conceived by Man. You're having a hard time proving otherwise. Use your words to establish your evidence, instead of sending me links.
and a dude who doesn't understand what a species is.
- Do tell, what are species? Or do you mean this definition that you posted: "A new species is one in which the individuals cannot mate and produce viable descendants with individuals of a preexisting species."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
As long as you aren't letting them make you mad.
- Nah.
And we can still do it, I just got distracted is all. Although we will probably have to clear up our disagreement about what evolution is.
- I'm a bit busy these days too. We'll figure this out soon enough...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
If evolution isn't scientific fact, what's the alternative explanation for the variants over time of the Covid 19 virus?
- First of all, that's a false dilemma. The lack of alternative explanation does not make evolution a good explanation! Second of all, viruses are literally the least understood organisms in biology. Nobody knows what they do & why they do it. If they did, there won't be a Covid19. Third of all, they love to stick their evolutionary mythology into everything. The spike protein in Covid19 is derived from a 3800-base long gene. That's 2 to the power of 3800 possible mutations (or 10 to the power of 968). You think these are random mutations?! Far more complex things happen constantly in every cell in every organism. Viruses are the worst possible example to give for evolution, for they are not even self-sustainable. Finally, what does any of this have to do with the theory of evolution anyways?! Absolutely nothing. It explains absolutely nothing of significance. If you've ever taken a biology class, you would know that all mutations in coding-DNA are bad, for they crash the function of proteins.
Because fast reproduction, short life cycle bacteria copying itself over and over, with some slight change every time, until one such change becomes beneficial to reproduction and survival, then that change becomes dominant,
- Bacteria =/= virus. Viruses are parasitic organisms, they are not self-sustainable. As to your fantastic conjecture, cyanobacteria has been going on since 3.5 billion years ago, that's 120 trillion generations, & they are still cyanobacteria. You gotta let go of the infinite monkey myth, that with enough time anything that could happen will happen. That's not reality. Conflating observable changes in hereditary prominence & genetic variance with the theory of evolution is a even bigger fallacy.
seems like exactly how science says evolution works.
- Just like everything else in this evolutionary failed narrative, this too is a fallacy. They use 'evolution' to mean anything & everything that moves or changes. That's an equivocation fallacy. Evolution as intended is the evolutionary theory that postulates that different species originate from a common ancestor via undirected processes, such as natural selection & random mutations. Literally nothing that has ever been observed fit this postulate. Calling any hereditary change or genetic variation or population shift 'evolution' is equivocation nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Just out of curiosity, what issue would you take with evolution being compatible with creationism?
- Regardless of the truth of Creationism, Evolution is nonsense. I have no doctrinal issue with Evolution as a concept, I have a rational issue with Evolution as a farcical theory. It's a bogus theory which relies on infinite monkey fallacy, give it enough time & every possible thing will happen; which makes it the most god-of-the-gaps theory ever imagined. If we don't know how, evolution did it.
Meaning evolution as a creative procession of events of evolving things into existence through that process? your argument may be the same perhaps but I was interested what you think about evolution being presented not as a natural process but a creative process.
- You mean Theistic Evolution? I see the notion as incoherent & unattainable. One: Creationism, as I understand it, undermines the creative omnipotence of God. God creates all things, that He brings into existence from non-existence. Life popping out in nature with form & function is not an act of creation. To claim that it is is squaring the circle. You can not bring into being things which essentially are. Two: Theistic Evolution does not sprout in a vacuum, it entails a doctrinal background. Depending on one's faith, the concept can be more or less untenable. It's harder for a Christian to reconcile the Biblical narrative with the evolutionary theory, in terms of life evolution, origin of man & age of the earth. It's not an issue for a Hindu. For a Muslim, the only contention would be the first man. Three: the idea behind the evolutionary narrative is not to seek & find truth about Life. It's rather to provide a mythological justification for the materialist, the naturist & the atheist. Anyone who knows anything about the history of this idea knows this is true. In short, Theist Evolution is a flawed idea at best.
Since we know nothing is poofed into existence, God must have a process to take nothing but energy and element and create form out of those materials. If you shun the idea that God uses evolution to generate species on earth, how do you propose that God manifests creatures into existence including the physical body we call humanoid to become what they are?
- This is a false dilemma. Because we don't have alternative explanations, therefore evolutionary theory is true! The simple answer is we don't know. In fact, we can't know. To understand transformation in matter, one must understand its parts & its whole. Without our understanding of electrons' & photons' behavior, we can never know what happens in chemical reactions & why it happens, no matter how many theories we cook up. Analogically, to understand Life, one must understand its parts & its whole. We do not yet understand the basic building blocks of Life, such as amino acids & lipids & proteins. We do not yet know how they do what they do & why they do it. Any exercise of understanding Life without this knowledge is effectively futile.
Evolution is typically assumed to be a purely materialistic process I'm aware of that....and that the study of evolution has been proposed by atheistic doofuses as a means to show there's no need for a God but honestly, I always associate intelligent processes with a Creator, hence I have no real objection with evolution as a means to create something from nothing, or form from the formless. We clearly see there is a succession of processes that are involved to manifest the existence of our universe, this would indicate the same is true for species to exist.
- First of all, God of the gaps is an absurd notion. That is, if we don't understand it, then God did it. As if, if we do understand it, then God didn't do it. God's power is absolute; our understanding of something does not make God contingent on it. That's absurd. Second of all, we actually have proper solid theories about the development of our universe, which stems from our deep understanding of its parts (particles) & its whole (spacetime), without which we will never be able to achieve that. This is simply not the case for Life. Evolution is to Life what Astrology is to the Cosmos, bogus hodgepodge born from a conspiratorial perception of biodiversity where they see connections where there are none, for deep lack of sufficient knowledge. Third of all, Creator this & that has got nothing to with understanding the world. The very act of looking for explanations of natural phenomenon assumes there is always an explanation to find, thus an ultimate explanation. We can not put God in the process, as if our faith diminishes otherwise. God is, God created. We just do our part in attempting to understand His creation.
Then again, I'm not a Biblical literalist so the creation story in Genesis is not what I consider a literal event. Just know I'm not presenting this as an argument to your position, I'm just willing to hear what you have to say on the matter.
- My position is very simple: the evolutionary narrative is a mythological literary story with no basis in reality, made to look like a scientific theory with a consistent amount of lies & an abundant amount of fanaticism. I truly looked into this theory with sincerity to believe in it, but it ended up becoming the biggest joke I seen in my life, it's unbelievable how nonsensical it is. Bottom line, evolutionary theory makes big claims, yet it is totes unverified, predicts a duck, with unheard-of accuracy -literally. It's the biggest begging the question plot ever conceived by man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
What are theists's honest opinion on atheists, vice versa?
- We don't see it that way in my tradition. Non-religious can be said to be among:
Those who deny the temporal & the spiritual & the moral, the sophists (sofstai)
Those who confirm the temporal but deny the spiritual & the moral, the naturists (tabi'i)
Those who deny the temporal but confirm the spiritual & the moral, the esoterists (hashishi)
Those who confirm the temporal deny the spiritual but confirm the moral, the temporalists (dahri)
Those who confirm the temporal & the spiritual but deny the moral, the deists (ilahi)
Those who confirm the temporal & the spiritual & the moral, the sabians (sabia)
- Atheism is not disbelieve in God, it's rather belief in Nature. Denying God is as a matter of course denying the moral, rational & spiritual belief system contingent on God, in favor of another belief system contingent on Nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I think BrotherDThomas is funny.
- LMAO! He actually is pretty entertaining.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Pretty sure the guy isn't serious. You can't let the trolls get under your skin.
- It's for fun. I like debating, especially the loud ones... Whatever happened to that evolution debate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
yeah we know his tactics, hes an atheist btw
- He has to be, no Christian actually says what he says! Good to know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Evolution is the most well supported scientific theory that exists, with the most well tested and validated predictions out of any scientific theory that currently exists.
- Of course that's outright false. By design, literally every theory in the fields of Physics, Astronomy, Chemistry & the likes is better supported, better tested, better validated & more predictive. The best scientific theories are actually Quantum Theory & General Relativity, but I digress. I know the Evolutionary Theory is not validated, predicts nothing & has no accuracy. But you may help me see otherwise. Show me how evolutionary theory is predictive & accurate.
In terms of beliefs, there are really three types of people:Those that have concluded that evolution is the best explanation of life as we see it, those who don’t understand evolution, and those who refuse to be honest about evolution.
- All these types are in effect one & the same. Instead of being all religious, you can instead provide proofs & evidence to support the theory. Ad populum is a fallacious argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
The hijab debate mentioned I have never seen before. As well as many others. Yassine is offering many unique topics I would love to see debated
- Which topics? You can start by trying yourself you know...
Why do muslims always say this. Does preserved have a special meaning to you?
- Good question. As a matter of fact, the legitimacy of the Quran itself rests on its preservation, Allah says: "It is certainly We Who have revealed the Reminder [Quran], and it is certainly We Who will preserve it." (15:9). In the Hadith, Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) said the Quran will only cease with the disappearance of Islam & Muslims. If it turns out that the Quran is not preserved as vowed, it would cast a serious doubt on its truth. At the very least, this would transform the significance of the text from contextual understanding to metaphorical one -just like what happened with the Bible. Thus, undermining 1400 years of Islamic tradition. Conversely, the preservation of the text constitute a solid ground for the Muslim's faith, that God promised to preserve the Quran, & so it is.
I don't think anyone really denies it is perfectly preserved. When I say preserved I mean every word is written by Muhammed and that it has not been altered in any way.
- I would actually say proving the opposite is impossible. In fact, I would state that as long as there are Muslims the Quran will be perfectly preserved. Maybe I'll create a debate topic for that.
Doesn't everyone already agree that the Quran is perfectly preserved?
- Less than you think, especially among Christians & revisionists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Natural selection has been scientific consensus for about 100 years.
- False. Rather, for about 1200 years. Natural selection is an observable fact. Evolutionary descent of varying species from a common ancestor via natural selection, however, is not.
It’s not worth it.
- No. It's not within your ability.
I’m unable to give you research which supports evolution?You’re a real bright one aren’t you.
- Give me one argument that supports evolution, just one. I'm not asking for much.
So which work are you referring to?
- You're digressing.
Doctrine is belief, while evolution is fact.
- Evolution is a doctrine to you though. If you had proof for the truth of evolutionary theory you've have already brought it.
Ignorant people don’t offend me. Maybe if you knew more about evolution than me I’ll get offended.
- It's tough when you don't know enough about a subject to think you know.
I just need to understand your positions first.
- Do you understand yours?
What would be the point?
- So you'd rather waste your time dodging back & forth instead of showing proof to support your case.
Evolution by natural selection has been a scientific consensus for about 100 years.
- One, that's false. Two, the actual postulate of the theory itself has changed at least 5 times in that period, discarding old postulates with every new one; & the latest one is about to get the boot soon as well. It's not the same theory anymore when its formulation changes, even if under the same name. Three, *most* things that have been a scientific consensus at some point are not anymore. Finally, why are you talking like a religious person, "the priests said it". If you believe there are proofs & evidence for this, why can't you use you own words to prove it instead of "they said so".
That inheritable mutations are only limited by whether an organism reproduces its genotype?
- Debating: that Evolutionary Theory is a plausible, verifiable, predictive & accurate scientific theory.
How so?
- Evolutionary theory is unverified, predicts nothing & is has no accuracy.
Alright so you’ve moved from the profession(s) of chemistry to the field of chemistry in general.
- You have it backwards. I said: "Our understanding of biology stems from our understanding of chemistry, which stems from our understanding of physics, which stems from our understanding of quantum theory." to which you responded: "No, our understanding doesn’t."... Case in point.
It gave us a true understanding of the world and a framework which lets us fight diseases.
- That's false. Show me one single way or one single example Evolution helps us fight diseases, such that without it we wouldn't have been able to. The floor is yours.
How do they do it?
- Different species have different DNAs. DNA sequencing is used to determine the base pairs of the genome. Genome size can vary a lot between species, up to 200 times the size of the human genome (3 billion). The genome is sequenced into chapters, sentences & words, to determine genes, particularly protein genes (from coding DNA). Each gene can be copied to create various types of proteins responsible for different functions in the cell. The way DNA tests work is they check for snips (SNP) in the DNA sequence, which are known variants, to determine a person's hereditary traits. These variants, however, occupy a very tiny part of DNA (the order of 0.01%), the rest is identical. It's expected to see 1/2 of DNA from each parent, so when the tested DNA (of that 0.01%) alines with the reference sample, they know it's a match. The further back you go in lineage, the more recombinations are expected (within that 0.01%).
- This is impossible to do with different species, for they have different DNA. After DNA sequencing, the comparison of DNA from a human & another species works by juxtaposing the two together, contrasting the similar parts & discarding the rest. Between a human & a chimp for, for instance, 30% of the DNA are incomparable. Then comes the phase of comparing genes, especially protein coding genes, to figure out the difference in functionality between a human cell & another species's.
What do you mean?
- Let's debate this & you can show everyone I'm wrong.
What is the real science?
- Not evolutionary mythology.
- Showing that the postulate of the Evolutionary Theory is actually scientific. In fact, let's have a debate aboutThe postulate of any scientific theory is not science on its own. What other ones do you have?
- Wut...?! Is that a concession I'm seeing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@TheUnderdog
- I'm not Turk, though I live in Turkey. That Hagia Sophie comeback was deep.
Greece versus Turkey is the best rivalry yet. Turkish people are honestly really nice, but fuck Turkey the country.
- I do think Greeks & Turks are some of the most successful & influential races in human history. Their combination under Ottoman rule brought that to even more fruition. Until the Colonialists got involved inciting the Greeks (& everyone else) against Turks & Muslims under religious pretensions -after 5 centuries of peace & stability, like they did everywhere else in the world, sew hate, divide & conquer. Western powers cared nothing for Greeks, they just wanted to bring the Ottomans down. Greeks need to separate themselves from this horrible western sphere of influence, & come back to the mediterranean & middle eastern sphere. Greece shares very little history with western Europe & much with the Middle East & Mediterranean.
The amount of scummy shit they did in their history and still do is so pathetic.
- When Turks conquered Greece they didn't massacre anyone. On the contrary, they gave them autonomy & reinstated their exiled patriarch back to Constantinople (before it was turned into Istanbul). When the Greeks had the chance to take over they massacred the Turks (Muslims) & purged them out of their homes, decimating their villages, mosques & schools... an estimated 5.5 million Muslims were killed & 5 million were expelled. Though, I primarily blame the despicable western powers for inciting this. If you're talking about secular Turkey, under the Young Turks & then under Ataturk, then yes, they did terrible things, after they adopted western horrible ideologies.
It's not a fucking mosque, it's an Orthodox Church
- Give back the hundreds of mosques in Greece which you turned into barns & bars & rubble, & I'm sure Turkey will be happy to give you Hagia Sophia.
Created:
Posted in:
- To the dude named @BrotherDThomas who keeps harassing me with his poke-&-run tactics, the type of dude that runs away from debate, yet on his way out he turns & screams "you runaway" to save face & what's left of his dignity. In the spirit of fun, this is an open challenge to the Brother (the TRUE CHRISTIAN was it?) regarding the topic of Islam. He is to pick a topic of contention he wishes to argue, if I disagree we shall thus set up a debate with the appropriate rules & resolution.
Good luck to you Brother.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Yassine, the runaway Muslim,YOUR RUNAWAY QUOTE ONCE AGAIN BECAUSE YOU ARE SCARED?!!!: “So you've decided to debate me? Which topic?”H-E-L-L-O? I decided to debate you 6 posts ago as shown in the links below you runaway follower of Allah, the pedophile prophet and woman abuser, where the topic ONCE AGAIN for the 4th time is your Satanic faith of Islam, can you read my posts or not?!!
- Blahblahblahblahblah.... Which topic exactly? Let's set up a resolution.
ONCE AGAIN, do you want me to give you your impending bloodbath in your thread of “ Who's in for some fun challenges,” or do you want me to create a thread about your Satanic faith of Islam and go from there, YOU CHOOSE! Either way, when I am done with you, you will have to change your moniker to save further embarrassment within this forum! LOL. Furthermore, I suggest that you stock up on this item because you are going to need them while in discussion with me of your Satanic faith: https://www.walmart.com/ip/Depend-Fit-Flex-Men-s-Maximum-Incontinence-Underwear-L-Grey-52-Count/537399246Now, do you have the “cojones,” or will you represent what the following link presents you to be? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI7ni7zL8qU
- Did I just read a shameless ad for underwear! Very clever @BrotherDThomas
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YASSINE, the RUNAWAY Muslim from debate,!!!! NEWSFLASH DEBATEART !!!!The hell bound weak-minded Muslim named YASSINE has now RUN AWAY from discussion of his Satanic faith of Islam with me "EIGHT TIMES" now as shown in the embarrassing links relative to this Muslim fool below!!!!1. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6309-whos-in-for-some-fun-challenges?page=5&post_number=1162. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6309-whos-in-for-some-fun-challenges?page=6&post_number=1363. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6309-whos-in-for-some-fun-challenges?page=6&post_number=1394. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6309-whos-in-for-some-fun-challenges?page=6&post_number=142To the DEBATEART Religion Forum members,Jesus and I suggest that when YASSINE stated he wanted to debate aspects of his Satanic religion, it was all a ruse because he is too wimpy to perform this act and continues to RUN AWAY from Jesus and I, where as shown, he could no more debate Islam than TRADESECRET and FAUXLAW could debate Christianity as I have easily shown here at DEBATEART!!! LOLYASSINE = FAKE RUNAWAY FROM DEBATE MUSLIM!NEXT?
- Are you trying to overcompensate for something...? Or is this your new trick of running from an actual debate so you don't lose face?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
This is basic knowledge. This should be an axiomatic concept in the modern world.It’s like talking to a Flat Earther.
- Huh... it's axiomatic, I didn't even know! You're very funny... Who told you that? Or did you invent this on your own?
We’re more closely related to other apes than monkeys but yeah modern monkeys are distant cousins in the primate family.
- Blahblahblah... you got proof?
I’m treating you how I would treat a Flat Earther. You’re not special.
- Wow! Smoking gun argument right here boys! This is merely a display of your absolute inability to produce any proof or evidence whatsoever.
It’s not worth the try.
- Because you're unable to.
’others’ work who also know evolution has and does occur.
- Wishful thinking much!
They’re claims to you.
- & doctrines to you, yes.
Yes, because you’re the arbiter of what’s true. Get off your over-inflated high horse.
- You get off your high unicorn. Do you expect others to believe you just because you say so?! You claim Evolution to be a fact when you can't even produce proof for the case, then you get offended because people don't believe you!!!
Like I said, this isn’t an argument.
- You're right it isn't. Still waiting for one though.
I don’t have expertise in anything. Go back, read what you said, and then read the link.
- Case in point.
Like I said, willful ignorance is a challenge. And I’m trying to better understand.
- Why are you wasting your time dodging & eluding, when you can just provide a single proof for evolution & be done with it.
No, you’re a human.
- LOL! Clever.
You keep on denying fact and you say “they” are lying to me. Who exactly? The Jews?
- I assume you got this false information you imagine to be fact from somewhere, 'they' = your sources. Unless you invented this yourself.
Yeah, Muslim ones.
- Yeah, missed.
Evade what?
- Actually providing proof. Why don't we have a debate about this? You can show everyone all the axiomatic facts.
Well best of luck.
- Thank you. You as well.
“An observable fact is not Science.” So you don’t believe science?
- An observable fact is not Science. Science is the study of observable facts to reveal explanations thereof.
How is it unscientific? Are you saying it’s factual?
- Clever! Unscientific as in, not the following: 'plausible, simple, verifiable, falsifiable, consistent & accurate', which it obviously isn't.
You had no case. It isn’t a strict rule for chemists to understand quantum physics.
- No. But the field of Chemistry rests on Quantum foundations.
Modern humans have only been around for about 300,000 years. Do the math.
- I don't see the part where the Theory of Evolution made useful contributions? So much back & forth & you can't find one useful thing the theory of Evolution brought us!
- Is this your new 'get out of evidence free' card trick?For wilfully ignorant Muslims.
- Glad you're admitting that.
“Ludicrous” things that contradict your Islamic beliefs? Why are they ludicrous but also not nonsense?
- Not even nonsense = when you can't qualify the nonsensicalness of something for being too senseless. You seem to imagine that they take DNA samples from jellyfish & elephants & monkeys & conduct genealogical DNA tests to figure out the ancestry like 23andMe right? Yeah, that's not a thing!
hmmmm nah, I still doubt it.
- Your inability to produce proof is because of your fear that I may not believe in Evolution...? Isn't that just so convenient!
Just imagine them as distant cousins and that Allah did it.
- I leave the imagination part to the evolutionationists. I'll stick with real science.
Good luck with what?
- Showing that the postulate of the Evolutionary Theory is actually scientific. In fact, let's have a debate about this.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
- I'm glad to see others interested in this like I am. Though, it is strange that you're using nominal GDP figures to compare the economic & industrial size of countries! Nominal GDP is market exchange rate based (FOREX), it doesn't say much about domestic production & industrial output. In this case, real GDP, which is based on purchasing power parity, is generally used instead. Take a house in the US that costs $250k, the same exact house in Turkey will cost $70k because of exchange rates (XR). Nominal GDP is also not reliable because currencies are often volatile. The UK lost a fifth of its nominal GDP over night after Brexit announcement, even though its economy was the same. The Russian rubble depreciated more than 5000 times against the USD during the period 1990-1997, that does not mean the Russian economy fell 5000 times... Nonetheless, nominal GDP is a good measure to emphasis:
1. Projection of power: the higher the XR, the easier it is to project power (if all else is equal).
2. Dependence on imports: the higher the XR, the lower is your foreign bill. Higher XR is important for countries which rely on foreign sources of energy.
3. Competitiveness in exports: the lower the XR, the more competitive your exports are, i.e. the cheaper your goods are in the global market. Lower XR is vital to economies relying on exports.
4. Default on foreign debt: the higher the XR, the easier it is to pay foreign debt. Higher XR is critical for countries with a lot of foreign debt.
5. FDI (foreign direct investment): the lower the XR, the more benefits one reaps. Lower XR + FDI is a recipe for great potential. For example, with a PPP exchange rate of 3x, the same amount of FDI will get you three bridges instead of one. That's a great deal.
- In general, maintaining higher XR is most beneficial for developed nations, because they heavily rely on foreign resources & imported cheap goods, & their economies are mainly driven my domestic consumption & less by exports, it also makes it easier for their companies to invest abroad. Contrastingly, developing nations prefer maintaining a lower XR, to become more competitive in the global market & to maximize benefit from FDI. The wealthier a nation, the more consumptive & thus less relying on exports, hence the higher its XR. In this respect, for a developed nation, significantly devaluing the currency is virtually suicide. & for a developing nation, deflating their currency to USD level would simple cripple growth. Having a high nominal GDP does not necessarily mean having the best position, the contrary is often the case, unless it's about projection of power. Developing nations, however, care less for projection of power & more for growth. China is notorious for managing ("manipulating") its currency to maintain global market share. Turkey is constantly inflating its currency to boost exports & hog market shares, which hit new records every single year. As long as this formula keeps working they will keep on it.
- Real GDP is the measure of domestic economic output based on purchasing power parity rates. For instance, domestically speaking, what just $1 gets you in Turkey, $3.7 gets you in the US. These currency rates are calculated based on purchasing power, rather than market exchange. To compare economic output, domestic consumption, inflation rates, income or GDP growth, we must use real GDP.
Not true, the Islamic World's nominal GDP currently stands at a grand total of $6.25 trillion dollars, spread over a population of 1.6 billion people. For comparison India, which has an approximately similar sized population to the Islamic world (1.3 billion), has an economy worth $2.45 trillion dollars.
- Despite the fact that the figures are outdated, nominal GDP is misleading, it doesn't say anything about the actual size of the economy of these countries. The USD & EUR being global reserve currencies radically skew exchange rates. In truth, as of 2020 (in 2010 constant USD adjusted for inflation) real GDP of the OIC stood at $22.4T, the US at $20.5T, the EU at $18.4T, China at $28T, & India at $11.5T, & Japan at $5.5T, spread over a population of 1.97B, & .33B, & .45B, & 1.44B, & 1.38B, & .13 -respectively; thus an average income of $11.4k, & $62.8k, & $41.0k, & $19.5k, & $8.2, & $43.7k -respectively; with a real industrial output (using 2019 figures) of $7.8T, & $4.1T, & $4.6T, & $10.9T, & $2.8T, & $1.7T -respectively, & a scientific (S&E) output (2019 scjmr figures) of 328k, & 503k, & 765k, & 641k, & 162k, & 122k documents -respectively.
Much of the Muslim world still lags behind countries such as Japan ($4.8 trillion dollars) and the United States ($18.6 trillion dollars)
- One, the OIC countries, aka Muslim world, are quite heterogenous, with vastly different levels of wealth & development. From some of the richest to some to the poorest in the world. Qatar boasted an average income of $121k in 2020, Turkey registered a $30.6k value, while in Niger it's less than $1.5k. Two, it's not about lag, it's about growth. Most countries in the Muslim world today are experiencing an 'economic boom', the type sustained by western countries post WWII, only more intense. It took the last 42 years for the EU economy to double in size & 33 years for the US, but only 17 years for the OIC. [it took just 13 years for China]
however, who have much smaller populations (127 million; 323 million respectively) but are highly industrialised,
- That's not true anymore for western countries, which are deindustrializing -with the exception of few. Between the period 2000-2020, France's industrial sector shrunk from $530B down to $490B, while Turkey's industrial sector grew from $250B up to $700B in the same period -under Erdogan. In fact, Turkey consumes 25% more energy in industry than France. Developed nations have been shifting their economies away from Industry into Services. Malaysia's industrial output per capita ($12.7k, 2019 figures) is actually higher than that of the US ($12.6), & the gap will only widen in the future. Turkey's ($8.4k) is higher than that in France or the UK ($8.1k).
as well place a particular emphasis on science.
- Scientific output in the OIC grew 13 times in the last 20 years (15 times for China), whereas it has stagnated in the West. There were more publications by the US in 2012 than there were in 2019. That, knowing that at least half the researchers in S&E in the US or in Europe are foreigners, mainly from China, India, Korea & the Muslim world. Particularly, about a fifth of PhDs in the US & Europe originate in Muslim countries. Since 2017, the number of PhDs choosing to stay in the US has been dropping. It's becoming increasingly less compelling for students to migrate for education when they can find it in their home country. Given this progress, it's only a matter of time that the OIC countries will surpass the US & the EU in scientific publications. From a perspective of provenance (counting only native research), that's almost already the case.
Additionally China's current economy is worth $11.8 trillion dollars (with a population of 1.41 billion.
- These figures are old. China is a special case, for its RMB has not yet been freely traded. The country holds more than $3T of USD in reserve currency & other assets, that's close to a third of circulated USD. If the RMB hits the market it will likely lead to a significant drop in USD value across the board. In that event, the nominal GDP of China will inevitably skyrocket to match real GDP ($28T), or rather the USD will depreciate. This, of course, is not beneficial to China, because they don't want their goods to rise in value & lose market share. Their economy still relies on exports, but they are moving fast towards a consumerist economy. When China feels comfortable about its consumption based economy, it will have no problem dropping the dollar.
Progress, however, is more rapid in some countries than others; for example Indonesia (population 261 million) became the first country in the Islamic world to surpass the trillion dollar mark in 2017
- In nominal terms, yes. In real terms, the GDP is $3.8T to surpass Germany & Russia to become 5th in the next couple of years, though it has already surpassed them in industrial output. Indonesia has also experienced one of the fastest burst of scientific publications in the world, increasing 70 times over the past 20 years. Within a decade, Indonesia will have a population roughly that of the US. Given the economic boom that has been taking over the country, Indonesia could very well become a US rival not too long in the future.
, with Turkey closely behind at almost achieving this target (which currently stands at $841.2 billion dollars).
- This is a good example why nominal GDP is deceptive. Turkey registered a $958B nominal GDP in 2013 & $720B in 2020 (in current USD), when in reality its economy expanded by 53% during that period. In real terms, Turkey's 2020 GDP stood at $2.62T, at rank 11, surpassing thus Italy ($2.26T) & Mexico ($2.48T) & closing in on France ($2.88T). If Turkey decides to raise interests, the Turkish Lira will naturally appreciate significantly. So far, that't not the policy they chose.
Malaysia too is a laudable case, which is set to reach a nominal GDP of $500 billion dollars by 2022, with a population of only 34.2 million people.
- In real terms, Malaysia's GDP (in 2010 constant USD adjusted for inflation) is $1.09T, not too far from Australia's $1.29T. Malaysia started its economic boom in the 90s from a poor agricultural nation, & it's still growing. Indeed impressive.
Significantly, these more advanced Muslim economies are not solely oil-based economies (with the exception of Saudi Arabia; $678 billion dollars and with a population of 32.4 million), but have rapidly been expanding in economic complexity over the years.
- Indeed, that is true.
Perhaps far more exciting is that the macroeconomic trends show the Islamic world will accrue a total nominal GDP wealth of $8.85 trillion dollars by 2022 (representing an average growth rate of 7% to 2022).
- Given the current trend, the Muslim world should surpass the Western world in terms of economic & scientific output by 2040.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
So you have... .a bunch of claims? Most of which are refuted by the exact data your trying to argue against? I see I don't need to waste my time - you are a liar - no need to spend more time on you.
- Isn't this exhilarating! The fact that you think I'm lying is proof enough of the mythos-like nature of the evolutionary narrative. They have to lie to get their believers to follow them. When I said most things they teach you about Evolution in high school are actually not true -according to the evolutionary narrative itself- I perfectly meant that. Don't take my word for it. Pick a story they taught you, say the famous finches story & speciation, then do your own fact checking. You will find what I said to be true. What they teach you in text books & what you find in the actual publications are vastly different things.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
So I guess that's a no then. You have none - not even one example and just make wild claims. I was actually hoping you might have substance to your nonsense.
- The western society of today is actually virtually identical to other & past societies. LMAO!
Sorry - not solid logic. the word lawful means legal. Polygamy is wrong in my opinion.
- Your logic aside, what do you hold the opinion that polygamy is wrong.
That does not even make sense. You seem to misunderstand the law of non-contradiction.
- It does not make sense indeed; case in point.
However if you think that is what I have said - please express it so.
- Already did, maybe you've missed it. Try squinting.
yassine - to have more than one wife is to commit adultery or unfaithfulness against the first wife.
- Friend, adultery = extramarital intercourse. Lawful polygamy, by definition, can not coincide with adultery. Saying marital-extramarital intercourse is squaring the circle...
Adultery is prevalent everywhere. You should speak to the Muslim families I know - where children dislike their father who has two separate families. One of my closest friends left Indonesia to come to PNG - because her father favored her half siblings from his second wife.
- Are you PNG then? Regardless, a proof by example is a logical fallacy. I can cite dozens of thousands of examples from the US of similar stories. The fact is, polygamous relationships (multiple partners) are far more prevalent in the West than elsewhere. In Europe, more than a third of spouses have extramarital relationships. Makes you wonder how bad the situation is for non-spouses...
Unlike you, I accept that the Muslim world has done bad things - but I also acknowledge the West has too.
- False equivalence. You only saying that because you don't know history. I know much of Islamic history, & a good part of Western history. Whatever bad things the Islamic world may have done, the Western world has eclipsed by orders of magnitude -strictly speaking. Pick a history book, you will vomit from disgust. If you believe the Muslim world has committed comparable things to the Western world, then let's have a debate about that.
You seem to think that the West deny their evils. You obviously don't know too many Westerners. Or if you do - you just reject their views.
- First of all, there will always be voices from all sides of the spectrum. The predominant voices, however, are always dictated by power. In today's West, the imperious power is still in control, thus the voice of hegemony & denial dominates. Second of all, most individual westerns know very little about their history, especially the undesirable parts. It's an imperative policy of education in the West to teach civil values & national narrative. Do you think they teach French atrocities to the French people at school or academia? No. Their major focus is in vilifying their made up enemies to facilitate invasions & massacres.
I am not American.
- Why are defending them?
No it is not a drop in the bucket. There were more people killed in the 20th century than in the rest of human history.
- One, that's actually not true. Close though. Two, wether pre-20th century or post-20th century, the West has managed to hog more than 50% of the death toll. If we go by Western ideology, including Communism & nationalism... the figure will jump close to 70%. Three, of course it's a drop in a bucket, we are speaking of an order of magnitude of difference. We are talking about +550 million deaths in the past 1000 years from wars instigated by the West & Christians.
You need to read some more history - try reading something at all - would be nice.
- You should take your own advice, you direly need it.
Islam is a religion of violence.
- & the Earth is flat.
It advocates full submission or beheading by its fundamentalists. Fundamentalists who make up the majority of Islamists.
- Can you be more cliche?! Let's have a debate about that. You're already on your way to having your first round.
The minority which are nominal do not understand Islam
- Islam is the religion of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), & his legacy are the Ulama. We take our religion from the Ulama, not from whoever.
- like the majority of Christians who are also nominal do not understand their religion.
- Take it up with them.
I think the better recourse would be to use what I call victim's rights.
- Which is...?
do you mean wives not submitting or being disobedient?
- Sounds like you got something to say?
Where is America? America does have a minimum age for marriage.
- Things don't just magically become true when you spout them out of your mouth!
And if someone wishes to get married prior to that age - they need the consent of the court. If you have different information post the links.
- You're confusing minimum age with age of majority. Several states in the US do *not* have a minimum age, that's a fact. Some that do, have it as low as 12. Court permission, parental consent, pregnancy, majority, emancipation...etc, are legal considerations.
If you don't post links - then you have nothing.
- You're inventing new fallacies, post-links fallacy..
Muhammed was a pedophile. He ought to be canceled.
- Childish. Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) contributed most to humanity & the world, spread peace & justice, taught mercy & forgiveness, he is adored & emulated by 2 billion people today, & will be adored until the end of time. In 4 decades, the Muslim world will comprise 40% of global population.
I do know my history.
- Sure you do.
Are you saying consensual marriage is good or arranged marriages are good? It appears you have contradicted yourself again.
- Arranged marriages are consensual marriages... Arranged marriages are *not* forced marriages as you seem to imagine. They are consensual marriages arranged by families & friends, by way of matchmaking.
I think you are confusing Arab history with Arab history.
- Easy to confuse, given they are literally the same thing. Or, typo?
There is no god. So you agree - the father is the one who has to fulfill the role of boss over everyone else. Talk about a copout.
- Does it make you feel better to convince yourself with your own delusions?
If there are forced marriages in US - then they are illegal.
- Yet, still prevalent. Forced marriage is illegal everywhere too.
You should report any if you know of any. Otherwise you are just getting emotional because the truth is the truth.
- The even worse issue in the West is the prevalence of sexual abuse. They replaced explicit consent, i.e. marriage, with purported consent.
A general reputation by people who are envious of the West is not necessarily the most reliable measure of the truth.
- Lmao! It's always the same old tricks. No creativity. "they are envious of us", "they hate our democracy", to save themselves from blame, when they have no other defense. Where do you live? You seem utterly detached from the reality of the world.
I think a better method is - by watching how many people vote with their feet. More people come to the West every year from the rest of the world than go to the rest of the world from the West. Why? Because despite its obvious shortfalls - it is preferable than staying in the rest of the world.
- No, they move from the places the West pillaged, invaded & destroyed to expand their own wealth & hegemony...
They are not legal. Stop making things up. telling such transparent lies is embarrassing for you.
- Umm... wut? Do you live under a rock or something?
Is that what your Muslim leader teach you? TO lie - because it is good to speak good of Islam no matter how evil it is. yassine - the ends do not justify the means.
- You're projecting again.
No not propaganda. I am not American either. I don't have to be told - I see it all of the time with my own eyes.
- It's hard to perceive the propaganda when you get raised in it.
You really are indoctrinated aren't you? Think about what you are saying. Imagine if any of the arab nations could have tax evasion of so much money? They could not because their systems are so bad.
- Is this another jab at the law of non-contradiction...? So, let me get this straight, Arab nations could not have such large tax evasion as the US because their system is so corrupt that it does not allow as much corruption as the US system does... I'm seriously beginning to think you have some cognitive thing going on there, you don't think things through, & you end up imagining the opposite of what is the case.
the one who is delusional is you. I already said Western nations use bribes in non-western nations where bribing is expected. Go to Ukraine. Go to Bangladesh. Go to Indonesia or Maylasia. Bribing is expected to get anything done.
- That's actually not true. You have such a ghetto view of the world, yet such a rosy fantastic image of the West. You talk about petty bribery, I am talking about a global scamming power that invades, threatens, extorts & use any means necessary to gain in its zero sum game. This reminds of a quote from Perkins in his book Confessions of an Economic Hitman, "Economic hit men are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the US Agency for International Development and other foreign "aid" organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet's natural resources. Their tools included fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization."
If this was done in PNG or Australia you would get thrown in prison.
- I can guess where you're coming from. This is childish nonsense.
China is rising.
- Yes, & so is Indonesia & Turkey & Malaysia & Muslim countries in general. The OIC countries (Muslim majority countries) have already surpassed the US & the EU in GDP, with an industrial output almost the combined output of the US & the EU. Indonesia's industrial sector is larger than that of Germany & Russia, & almost the size of Japan's. The economic miracle the West experienced post-WWII is happening today to the Muslim world, except with faster growing population & economy. In 1950, Germany had more people than Indonesia, by 2050 Indonesia will have more than 6 times the population of Germany. Western countries will soon be eclipsed, that's simply inevitable.
The only thing that shocks me is how gullible you are - you really believe the propaganda they teach you.
- You have yet to say a sensible thing.
I am good with the truth. But I am not confident you are.
- Then you should be confident about defending your claims in a debate. How about this: 'Islam is a religion of violence?'
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
You should give some examples. Not just make wild claims.
- I would have to write an encyclopedia, but this is a simple exercise. Take the practices of the Western society today & compare it to human society across history. Then realize there has never been a more extreme society in human history.
You speak with a forked tongue. Polygamy is illegal in the West. If it unlawful - then it is illegal.
- Umm... You're contradicting yourself! Lawful polygamy is illegal & its opposite, unlawful polygamy, is illegal too...!! Solid logic!
The only practicing polygamists I know are Muslims who try and get around the law by having one real marriage and other de-facto - Muslim weddings.
- Yet, more contradictions! Muslims are the only polygamists by doing the same thing supposed non-polygamists do, having one legal relationship plus other extra-legal?! The law of non-contradiction is having a seizure.
Hence, all polygamists are adulterers.
- Even more contradictions! A polygamist in a legal marriage & in another relationship is committing extramarital intercourse (adultery), yet a polygamist in a legal marriage & an extra-legal one is also committing marital-extramarital intercourse!? Are you waging war on the law of non-contradiction...
In any event, the same occurs in every culture. People commit adultery.
- "they do it too", right? Nah, wishful thinking. Adultery is particularly prevalent in western countries, they top the list like champions. Regardless, lawful (& unlawful) polygamous relationships are -respectively- consensual (& non-consensual) multi-partner relationships; the latter being predominant in western societies. One main difference between Islamic (lawful) polygamous relationships & western (unlawful) ones is that in the Islamic relationship all partners share equal rights & dues -& by extensions all the children, whereas in the West the relationship is non-consensual & one wife gets all the rights (& her children) when the other partners get no legal rights.
Yes, so you say. But the West do not behead people.
- They just bomb them, burn them, dismember them, massacre them, shoot them, gas them, torture them, eat them... It's always shocking how westerners, especially Americans, are so detached from the world & their own history.
You seem to have missed China's mass cultural genocides. You seem to have missed Russia's mass murders. You seem to have missed Cambodia and places in the East.
- First of all, this is a drop in a bucket in Western killings, in both scale & scope. Second of all, these deaths are natively instigated, the Chinese will quickly forget what Chinese have done to themselves, but they will never forget what others have done to them. This isn't the case for Western killings, others will not forget what the West has done to them. Third of all, it was not until these countries (particularly Japan) adopted Western ideologies (like Nationalist & Communism) that they displayed the grandest show of violence in their history.
Islam is a religion of violence.
- That's the typical attitude. Reminds me of when the French went into North Africa, they massacred a 1/3rd of the population, burning entire villages with their people, while calling their victims violent. You're projecting. Today, one of the most violent countries in the world is the US, they can't help projecting that blame onto others to feel better about themselves.
Cutting of a hand for theft is violence.
- Killing off someone for murder is violence. Your logic is top notch. Execution or severing the hand for capital crime is a punishment, which is, by definition, cruel.
Beating your wife for disobedience or not submitting is violence.
- You gotta get on top of that, it's getting out of control in the West.
Again, I never said the West did not have problems, but Islam has always had problems in this area.
- You have wild imaginations. Many states in the US have no minimum age of marriage -there are +300k child marriages in country. In fact, less than a century ago, the age of consent in the US was 10 years, down to 7 years (such as in Delaware).
Your founder is one of history's most scary people who committed this evilness.
- The founder of Islam Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) was the greatest human being who brought justice & mercy to the world, to establish peace, honor women, end racism, spread freedom of religion & equity among all; & his wife Aisha is the most influential woman in Islam. You're conflating the great Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) with your bloody founders.
By pointing the finger - you have three pointing back at yourself. The West did not invent these things. They were around a long time before the West came into existence.
- It's just that you don't know your history. Consensual marriage in the West comes from Islam, through Andalusia -thanks to Prophet Muhammed (pbuh). Pre-12th century, the Church did not establish consensual marriage, & that still persisted in the West until late 19th century. Divorce was also forbidden, subjecting women to essentially life-imprisonment. This didn't change until mid-20th century, after so much pressure from within to be like Muslims. Again, thanks to Prophet Muhammed (pbuh). Though, to be fair, the West is not the only culpable in this case, India as well. Women didn't have property rights in the West until the 20th century. In fact, in France it was until 1939. Muslim women had full property rights since day one, of course thanks to Prophet Muhammed (pbuh). I can go on & on & on...
The father is the head of the house. Do you deny it? The eldest brother rules. Do you deny it?
- No, God is the head of the family & of society in general. The man performs his role in society fulfilling his duties as a father, a husband, a son, a neighbor, an employee, a tenant, a friend...etc. Every connection a person has with another entails a role, with rights & dues.
Forcing people to marry other people - a breach of fundamental human rights. Not permitting a freedom of choice in such an important decision.
- Damn! You don't know anything do you!? Arranged marriage = forced marriage. Though, forced marriages are prevalent in the US as well, most states do not prohibit it.
Incest - pedaphilia. Who prefers these things? Not the West.
- Lmao! I guess you don't know. That's the general reputation the West has elsewhere. We can see the news; sex-tourism is dominated by westerners... You know the age of consent in Mexico is 12 years old... You can do the math.
This is why we have laws against such things and why the community is so outraged against the Catholic church for its public role in such things.
- That's not true. Incest, zoophilia... are legal in much of the West.
The West is based on contracts and a legal system which for the most part is transparent.
- That's propaganda. You keep forgetting I'm not American, this mantra means nothing to me. They keep telling you this day & night. It doesn't mean it's necessarily the case. Every state has PR.
Muslim nations, like Indonesia and in the East conduct hearings based on a handshake, on bribe systems, on family self interest.
- America is a rich country, handshake bribes are not worth the risk. Bribes are in the millions & in the billions. Tax evasion in the US is upwards of ONE TRILLION USD per year. In the US corruption is legalized. A lawyer can lie under the protection of the Law & sell himself to the highest bidder. A corporation can lobby -corrupt- the government for its own interests. A pharmacologist can charge a small fortune to a low-class citizen for his profit...
Americans will use bribes in Iraq because Iraq does not recognize anything else. Yet if the Iraq went to America it would have to sign a contract.
- You're hopelessly delusional. Can't you break a little bit the stereotype!? You have backwards, Western countries use aid & bribes & various other persuasive means -offers you can not refuse, to pressure countries to cede to their interests. They have been doing this since colonial days, it has never stopped. In fact, it was US official policy to ration African countries for population control, unless they cede to American demands, because these countries do not have other options. But the world is different today, there are options. China is rising as a super power. The balance is shifting.
It would be difficult to conduct a debate with you because you are dishonest. And deny simple truths - replacing them with your own narrative.
- Did I shock you that much? You can't handle the truth?... In effect, if you're confident you have the truth, then you can just disprove my lies & establish your truths. Shouldn't be hard right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Well no - cuz' first of all - you are the one to have intially made the claim
- And you initially made the contrary claim.
furthermore - I am just describing you - you are denying science, therefore you are a science denier - pretty easy.
- Blahblah... You're a science denier for denying Eugenics, & all the other hundreds of discarded scientific discoveries... This is not a very credible start to your case!
As a scientific theory, however, which facts does evolutionary theory explain? One pivotal example is the succession in the fossil record. This evolution, namely, macroevolution, explains the larger evolutionary picture that is the appearance of the greater groups, such as the evolution of mammals, insects, and plants. Fossilized mammals are easily recognized, as they have distinct types of teeth, such as molars, canines, and incisors. These vertebrates are also very likely to fossilize on account of their rigid teeth and hard cranium. If mammals are so easily fossilized, how can we explain a rich fossil record full of vertebrates and invertebrates with no mammalian fossil before 300 million years ago?Similarly, if we dig deeper still, disclosing 500 million years old layers, we find no hard skeleton vertebrates but plenty of fossilized invertebrates in a boost of diversity that we call the Cambrian Explosion. There are no vertebrates in this explosion because vertebrates appear in a much later explosion. Digging even deeper, to 600 million years old records, we find strata with soft-bodied Ediacaran animals but no hard-shelled invertebrates and no vertebrates. In one billion years old strata, we find only single-celled organisms.How can we find, in old strata, many single celled organisms but not a single mammalian tooth? The only reasonable explanation for these facts is that 400 million years ago, mammals had not yet evolved; 500 million years ago, vertebrates had not yet evolved; 600 million years ago, hard-shelled invertebrates had not yet evolved; and one billion years ago,multicellular life had not yet evolved. Smaller local successions are also observable in the fossil record; such as the beautiful strings of intermediate fossils that include amphibians (Kustchera and Elliot, 2013), birds, whales (Thewissen, 2009), horses, and humans. These successions in the fossil record are the most obvious evidence to macroevolution (Figure 2). In fact, the entire fossil record is a set of millions of intermediate fossils that provide solid evidence of how macroevolution worked in the past billion years.
- Species from different layers evolved from each-other, why? Because there are different species in different layers, why? Because they evolved from each-other. Brilliant. Regardless of the circular nature of this whole story, an argument for possibility is not an argument for existence, "it is possible that Harry killed Oliver, therefore Harry killed Oliver" is a logical fallacy. "it is possible that evolution happened, therefore evolution happened" is a joke! Most of Evolution is actually circular.
A particularly compelling example of speciation involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin's finches. The ancestors of these finches appear to have immigrated from the South American mainland to the Galápagos. Today the different species of finches on the island have distinct habitats, diets, and behaviors, but the mechanisms involved in speciation continue to operate. A research group led by Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University has shown that a single year of drought on the islands can drive evolutionary changes in the finches. Drought diminishes supplies of easily cracked nuts but permits the survival of plants that produce larger, tougher nuts. Droughts thus favor birds with strong, wide beaks that can break these tougher seeds, producing populations of birds with these traits. The Grants have estimated that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.
- Funny bit here. All the above is a lie. Finches are all inter-fertile. They are all actually the same species under the very definition of speciation. Confused? Don't be, the evolutionationists have a story, like they always do. The finches are actually not the same species even though they interbreed, no, no... they are different species & their interbreeding & actually hybridization. Solved! Just slap a new name & a new tale on the issue & you're safe. But hold on, there is more. Hybridization is actually another path for evolution on top of speciation... wonderful! This is like saying a bulldog & a poodle are different species, who can't interbreed, but the fact that they interbreed is because they are hybridizing. Isn't this the most beautiful dog tale you've heard? Wild imaginations... I'll tell you though, the stuff they teach you about evolution in highschool is 99% bullshit, you will forget all about it once you get into the field.
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
- No such thing. We have human fossils & we have ape fossils. Nothing in between. They dropped that whole schtick a while ago. They don't say it's a human sequence anymore. That story couldn't pan out so they dropped it. The new story is the different "hominin" all have shared a common ancestor. Funnier still, the infamous Lucy being an ape and all, it had a posterior pelvis. This was of course unacceptable, how dare an ape skeleton which was supposed to be able to walk upright have a posterior pelvis like a regular ape?! The audacity!! So they brought a doctor who set it upright & invented this beautiful tale about how the pelvis was actually upright but it only looked posterior to us because the ape had a deadly accident where the bones were crushed making it posterior... true story! Oh, btw, the remains were scattered across a couple miles too.. You can't make this shit up!
Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.
- Their creative imagination ability always amazes me. So delusional!
The evolutionary, structural, and biochemical information implicates segment 85-119 as of special functional significance. The physicochemical properties and finer structural details of its conserved residues now point to a more specific function for this segment. Fourteen of its 15 conserved positions are fixed for charged and strongly hydrophobic residues (Figure 3). This mix of charged and hydrophobic residues, with their outwardly projecting side chains, predicts a second binding site for Leptin-protein interactions, which is separate from that for its receptor (Figure 2; Benner and Gerloff 1991). At least some of the six positions with NS substitutions in the stem hominoid, which are directly or indirectly related to segment 85-119, may then contribute new hydrophobic, charged, and smaller residues that may alter the secondary structure and specific binding properties of this second interaction site. For example, the conserved G118 of hominoids permits a more pronounced turn at the N terminus of this segment relative to that predicted for L118 of the other mammals. In these ways, segment 85-119 may underlie the functional differences between human and other nonhominoid Leptins (e.g., why this hormone is central to energy expenditure in mice, but apparently not in us; Mantzoros 1999; Hofbauer and Huppertz 2002).
- Yes...?
Even though you do have the Burden of Proof,
- You like just saying things don't you? You made a big claim, huuge, something about "the most verified, most accurate, and theory which has best predicted outcomes for decades".... that burden of proof is all yours to bear.
- I already provided my argument. If you didn't get it, let me write it into a simple syllogism for you:
P1. Richard Dawkins is most knowledgeable of Evolutionary Theory. [fact]
P2. Richard Dawkins knows the best arguments for Evolutionary Theory. [follows from P1]
P3. Richard Dawkins is most advocate for Evolutionary Theory. [fact]
P4. Richard Dawkins presents the best arguments for Evolutionary Theory. [follows from P2 & P3]
P5. Richard Dawkins has not presented any good arguments for the Evolutionary Theory. [my finding]
P6. The best arguments for Evolutionary Theory are not good arguments. [follows from P4 & P5]
C. There are no good arguments for Evolutionary Theory. [follows from P6]
I'll leave you with just a couple examples of some evidence.
- You gotta try a lot harder. Use your words. Make an argument with your words, since you're so confident. Where is this evidence? I'm asking for one. Just one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Evolution is a framework using the most recent evidence to explain the development of organisms on Earth. The most verified, most accurate, and theory which has best predicted outcomes for decades - is Evolution.
- Wow! Quite impressive. Superlative galore. I'm sure you were about to give us irrefutable evidence for the verifiability, predictiveness, & accuracy of this awesome theory. Can't wait.
Those who typically reject Evolution are classified, scientifically speaking, as science deniers.
- You're sounding a little dogmatic there, "believe me or you're a science denier"... lol!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
By autocorrect I meant science has internal mechanisms that corrects itself; It doesn’t require corrections from the outside.But you would probably disagree with you being a strident Muslim.
- Dunning-Kruger at its best.
You keep bringing up imaginary friends. Is that some sort of preemptive defence mechanism?
- I'm not your therapist...
You’re assuming it’s wrong.
- No, actually, you are, & then aren't. A world of contradiction...
I keep on telling you we’re genetically related to our ancestors. All animals today have a common ancestor.
- No we are not. You can't be serious... LMAO!
When you have a blood test and it shows you’re related to your family, do you just say that’s a scientific narrative?
- So you did a DNA sampling with a monkey & got a match?
It’s always good to challenge yourself. Willful ignorance is like a puzzle you have to try to work out.
- That's a great advice you should take. Still does not save the evolutionationists from their cowardice. I feel so much excitement every time I argue with a flat-earther or any of the types challenging Physics because I'm confident I will destroy their fantasies. Evolutionationists are simply not confident they could do the same, that's why they run away.
Alright alright, calm down.
- Still won't help your case.
What do you consider a contribution to scientific understanding?
- A scientific discovery that fulfills a society's needs, improve a person's wellbeing, drive a company's profits, or increase our understanding of the world. What evolutionationists do is advance their biases & leech off other's works.
- Anything that conforms to your Islamic beliefs?
- It's so funny how abysmal your attempts of evasion are. Quite typical. Is this what they taught you? When in trouble, use religion... This is not going to save your claims any one bit.
Okay, Allah designed it so you can put earrings through it. Happy?
- I'm happy alright, about your absolute inability to defend your case. If they made you the apostle for Evolution, even Dawkins will abandon it. LMAO!
As far as I can see ‘founding ancestor’ is a non-evolutionary term that refers to human lineages.
- You have absolutely no freaking clue what I'm talking about or what you yourself are talking about. It's becoming increasingly obvious that your understanding of Evolutionary theory is of quantum proportions! Go educate yourself at least a little bit on a subject before you attempt an argument.
Did you even read it? And yes, I already knew about the replication crises, but come on, either you know squat, or you’re purposefully being disingenuous.
- What is your expertise? You don't seem to be the least bit familiar with research culture.
The Abrahamic God gives value to humans above the environment which humans are the centre of. It’s hard when you’re a devout person of faith and a biologist crushes your world view.
- If this is your best defense for the evolutionary mythology you so fanatically believe in, then even I feel like a bully now. Pathetic!
I doubt you would cede your case.
- Error 404 evidence not found...
Okay I’ll tell you in common sense talk. YOU. ARE. GENETICALLY. RELATED. TO. YOUR. ANCESTORS. WHICH. GO. BACK. MILLIONS. OF. YEARS. DNA can last up to 6.8 million years FYI. Far longer than modern humans have been around.
- HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!!! You cracked me up so hard! Yeah, NO. YOU. ARE. NOT... First of all, you have yet to produce a single piece of evidence for the claims of evolutionary theory. I'm still waiting. Second of all, I hate to break it to you, but your ideas about Evolution are... how to say it... fictitious. I don't know what you been reading, but they be lyin to ya. There is no such thing, like not at all.
If it helps you cope; Allah did evolution.
- In the imaginations of evolutionationists, of course.
I’m just trying to understand you.
- 'Evade' is the word you're looking for.
Has any of your work been peer reviewed. May I see?
- I tell you I did not do research & you ask for publications!? I want to eventually go back to university & finish some work I started. I have some math related projects in mind I want to publish. For now, it's freelance.
Because we don’t see fish turning into humans?
- If that, then it's an observation. Observation =/= theory. An observable fact is not Science. It's just a fact.
You can say Allah did evolution can’t you?
- I just noticed, you speak about this 'evolution' as if it is an observable fact, it's not. It's a theory, the Evolutionary Theory, albeit unscientific.
Which various chemists will know to one degree or another.
- Case in point.
It’s not a narrative. We have genetic data today and genetic data going back millions of years.
- What does this have to do with Evolution?! Genetics =/= Evolution. Clearly, you don't know anything about this. Evolution is just a story, a parasite story. You have yet to show me one single useful thing thanks to Evolution.
Again, it would probably help if you say Allah did it.
- Is this your new 'get out of evidence free' card trick?
Maybe if you genetically test them.
- I don't blame you, I blame the education system. You are saying ludicrous things that are not even nonsense.
Do you mean by giving links? Because I don’t have bones/genetic samples with papers on hand to send you.
- Have at it. I'm waiting. Do your best. & I promise, if you bring me proof, I'm your believer.
Why do you conveniently miss out on responding to being related to other animals?
- Dude, what the f are you even talking about!! So embarrassing! They have so easy, people are indeed amazingly gullible.
No, I can’t show you an animal turning into another animal.
- Reminder, the Evolutionary Theory postulates the following: ""Life emerged from spontaneous & compounded chemical reactions, to form a self-sustaining & self-reproducing single-cell organism, capable of gradual changes in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms of increasing complexity, giving rise to all biodiversity on Earth through descent of varying species from a common ancestor via undirected mechanisms, such as natural selection, random mutations, genetic drift, migration & gene flow". Request: provide a single evidence which makes this aforementioned postulate a scientific one, particularly, show that it is: verifiable (fits all the facts), falsifiable (predicts new facts), & accurate (with low margin of error). Good luck!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Yassine,YOUR QUOTE TO STEPHEN IN POST #31: "You seem quite capable of constructing a sound argument. How come you run away when asked to debate?"The irony is that you continue to ask the members for a debate with no takers, where I have stepped up and want to debate you upon your Satanic Islamic faith, but you have yet to commit by continually running away from me as shown in the links below!!! Why, SCARED of my reputation upon this forum of easily making pseudo-christians the Bible fools that they are?Can a fellow Hell-bound Muslim of the Islamic faith help YASSINE find his "big boy pants" to debate me upon his Satanic faith? Anyone?YASSINE, the membership is watching you RUN from me debating you, no more lame excuses, understood?!!!
- So you've decided to debate me? Which topic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
- You boasting a lot of confidence. If you're afraid the voters on this platform are partisan, you don't have to worry. When it comes to Islam, if anything they will all side with you. You're not going to run away from a debate are you?
How do you want it, within your thread pertaining to your Satanic faith, or in another thread where you have yet to tell me if you are going to present yourself within said thread? SCARED to answer again?
- Apparently you are running away from the debate. I expected more from you.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
what is that meant to mean to me? Muslims have weird practices as well.
- No where near the extreme practices in the West; the most extreme in human history.
Polygamy.
- The West is the global leader in polygamous relationships & unlawful polygamy, aka adultery. In France, more than half married men & women commit adultery.
violence.
- The West has lead the global output of violence every year for the past 1000 years. According to the Encyclopedia of War, the death toll is something around 550 million.
pedophilia.
- The West has been leading in that too, since ancient Greece.
domestic control and dominance.
- Some of the highest rates in the world of domestic abuse & incest are in the West, after all they invented it.
patriarchal practices.
- Lmao! Can you be more cliche!
Arranged marriages.
- The entire world prefers arranged marriages, except the West. They rather spend half their lives whoring themselves before marriage. Sad!
bribery and corruption.
- The West bribes & corrupts the entire world to maintain their control. 50 billion USD of American tax payer money went to bribe Iraq alone.
none of these are biblical. biblical beliefs are dangerous. As are Christian beliefs. both need to be mocked and ridiculed. I have suggested in other places what I think ought to be done with the bible. Yet, it needs to be done in an ethical and honest manner. Anyone can produce a strawman and kill it off. Yet this is a dishonest manner of attacking something. when the verdict is in - - then we can get to the judgment.
- This is hilariously delusional! You seem to be boasting a lot of confidence, maybe you can debate me on Islam.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
When you said science correcting itself means I’ve already lost the argument, you did not think that through in the slightest.
- Indeed, you have. "autocorrect" is a slogan that doesn't mean anything, & if true then it's self-defeating. If Science is "autocorrecting" then any scientific finding is thereby incorrect. Though, the scientific process is indeed based on trial & error.
It’s essentially like talking to a child. And there you go again.
- More imaginary friends?
- But you know evolution is true? Or you don't know?I know it’s true.
- Whatever happened to that "science autocorrects itself"? Or does that stop at Evolution?
Does that mean evolution in its entirety is wrong? Yes, with strong enough counter evidence which most likely we’ll never find.
- LMAO! There is zero evidence for Evolution; fetch those first before you celebrate.
We must look to different people/sources for our knowledge then.
- Yes, indeed. The evolutionationists do not even allow debate or participate in it. They are afraid to be exposed. When you see physicists & astronomers full of excitement to debate anyone & everyone who questions their findings, the evolutionationists run away with tails between their legs under the pretext of "we don't debate ignorants" LMAO!
So when it comes to science we shouldn’t be curious? Is science like murdering someone? Perhaps your belief in Allah?
- Red herring. When you can't support your claims, you resort to distractions. Whatever else you say about everything else in the world will not add to the truth of evolutionation narrative one iota.
He’s been an outspoken atheist and science populariser for the most part in the last decade or so. You’re pretty much just tone policing. Science popularising is not science, though Dawkins has contributed his fair share of science in his earlier years.
- A fair share in the evolutionation mythology, indeed. He contributed nothing to actual Science, just the opposite.
And as for vestigial evolutionary remnants, some are obvious such as earlobes.
- What did I say! They made you think like they do. If you don't know the function, then it's "vestigial", as if that means anything at all. Evolution god of the gaps, if you don't know what it is, then it's evolution. Amusing!
Can you tell me how?
- For instance. Human gene comparisons show closest similarity in RNA sequencing in elephants & farthest in rats; whereas the opposite is regarded in traditional phylogenies. Of course all based on the imaginary assumption: "similar = related". LOL! Since they can't reconcile this & that, they resorted to inventing new names... 'founding ancestor' instead of 'common ancestor'. Isn't this hilarious!
Can you link me some things so I have a better understanding?
- (You're*). Of engineering*. Biology had nothing to do with it, neither did evolutionation. It's called Physics. The most infuriating & comical thing about Science today is that the dumbest "findings" in phycology & biology (such as evolution) live under the same umbrella of 'Science' as things like Gravitation Theory & Quantum Theory, leeching off their reputation. In the traditional Islamic classification of knowledge, physical sciences such as astronomy(hay'a), mechanics (hayl), gravitation (thaqala), or engineering (mimar) were classified alongside arithmetics (hisab) algebra (jabr), & geometry (handasa), under Mathematics (Ryadyat); whereas biological sciences & medicine were classified under Natural Sciences (Tabi'yat). If we take out Physics & put it back in the Mathematics department, we'll finally have Natural Sciences right where they belong.Just in physics/astronomy the world doesn’t revolve around Earth, in biology the world doesn’t revolve around humans.
- What does this have to do with anything?!
So now you’ve moved the focus to “care” too. Childish.Care: serious attention or consideration applied to doing something correctly or to avoid damage or risk.You ask why the convolutions. I’m just giving you definitions. What are you doing?
- Another red herring.
I agree. I don’t know how that disputes what I said.
- I did my part. The rest is up to you.
- I'm all ears. Why are you wasting your time arguing concepts, when you can instead provide much needed proof for Evolution here & now. Bring me proof that confirms the scientific rigorousness of this theory, & I will cede your case.I doubt it.
- You doubt your ability to bring proof? Or is that a concession that you can't bring proof?
Not fully understanding something does not mean it doesn’t occur
- Does not mean it occurs either. Is that supposed to be your grand proof for Evolution? The floor is yours. Bring a single proof or evidence that shows the aforementioned postulate to be: plausible, simple, verifiable, falsifiable & accurate. If you do, I'm a new believer.
That was a tangent which turned into projection of internal fears you have as a Muslim.
- Even more red herrings. Hopeless.
It wasn’t a direct response to what I asked and said.
- It was, profoundly so. If only you paid attention. The duck story is a true story, though.
So you do reaserch?
- No. I studied Fundamental Physics & Theoretical Mathematics. I did work in a lab as an intern though, not for me. I work freelance.
Evolution like any other science is only a narrative if you make it one.
- False. That's the whole point, if you read the OP. The evolutionary narrative is a literary narrative, it is *not* a scientific narrative.
Just because it conflicts with your personal Islamic beliefs.
- Red herring-fest. Sure, sure, sure... Still not gunna make evolutionation any less a mythological narrative.
You don’t need to be a quantum physicist to be a chemist. Seriously!..
- Um...? Chemistry rests wholly on a Physics foundation & builds up on results from quantum theory, particle physics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics...etc.
You can acknowledge there’s mechanical properties of biology/chemistry/physics, etc while understanding there are quantum aspects.
- Mechanics are marginal in general biology, & virtually non-existent in Molecular Biology, unless in inter-disciplinary fields.
The scientific fields that fall under evolution have.
- No such thing. Evolution is a parasite narrative, leeching off everything else. Bring me a single useful thing that we have thanks to Evolution.
Wait, you say no they don’t. Could you please explain because I’ve been brainwashed.
- Similarity =/= kinship. Do you assume any two similar things you see in the world that they are related? No.
We’ll just keep on finding more and more of our ancestors which we’re closely related to genetically.
- No such thing. But I'm still willing to believe you, bring me a factual single one of those ancestors. I'm all ears.
and again counterfactuals. If we weren’t related to other animals, specifically mammals, animal (medical) test trials wouldn’t be useful for humans.
- How do you figure that out?! This is your argument: Evolution is true, therefore animal medical trials are useful to humans, therefore Evolution is true. Try this, assume Evolution is *not* true, & proceed to find evidence to prove that it is. That might help.
- I can provide proof for anything I believe in. I can provide evidence & proof here & now for the validity of the Schrodinger Equation, or for any established theory in Physics. Can you do the same for Evolution?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
There is no argument. I’m having a conversation with a child.
- Oh! Your imaginary friend?
Admit to yourself what you don’t know.
- But you know evolution is true? Or you don't know?
Understand all humans can be wrong, and all humans can be corrected; No human is infallible.
- So evolutionationists are infallible? Or are they wrong?
Acknowledge there are smarter people than you or I.
- Smarter =/= right...
Stay curious.
- They lied to you. When Blinken was asked about the awfulness of US invasions, he retorted that democracy is beautiful because we learn from our mistakes! I doubt he would be keen on saying that after he murders his American neighbor, "sorry judge, this is beautiful because I learn from my mistake", "oh sure, you're free to go." LOL!. But this is exactly what politicians do when they are pressed, use feel good bogus responses. The evolutionationists, just like the politicians, use bogus feel-good nonsense to confuse their fans.
Aren’t new discoveries good?
- Discoveries, despite the hatefulness & biases of the evolutionationists. I remember few years back, Dawkins couldn't shut up about junk DNA & vestigial organs, until we discovered their true purpose & utility. Now he pretends like he knew all along. What a moron! Evolutionationists hamper the progress of Science & obstruct new discoveries, because they are not seeking to understand life & unravel its mysteries, rather they are after confirming their biases. The darwinist looks at life-forms as badly designed machines barely functional, thus assuming their parts to be a priori functionless & obsolete, only there to explain evolution. This is not just unscientific, it's anti-scientific.
Are you talking about the human genome project? Which tree of life are you talking about? I’m note sure how they would conflict. Please explain.
- The most common phylogenies, the genome Tree of Life, the molecular Tree of Life, & the morphology Tree of Life rely on completely different assumptions & give desperate results. The latest reconstruction effort comes with the Genome Project (not just for human, that one is already done), but the results are depressing since they turn the traditional trees upside down. Now, the old evolutionationists are understandably upset.
Are you talking about science popularisers, or actual scientific study/experiments, peer review, replications?
- Huh? Outside the serious sciences (Physics are the gang), the overwhelming majority of publications are erroneous & irreproducible. In Evolutionary biology, the rate is close to 100%.
The device your using is the product of countless hours of the later.
- (You're*). Of engineering*. Biology had nothing to do with it, neither did evolutionation. It's called Physics. The most infuriating & comical thing about Science today is that the dumbest "findings" in phycology & biology (such as evolution) live under the same umbrella of 'Science' as things like Gravitation Theory & Quantum Theory, leeching off their reputation. In the traditional Islamic classification of knowledge, physical sciences such as astronomy (hay'a), mechanics (hayl), gravitation (thaqala), or engineering (mimar) were classified alongside arithmetics (hisab) algebra (jabr), & geometry (handasa), under Mathematics (Ryadyat); whereas biological sciences & medicine were classified under Natural Sciences (Tabi'yat). If we take out Physics & put it back in the Mathematics department, we'll finally have Natural Sciences right where they belong.
Truth: the quality or state of being true.True: in accordance with fact or reality.Science cares about fact and reality.
- "care"? As in 'has an emotional attachment to'...? Why the convolutions? Science does not produce truth, period. You're confusing fact with explanation of fact. A data set is not equal to its explanation. There is no true scientific theory, there are accurate/inaccurate or likely/unlikely scientific hypotheses.
But yes, you’re right.
- Fixed.
You’re conflating truth with what I call absolute truth.
- Take a course in Logic, or at least in Philosophy of Science. Truth & falsehood relate to deductive reasoning, such as in saying: the statement "1 + 1 = 2" is a true statement. Scientific reasoning is a statistical computation of divergence (or convergence) between hypothesized results & observable results. Therefore, its truth value is necessarily either a statistical measure, i.e. accuracy, or a probabilistic measure, i.e. likelihood.
I agree. Although you might be intentionally misunderstanding some words when it comes to evolution compared to quantum mechanics.
- I'm all ears. Why are you wasting your time arguing concepts, when you can instead provide much needed proof for Evolution here & now. Bring me proof that confirms the scientific rigorousness of this theory, & I will cede your case.
First, what would you consider sufficient evidence? I guess watching an animal turn into another animal, like a fish turning into a human or something.
- This is the postulate of Evolutionary Theory: "Life emerged from spontaneous & compounded chemical reactions, to form a self-sustaining & self-reproducing single-cell organism, capable of gradual changes in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms of increasing complexity, giving rise to all biodiversity on Earth through descent of varying species from a common ancestor via undirected mechanisms, such as natural selection, random mutations, genetic drift, migration & gene flow". Sufficient evidence is such that it makes the aforementioned postulate a scientific postulate,
How does quantum mechanics indicate the theory of evolution is void? You might as well say that about general relativity.
- Maybe this analogy will help. Back in the day they thought a duck is just a big clock, mechanical pieces attached together. It turns out it isn't. Evolution still looks at the duck as if it's a big clock. It really isn't. The problem with most people who believe Evolution is that they don't really understand its implications, but they trust the "experts" in what they tell them, because it's supposedly too technical. This is true for religion, where the followers trust in their leaders to have the knowledge they themselves do not have. Why is this the case here. Well established scientific theories in Physics can all be personally verifiable & checked with reasonable effort. You don't need a mathematician or a physicist to tell you the equation is accurate. This is not the case for Evolution.
By your standards quantum theory isn’t science.
- Let's see... Plausible? It's one of the two foundational theories of all of Physics, & therefore all of Science. Simple? How about this GORGEOUS equation: HPsi = EPsi . Verifiable? It is called the most precisely tested theory in the history of Science. Falsifiable? You betcha, Quantum theory can predict the movement of trillions of trillions of electrons in your flash memory allowing you to store your data & read it safely. Accurate? Give me something else that measures down to 10 to the power of 16, that's 0.0000000000000001 margin of error. In short, if Quantum Theory isn't scientific, then nothing is.
I care about truth.
- Then seek it, it isn't in the evolutionary narrative. Not because you're an atheist you have to believe in this nonsense. Sooner or later they will run out of new syntheses (i.e. versions) of their story. & the whole thing will be dropped in the shameful basket of history just like Eugenics was dropped & forgotten.
No, our understanding doesn’t. They may inform each other to one degree or another. But our understanding of everything else doesn’t derive from our understanding of quantum mechanics if that’s what you’re referring to.
- It strictly does. You don't know what I'm talking about that's why you don't understand me. Go ask a chemist. You can not have Molecular Biology without Chemistry. You can not have Chemistry without Quantum Physics. Else, these disciplines will shrink back to 19th century level. This applies to engineering as well, you can not have Material Science or Computer Science... without Quantum Physics.
How about both? Not sure I fully understand your crankshaft analogy but I think I know what you’re getting at.
- Both what?
The study of evolution covers countless scientific fields. I don’t know where to begin.
- The story* of Evolution, yes! Ubiquitous, yet utterly useless. The theory of Evolution, regardless of its truth, has never produced a single useful thing.
They all point to common ancestors.
- No they don't. That's what you've been indoctrinated to believe. If you have proof otherwise, by all means, the stage is yours.
i.e. modern humans didn’t just show up out of no where.
- It's ok to say "we don't know" & keep looking until you unravel the mysteries.
We can see that in the fossil and genetic record.
- No we can't. Show me otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
This is because people are willing to safeguard their sacred religious beliefs, even if it means turning a blind eye to facts.
- That's a sorry excuse for the phenomenal failure of the evolutionary narrative to provide any compelling arguments. This idea lingered in the Muslims world since the Mutaziles came into prominence, 13 centuries ago, starting from al-Jahiz & Ibn Maskawayh, through Ikhwan Safa & to Nasr Tusi... In fact, one of the main arguments the Darwinians used against the Church in the 19th century is their rejection of the Islamic theory of evolution, as it was known then...& YET, it's still could not take hold.
Like what biologist Sheril Kirshenbaum stated, America is a very religious nation, and if forced to choose between faith and science, vast numbers of Americans will select the former.
- I agree with the first half of this statement. Half of Americans religiously believe in the Christian creation story & the other half also religiously believe in the Evolutionationary creation story. This dichotomy is false. Virtually all people around the world adhere to the vast majority of scientific discovery, especially in Physics. Evolution is simply *not* Science. It's religion disguised as science, aka pseudoscience. If you disagree, provide *proof* for the opposite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Because it is not just impossible. It is implausible and improbable. Apart from that it is unprovable.
- This should've read: it's not just implausible, it is improbable & even impossible. But indeed, I agree.
And the biblical narrative makes sense and is clearly based upon sound evidence.
- You wanna have a debate on that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
More BS. No one even truly knows who the authors of the gospels even were. The names given to them may as well have been plucked out of thin air.And an empty tomb is evidence only that a tomb was empty.Why would anyone need to "roll away the stone" Mark 16:3 when it is said that Jesus was able to walk through the wall of a locked room? John 20:26.Why were they all shocked and surprised and in fear that he had "risen", when he had been telling them all along that this was going to happen?The whole story is contrived and you just can't face it.
- You seem quite capable of constructing a sound argument. How come you run away when asked to debate?
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
So show us then. don't just assert it, prove it.
- I meant in practice, not in beliefs. LDS have some of the weirdest beliefs among Christian denominations. They follow Bible teachings in chastity, modesty, polygamy, family, gambling, intoxication...etc.
as the Brother would suggest "You may start now".
- Which of you is the sock puppet?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Unlike Islam or Christianity, science autocorrects itself. Is this what you’re calling neo?
- Autocorrecting implies incorrectness. You've lost the argument before you even started. Neo-Darwinism is the last synthesis of Darwinian evolution. They scrap the previous syntheses & invent new stories, because they realize it was all fantasy exposed with new discoveries. They are at their 5th synthesis now, because of the Genome Project; comparative genealogy do not support the traditional tree of life they concocted. So, don't worry, Neo-Darwinism will be out of the door soon. Maybe we'll get Neo-Neo-Darwinism. We'll see what these evolutionationist will come up with. I'm sure they will deliver the best stories. So far they are still arguing about what this extended synthesis is, because they are not sure what stories to tell before they know the facts. Like politicians.
Science cares about truth and it looks inwards when disputing, while Islam/Christianity care about dominance and they look outwards.
- I blame the education system for this. Instead of teaching you how to write an essay, they tell you to write one. Instead of teaching you what Science is, they tell you these catchphrases that mean nothing. Science does not relate to truth in the slightest, it relates to accuracy & likelihood. No scientific theory can ever be true, by design. Science practices an inductive reasoning, where one seeks a universal explanation (an abstract hypothesis) to a particular event (a concrete observable fact), by computation of frequency. In short: observations, then hypothesis explaining observations, then statistical comparison of results of hypothesis against new observations, then rinse & repeat. A good such hypothesis is a possible, plausible, simple, verifiable, falsifiable & accurate explanation:
Plausible: intuitive & in harmony with the general scientific narrative.
Simple: as opposed to complex, more complexions mean more assumptions.
Verifiable: fits observable facts.
Falsifiable: predicts new observable facts
Accurate: quantitative postulate with minimal statistical margin of error.
You’re the one fixated on “stories” and “narratives.”
- You have it backwards. You have yet to produce any proof or evidence for the mythos that is the evolutionary narrative you subscribe to. Don't take my word for it, check the theory of evolution against the conditions required by the scientific method. Is the theory of evolution plausible? No, it isn't. It's a dumb reductionist theory in a quantum world. Simple? Absolutely not. It's the most convoluted expansive tale ever produced by Mankind. Verifiable? That's a joke. Falsifiable? Haha. It's the only known so-called theory that predicts Jack Schitt. Accurate? It doesn't predict anything or give us any measure of anything to even have the chance to be inaccurate, let alone accurate.
- I'm ready to provide proof for the Islamic narrative that I'm willing to debate it on this forum. Are you ready to provide evidence for your narrative?
“Maybe in 500 years we'll have a quantum theory of biology.“That’s why. These ideas must be too big for me. Please explain what you mean.
- Our understanding of biology stems from our understanding of chemistry, which stems from our understanding of physics, which stems from our understanding of quantum theory. Life is a profoundly quantum mystery. When you move the tip of your finger, it's not a crankshaft mechanism, instead countless quantum chemical reactions are in play, from the muscle tissue down to the cell & down to the molecules & down to the smallest particles involved. It's impossible to explain biodiversity with imbecilic vacuous tales about similarity in bone structure & common ancestor. We must achieve a bottom-up understanding of biology, by expanding our understanding in physics, maybe even beyond quantum theory, then building up from elementary particles interactions up to the organic compounds (nucleic acids, lipids, proteins & carbohydrates), up to cell structure & so on. Hence, a quantum theory of biology, with actual equations & predictions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Yassine is perfectly correct. Any written material, holy writ, or not, is best understood in its native tongue, because no language shares an exact lexicon with any other language, let alone syntax. Yet, as I have explained many times, translations are generally done by comparison, dictionary-to-dictionary. As I have also explained, language is a construct of culture, and not the other way around. Without understanding the culture, its language will not be understood by its full intent. Thus, unless dictionaries teach culture along with vocabulary, the translation lacks the heart of the language because dictionaries, to their infamy, are poor teachers of culture.Therefore, the sense of my example given in another topic a while ago, my hypothetical British acquaintance, while I am visiting Great Britain, confuses me when, he, stopping to assist my change of a tire, and I mention the throaty rumble of his Jaguar's engine, he offers to let me take a look under the bonnet. I'm confused because it is obvious he wears no hat. Culture drives language. As Churchill once said, America and Great Britain are two countries separated by a language. Zed understands this very well, and is sympathetic to my imaginary dilemma. I imagine Yassine is just as sympathetic with Arabic and any other language.I imagine, lacking understanding in Arabic, that Yassine's common greeting, rendered in English as "Peace be with you," is as personal a greeting as an American's tossed-out, "Hey," with a nod of the head, could not be more impersonal. For all Yassine may know, similar to my dilemma, he may think I'm referring to feeding a horse, and I've not even spelled it correctly.To wit, your pocket mouse is just as infamous as a dictionary translation.
- Funny, but accurate indeed. Language does not come from vacuum, it comes with its own culture. The case for the Quran is even more exigent. For one, it is spoken in a high literary style, the highest the Arabic language has ever produced. One must acquire a substantial literally cultivation to be able to appreciate the subtleties of the text & the rhetorical maneuvers, or to pinpoint the exact meaning of words. There are more than 60 ways to express 'sight' in Arabic, it behooves the contemplator to know all these meanings to acquire insight into the sacred text. Also, the Quran is the first & last book produced in a language which would shortly thereafter lose its purity, after thousands of years of isolation. Arabic -especially Hijazi Arabic- is the only language which has been virtually isolated from the rest of Middle Eastern linguistic pools prior to the Arab conquests. Until then, a Semitic nomadic language which, in contrast to the other propagated Semitic languages like Aramaic & Akkadian & Hebrew, experienced minimal conversion. That is why the reconstruction of PS (Proto-Semitic) is primarily based on Classical Arabic, being the oldest & closest language to the original semitic language. Ignoring this fact will surely cripple any proper understanding of the book. Rai' is used today to mean 'wonderful', when back then it was used to designate something terrifying. Indeed, learning to speak Arabic does not qualify a person to speak for scripture. One must master the language in its pure form as it was spoken in the 7th century, then known as the language of poets. It is common for 'ulama (Muslim scholars) to memorize dozens of thousands of lines of pre-Islamic Arab poetry in their course of study. Mawsua Shiria (encyclopedia of poetry) indexes the massive collection of some 7 million lines of poetry from close to 5 thousand Arab poets across history; close to 50 thousand lines just from pre-Islamic poets -close to 700 in number, from as early as 2nd century AD. This background is necessary to understand the style, the vocabulary, & the expression of the Quran. An adequate understanding of the Quran is, therefore, unattainable for the layman -Arab or not, like it is for children.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
.Yassine,YOUR QUOTE OF YOUR IMPENDING EMBARRASSMENT WITHIN THIS FORUM: "Take your own advice. If you have the cojonesic fortitude then debate me."First thing, I assume that you meant "cojones," as in "balls" which is relating to the Spanish language? You're embarrassing yourself at the onset!I DO NOT use the formal debate stage within DEBATEART, because the voters are partisan to their beliefs and will vote accordingly nonetheless of the truthfully shown outcome. Therefore, since this is your thread, I can bloody you up within it relative to your Satanic Islamic faith, Okay? When doing so, you have to promise NOT to runaway like the pseudo-christians TRADESECRET, FAUXLAW, PGA2.0, ETRNLVW, et al, do at their continued biblical expense, promise?!Or, I can start a new thread about how utterly disgusting the faith of Islam truthfully is, and you can join it and at least "try" to defend it, and where you promise now that you will NOT runaway from it, would this notion be preferable to you?Trust me, Jesus and I are going to have a lot of fun with you, praise His name!!!
- You boasting a lot of confidence. If you're afraid the voters on this platform are partisan, you don't have to worry. When it comes to Islam, if anything they will all side with you. You're not going to run away from a debate are you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
_________________________
^ THATS IT? This is the only Qur'an inept Muslim response you could come up with? How embarrassing do you want to get within this prestigious forum where you have absolutely no business in being here!We can all see now that you went to the FAUXLAW and TRADESECRET school of how to run away from facts that make you the fool of your Satanic faith!Let me know when you are ready for me to make you the continued Muslim fool of your faith, okay? When I do, DO NOT runaway like the majority of Bible inept pseudo-christians have to do to "try" and save face, understood? The membership will be watching! We're going to have a lot of fun at your expense! LOL!
- Take your own advice. If you have the cojonestic fortitude then debate me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
The “story” starts with Charles Darwin (pbuh). He was always fascinated with the natural world…
- Couldn't agree more, Darwin is the prophet of the religion that is Darwinism. Too bad he was found to be a false prophet, & his religion superseded by Neo-Darwinism.
Long story short, great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
- Explains why you skipped the ideas & went right to the people... Charles...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
My take on this who matter is that:The Earth, plus Adam & Eve, are much, much older than 6,000 years. Why that idea took hold is an apparent mystery, but it appears the facts are that it is really a very recent notion; even in just the 20th century, popularized [it has some roots to 19th century, but, still, rather recent] by an amateur geologist, George Price. https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/11/article/i1052-5173-22-11-4.htm. The Creationist crowd started as a religious effort only after Darwin's Origin of the Species, which is curious because Darwin's first edition of that book acknowledged in it last chapter, last paragraph, indeed, last sentence that,There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2009/2009-h/2009-h.htm [bold italic for emphasis]That the second through six editions removed the italic bolded text is evidence of Darwin's gradual loss of faith, mostly due to the early loss of a daughter.
- I know in several places in his the book, such suggestive texts were progressively replaced by more atheistic statements.
My personal belief is that while various species ["a few forms," and actually, quite a few] were created outright, evolution was an intentional consequence of life that continues today, but that the creation of man, was a distinctly different creation than the apes. I believe creation to have been a science, and evolution to be an extension of that science. Therefore, they are not only on the same coin, but not even just on one side or the other, but on both sides of one coin; coincident activities that have gone on for millions and billions of years.In other words, God did not retire after seven days, or even six, [and in any case, I do not perceive those periods as being merely 24 hours in length] but continues to be at work in his profession.
- What makes you believe in the truth of the evolutionary narrative?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Great question and good points.Interesting how the immediate concessions came. No proof just encourage people consider.As a Christian I do believe the biblical story.
- Why do you not adhere to the evolutionary narrative?
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
- Give it a couple hundred years & they will considered Orthodox. LDS are actually closer to the teachings of the Bible than most Christian denominations out there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
- I stopped for the sake of your Irish people, which you do not represent. But you keep sending me links. Why so many children decapitated & dismembered, this is revolting:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/brooklyn-missing-boy-police-arrest-man-dismembered-child/story?id=14062563
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I'm an Irishman.
- You giving a terrible name to your people. My experience with Irish people has been top notch, number one European people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
They're not high priests. They're just a lot more impressive than you.
- You're not very convincing.
I just don't like you.
- What's bred in the bone will come out in the flesh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Quick Youtube search, what's up with all these American fathers raping their little girls. Most disgusting country on Earth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I'd offer no singular proof. I'd point out to him what I have to you here. I could reference a fossil record if I was bothered. I'd point him to Darwin. I'd point him to a wiki page on experimental evolution. I might point out, like Dawkins, that the laryngeal nerve of a giraffe is suggestive of a neck grown after the fact, with no care for already existing internal arrangement. It was something else before, now gone. But I suppose just another sort of giraffe, eh?
- Yeah, you got nothing. You can only point to your high priests.
I'd point him to a cranky Arab with an inferiority complex and a thousand year old book full of gay bashing by a supposed prophet who liked little girls. I'd ask him what he thought of that.
- Insults are the arguments of losers. Pathetic.
Do you look like your father? He's apish too I bet. What of your ape kids, can you see yourself in them? Too far maybe, lol.
- You shouldn't talk to your kids like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
- Whatever happened to the satanic verses debate?
Yassine, the future of Man is Humanism.
- That's fantasy. The non-religious around the world have reached their max a while ago, their numbers are shrinking.
Humanists reject the idea or belief in a supernatural being such as God. This means that humanists class themselves as agnostic or atheist.
- Theistic humanists don't agree.
Humanists have no belief in an afterlife, and so they focus on seeking happiness in this life.
- So does everyone. That's a false dichotomy. But you're right, without an afterlife, one's focus shifts from seeking virtue to seeking self-gratification.
Apparently if there is a God, he agrees with this approach because he has not appeared on the Jim Bakker Show in a burning bush to refute it. Either that or he really is dead.
- God is the Creator of the Universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
We took a wolf and turned it into a chihuahua over the course of 10 thousand years.
- No. You took a dog & it's still a dog. It's the same species. Wolves, coyotes & dogs are interfertile. They are all the same species in the strictest definition of the word.
We bred a bald cat of a naturally occurring mutation by selective breeding.
- Still a cat.
What's so hard to believe in that it goes further in the 3.5 billion years life has existed on this earth?
- You'd think. The same species which lived then (such as cyanobacteria) still the same species today. Yeah, indeed hard to believe.
That's 350,000 times our fuckery with dogs.
- You'll still end up with a dog. Those poor cyanobacterias go 4 generations a day, so that's 5,110,000,000 times our f*ckery with dogs, yet the bastards are still cyanobacterias.
A bear looks like a big dog already.
- Two types of dogs can look more different than a bear looks different from an elephant. Still dogs. Like butterflies, all 17k species of them, they call all biologically intermate. They look so different, yet they are all still butterflies.
Everything looks all the same already, bone structure similar across a billion animals, stretched out here, compacted there, adapted in yet another place.
- So when you look at any similarity in the world your head jumps to "they must've evolved from each-other"?
There's no great stretch of the imagination in it, friend.
- Of course not, you been indoctrinated in this. The credit of creative imagination goes to those who came up with these fantasies.
I bet if I sat you next to a shaved ape people wouldn't tell the difference.
- People like you I'm sure. When I see an ape, it's an ape, always been an ape, since millions of years. So is the jellyfish, still the same goddamn jellyfish for 700 million years. What do you know!
- Lemme ask you, suppose the most skeptical person you can imagine & you want to convince him that the theory of evolution is fact, with the most obvious proof. What would it be?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Straight, gay, or trans, we all have a right to a day in court, I imagine.Are able to own property.Are able to vote.
- Are you pretending to be ignorant or are you avoiding the question?
I'm not sure what to think of the institution of marriage anymore, in modern America.Is it about a people recognizing a sacred bond, in accordance with their faith and traditions?Is it about what benefits by law and recognition of two individuals shared rights between each other, by law?I'm pretty noncommittal on the subject of marriage.
- The question is about equality before the law. Do you believe queer people should have the same rights straight people have?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Depends what one means by equality.Hence when drlebronski posted "Gay and trans people are valid and deserve the same rights as any other american"I asked him which rights in particular?
- Egalitarianism = equality before the law.
If some guy or girl walked up to me and said he was gay, I'd say okay, and not think much of it.If some guy or girl walked up to me and said they were transexual, I'd say okay, and not think much of it, Except maybe make a note, to to not be attracted to them. Because of my own preferences in other living people.If someone who was gay wanted to join the military, I'd probably just say okay.If someone who wanted to undergo transsexual surgery, wanted to join the military, I'd probably say, that it's a bad fit.If someone who was gay ran for mayor, I'd want to know their platform.If someone who was transsexual ran for mayor, I'd want to know their platform.
- These are matter of policy. I'm asking if you support homosexuals & transexuals equality before the law? Such as in terms of gay marriage, trans marriage, gender preference & so on...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I think that differences between individuals, whether 'what they are, or actions taken.Results in differences in how they are perceived, acted towards, what they are abled by law or institution to 'do.
- So you don't believe in Equality?
Is too broad a question for my liking, though I may be overthinking it.-
- What do you believe in regarding homosexuals & transexuals?
Created: