Debate: Is Darwinian Evolution a Fact?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 фев 2025
- This is my debate with Subboor Ahamad of the iERA, hosted by Humanists of Houston on December 22nd 2016.
If you like what I do, please consider becoming a patron.
/ aronra 
Наука
![Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? - Christopher Hitchens [2007] ✝️ | Intelligence Squared](/img/1.gif)
This guy's entire argument, the whole of it, hinges on a strawmanned definition of a single word. It's pathetic. And, I find the fact that he could have two different answers (with one being a religious version) to the same question very telling.
Yes, Sesame Street and homology. LOL
@@steven4428 No theory is ever considered proven, but evolution is both fact and theory.
@@lizd2943A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be *proven* to be true with evidence. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
Theory definition is - a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
Sorry, but a theory cannot be a fact.
@@steven4428 you gave a dictionary layman's term of theory. When a scientific theory is very different.
"Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world(*a* *thing* *that* *is* *known* *to* *be* *consistent* *with* *objective* *reality*) that has been *substantiated* through *repeated* *experiments* or *testing* (*Proof* or *Proven* using these methods). But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing."
www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/
@@Angelcity1345 The theory of evolution still has not been susbtantiated through any observation or experiment.
1. No one has ever observed, tested, nor demonstrated the large scale evolutionary changes of any creature such as a single-celled organism evolving into a fish, or a fish developing lungs and limbs to walk on land. The very minor changes that we do observe does no demomstrate this. If you think those observed changes substantiates all of the large scale changes then you fell victim of the bait and switch. It can only be assumed that those very small changes will lead to the very big changes. Science is based on observation and experiment. It is not based on assumptions. The theory of evolution is not science at all.
2. The fossil record heavily contradicts the theory of evolution. If evolution did occur, we would expect to find many transitional fossils that would show the transitional development of simple to more complex creatures. We would see fossils that show the gradual evolution of body parts such as legs, tails, wings, and so forth. It has been over 150 years since Charles Darwin made mention of the missing transitional fossils. How many of those missing transitional fossils been found since then? None. The fossil record shows that all creatures showed upburptly while fully formed, and then disappeared from the fossil record without showing any changes. Evolution is not substantiated by the fossil evidence. The tree of life is not represented by the fossil record. The fossil record represents blades of grass that are all independent from each other.
3. Finding dinosaur soft tissue inside dinosaurs is becoming the norm. Dinosaur soft tissue strongly indicates that dinosaurs cannot be millions of years old. A group of scientists took several dinosaur soft tissue samples from different dinosaurs at different geographical locations. They sent those samples to be carbon 14 dated at different labs. If those dinosaurs were millions of years old, we would not expect to find any detectable levels of carbon. All the results came back showing ages of thousands of years old. This evidence alone debunks evolution. newgeology.us/presentation48.html
Theory of evolution is not based on science at all. People falsely pass it as science, it should really be called a pseudoscience.
Subbor Ahamad's entire argument can be reduced this: Because scientists retain an open mind to the possibility that they may be wrong, nothing they say should be given credence.
...but religion (to be specific, _his_ religion) never has to come close to providing substantial amount of good evidence as evolution theory and still deserves to be called absolute truth.
It is better to trust a person who accepts that they can make a mistake then one who thinks they are exempt from their mistakes
Suboor Ahmad can give the best argument for creationist at least for muslim apologetics.If you know Dr Zakir Naik,he will just say evolution is just a theory and he does not have any other argument.Dr Zakir Naik is quite dumb
@abbas abdullah what hero?
@abbas abdullah ....you have to love when people don’t tag the person that they are responding too, or how they came to their conclusion, both of which are signs of a weak argument, thus, I am left to assume that you’re a theist?
For our next debate: Do humans bleed when cut? Tune in for an exciting debate between a person qualified to have an opinion on the subject, and someone who believes fervently that humans are made of wood, as written in the book of Zlurbit.
Taliesin Hoyle haha. very nice
You, sir, deserve a cookie.
You and all you silly "bloodists" need to stop deceiving yourself. The red stuff that comes out is CLEARLY just red tree sap. There has never been any evidence presented, ever, that humans have blood in them. The book of Zlurbit has the only truth mankind has ever known and it says that humans are made of wood, so checkmate. Also, microscopes and blood testing have all been long since discredited as bunk science, so please don't tell me that you actually believe them. Doctors are all just in on the massive scam, otherwise why else would the medical community so quickly shun anyone claiming that humans are made of wood? It's all a massive conspiracy man!!!
David Stagg Beautiful.
Taliesin Hoyle 'do humans bleed when cut'
I LOVE YOU SIR💝
Someone tell Saboor Ahmad that only the Sith deal with absolutes.
😆😂
Perfect.
Subboor's schtick is that nothing is certain so everything is speculative, except the tenets of Islam because reasons.
6:20 ... "he studies the philosophy of biology."
Well, that sums this up perfectly.
Published December 25th. AronRa never stops. Even on Christmas. He's a relentless force for reason.
Yeah, he's totally celebrating the "risen savior's" birth...
Even though it wasn't a thing until England adopted it in the 1600's to phase out the celebration of Saturnalia.
A week long party where drinking, indulgences and orgies took place.
Sounds like we need Saturnalia back.
@@tyrionlannister3459 Atheists can celebrate whatever holidays they want just because they want. We don't have to miss out on the fun just because there's some ephemeral connection to some religious tradition. Or even if there was a strong connection.
@@PaulTheSkeptic
Nor did I suggest otherwise my fellow skeptic.
If you haven't already read about Saturnalia, I recommend it.
My 9th grade history teacher was mortified when I gave an oral report on why Xmas/christ-myth became a seasonal thing, to replace the much better(my opinion) Saturnalia.
I got an A+ from a Jehovah's witness teacher. Irony.
@@tyrionlannister3459 I see. I did misread it.
Yeah I've heard of Saturnalia and Yule and all that. I've made the point that as an atheist family, we do Christmas a little different. We like to do in the old fashioned pagan way. So for instance we cut down an evergreen tree, bring it inside and decorate it with lights and ornaments. The point being, it never really was a Christian holiday. I mean they can have it too. I don't mind sharing. But it's not like Christmas existed in the first century. It's been adopted by them not the other way around.
Congrats on your A+. You must have given that poor JW teacher a hell of a year.
Ηe has to be. The sleep of reason produces monsters!
Islamic Research Academy sounds as good as Creationist Science.
Or Critical Race Theory and Melanin Theory.
Or feminist research :D
I prefer Melatonin reasearch (Im hearing a logical fallacy around 11:20) to cuntinue where the Single ye is importnat all spiritual energy flows through the pineal gland )
I had pieal gland stir fried with mushrooms and onions as a side dish for my solstice feast, fact.
Sounds like Caveman Research Academy, with a cartoon of several guys in skins puzzling over a wheel without an axle hole.
"Let me start my talk about evolution by thanking and praising an invisible entity." Solid footing for any debate on science.
Too bad it didn't help him like "muhammad" "when an illiterate man allegedly wrote the book of idiocy.
Well done.
"it's not an absolute fact, it is a theory."
Dude... Facts are proven by evidence and are explained by theories...
"explained by theories" read that again.
Not true. Facts are laws, principles etc not theories. Such as law of gravity, archimedes principle
@@burhanahmad2825 yes unfortunately for you, the only valid usage for the term theory is the scientific one, because the colloquial usage is equivocated with the term hypothesis.
@@maazmustafa2322 facts are not laws. You have it backwards.
Laws are descriptions regularly observed phenomena.
A Fact is simply a claim that has been observed to be true.
A law can be a fact, but not all facts can be laws.
For example, we do not call the Big Bang Theory a Law despite the evidence for it.
If there is a data set in which there are too few samples to compare to, it is harder to find regularities. There cannot be a Law found in a data set of one.
We have one universe. And one Big Bang Event, as far as what can be observed, and based on current evidence.
I never said that facts are theories by the way. So whose fault is that?
I said that FACTS are EXPLAINED by THEORIES.
Facts are the WHAT, as to Theories are the HOW.
@@alucarderipmavtube Charles Wynn, Jaime Tammer would disagree with you. And there are many others. By definition it is clear unless one has started learning English recently theories don't equal facta
I'm at 52:06 right now and it sounds like Subboor's argument is basically: "Science says that Evolution is a fact, but if you use this other definition of fact, Evolution is no longer a fact." It's the only thing creationists can hope to actually accomplish (since they've lost and they know it), and also his entire tactic throughout this debate: sow doubt. Pathetic.
"A theory is a collection of facts"
"Evolution is a theory"
"Evolution is not a fact"
He pretty much killed himself right out of the gate..
A theory is not a collection of facts
It is collection of observations
New observation can contradict previous
So new observation can change theory
So Darwins theory of evolution can be changed
@@adonis9568 actually no ruclips.net/video/lqk3TKuGNBA/видео.html
@@adonis9568 Sabboor also said, quote "observations are facts" in this very opening statement
@@adonis9568 evolution is permanent because it is the best explanation for biodiversity that humans can come up with.
@@mobilegamereviewer.1936 how can you prove it is permanent
"I corrected the question and then gave the correct answer." This man cannot be stopped.
I think it's time to end these "debates" . As if the two views are equally valid and your choice of the truth should be based on the best presentation. It's not. evolution is a proven fact. Get used to it and deal with it. It's not open for debate.
kirk creelman
if only more people undertand that, each of theses debated are a reminder that a lot of people just don't get the basics in the 21st century
kirk creelman unfortunately the prevalence of the religious infection leaves little choice but to meet these idiots as equals in order to expose their ignorance. how aron didn't strangle the fool i'll never know -_-
buddykiller yes but truth is never open for debate. that's whats going on here. Instead, maybe the topic should be "humanity is better served by acknowledging and accepting reality rather than holding onto make-believe". This is what is really under debate and is where the deeper, underlying problem is lurking.
kirk creelman all too true, it is insane that this is still a issue but far too many people don't understand or realize just how we know its truth. It needs to be debated tp give them the respect due to such a large number of our countrymen which believe in insanities
evolution there is a diferet bet darwins evolution
Debate in a nutshell...
Aron : Facts supporting evolution
Subboor : Prancing around the definition of ‘Darwinism’ and ‘fact’
AronRa your patience is amazing. I am always astonished that people like him can even tie their own shoes in the morning.
Absolutely _hilarious_ when religious people claim that evolution is a religion to try to discredit it.
The irony is palpable.
8^D
It’s not to discredit but to show hypocrisy of nu atheists and anti-theists that take natural selection literally
Evolution is based on faith and not actual observable science, which makes it a religion.
@@steven4428 Yeah, we have faith that reality is real. That's the extent of our faith. You don't seem to share that faith, which makes you insane.
@@BillRevis Nice Ad hominems bro.
@@steven4428 Wasn't trying to argue with a downie
"Evolution isn't a fact because I've defined *fact* in such a way that there's no such thing as facts."
As soon as you solve the paradox you've put yourself in. You should do some research on some facts.
You seem to be confused.
Well, kind of. I'm not really sure what your comment is addressing except for semantics.
I was mocking the poor opening made by the reality denier.
Hahha. I had a long night and my brain isn't processing while the egg nog drains. Carry on.
"Evolution is based on shit we know" - great quote
1:17:52 "So human-chimp genome #2 doesn't exist because it didn't show up in that paragraph?"
At which point Aronra slipped on a pair of sunglasses, and the CSI: Miami theme song screamed through speakers.
Ok that didn't actually happen, but fun to imagine :)
Lol
Evolution is a fact. That the diversity of life on Earth as we see it today arose from earlier, precursor species is a demonstrable fact. That all life on Earth shares a common ancestor is a fact. Precisely HOW that happened is still up for grabs. THAT it happened is a demonstrable fact.
All life on earth shares a common ancestor is fact? Did you listen to any of this debate or are you brainwashed by your prophet Richy Dawkins
@@timmytab2836 Yes, fact. That you are not willing or able to investigate the supporting evidence cannot take evolution from its fact status. It just means you need more time in the classroom. I would recommend, Only A Theory, by Dr. Kenneth Miller. A very sincere Christian and a very enthusiastic educator of evolution. He really is a brilliant man and wonderful person. He's also a devout Christian and family man that I'm sure you would like. That is why I recommend him to you.
@@InformationIsTheEdge How do you know I haven't taken time to investigate the evidence. Common ancestry is one of many hypothesis derived from the current evidence. I think maybe you should look into the philosophy of science as you'd then realise that stating common ancestry as factual is far fetched
@@timmytab2836 How do I know you didn't study? Well, for starters, you haven't recognized that evolution is a fact. Second, you called this presentation a "debate." Third, you called likely the most famous atheist in the word, a prophet. These observations suggest, if nothing else, at least a passing opposition to the idea that evolution is real. No one who has studied the matter honestly and carefully could come away with any other idea than life originated once on Earth and we, and all other living things, are descendants of that one emergence. Did you look up Dr. Miller? You should. You'd really like him. His work for popular consumption, and his text books for that matter, are written with a conversational prose that anyone can follow. Honest, easy to understand language that spells it out in black and white. Here:www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/298225/only-a-theory-by-kenneth-r-miller/
Exactly, the basics of evolution will most likely to not change but the “details” (phylogeny, mutations etc) will change.
Darwin (science be upon him) got it right.
Chew Bird
and even more than he imagined
Chew Bird .😂😂😂😂😂
No, Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are obsolete and the tree of life is ready to be axed it is so full of problems.
Neither darwinism and neo darwinism are obsolete, they are based on facts, that's not how science work, validated theories aren't throw away, they are ameliorated.
The modern synthesis theory is still darwinist and neo darwinist theory, ameliorated with new facts.
Just like Einstein relativity didn't throwed away Newton's one, but upgraded it
Good, because evolution isn't based on assumptions
I love the way he smugly announces 'ah, I'm glad you've said that', like he's scored a hit against Aron. Then his 'point' turns out to be crap.
Evolution is a theory. It is also a process. The process is the fact. The theory explains the fact. And we're done.
that muslim fellow spouts quite a lot of word salad
edit: i watched the full debate now and this is such a disaster for subboor..... he literally got owned SOOOOO hard here :D This is what you get when you play "chess" in a park against uneducated "chess players"(the people he uses to debate) and only try "fools mates"on them, experienced players (aron ra, dillahunty etc) just won't fall for these simple traps. Even worse, if all you have are "fools mates", you are not a "good chess player", you also dont have any point to make, nothing to prove.
I really love seeing Aron in his element. This is his domain, his realm. The word games of Ahamed make me facepalm like crazy though. After all that, after all those word games and clever fast talking, it turns out that he just doesn't understand what a theory is. Or "absolute fact" either.
I knew AronRa would own this, but I'm wowed about how well he does this.
It is his job. Good thing he enjoys his work.
Trying to follow Subboor's illogic is stunningly difficult.
What a doofus.
His odd thinking adds to the evidence supporting the idea that religion does in FACT poison everything.
Skip to the last part of 1-on-1 and watch him just repeat the same quote like 5 times in a row....
phileas007 Yeah, it's just bizarre.
Reminds of the Monty Python bit with the monks mumbling latin, then bashing themselves on the head with a board. It's about the same thing. :)
That guy has deleted numerous comments I made on his channel Darwinian Delusions. Comments that focused on science, while simultaneously allowing very rude comments!
stopscammingman Sorta seems typical for the more deluded types. That kind of dishonest discourse leaves me to add 'complete jackass' to his repertoire of titles.
His mind has been fact by Islam.
Would love to see more debates with you aron you really have a talent for it
New debate title- "Confused Muslim Debates the Meaning of the Word 'Fact' for an Hour."
MrOttopants I know right? I was there and it was kinda torture to listen to... Very little content against evolution, basically just arguing semantics the whole 2+ hours we were there.
Evolutiuon deniers in a nutshell, they never have anything but fallacies and trying to change the subject.
well... i suppose it saves on having to get the necessary education to challenge actual science.
is this a total bore? ... i'm just starting to watch. i think i might just be here to argue in the comments section. i am a bit ignorant of the theory of evolution myself so i may lose. exciting :D
He defined "fact" in such a way that NOTHING can be a fact. Just like Aron always says: The only way the creationists can be right is if NOTHING is right, so they have to argue against reality itself.
It's more like Aron Ra tried to make his opinion the authoritative deciding factor, when the Muslim at least used scientific literature to make his point, which is why he won the debate.
I'm really trying to honestly listen to Subboor with an open mind, but it's just nothing. He is arguing nothing, with an incredibly well crafted word salad.
Jesse Huckabee yeah every time I try listening to their myths and empty claims I remember why I rewind their part
Jesse Huckabee at least you're not sitting there yelling at the screen >_> aron has the patience of a fucking saint!
Jesse Huckabee Lol He is arguing nothing ? He used the scientific literature whereas the other guy just gave bunch of his own opinions and this why Saboor won the debate.
ad hominem fallacy ^^ ..is all u atheist ppl have .. just logical fallacies ... well good for u
+mansaf mushtaq What video were you watching? That saboor guy just made excuses and incorrect statements, he didn't win anything other than the award for the biggest bullshitter.
13m40s he says "Observations are a fact" - guess what Subboor, evolution has been observed :D In fact, it has been reproduced too. Own goal.
that s the point i think, evolution as in "genetic mutation" is an observation, yes it is a fact, but to go from there to homology, i don't see how one can do this, there were no observations of evolution from on species to another, no one is that old :)
dammit evolution and darwin mechanism of evolution is two fucking different thing, so dont pretend y all scientist or something you dawkin sheep
Redouane. M BOUDELLA That is correct. No one has seen it, just as no one has seen Jupiter complete an orbit around the sun, but we have seen it move in an arch and based on that observation we know it's speed and trajectory and we can predict that it does orbits the sun and that it will continue to orbit the sun and even how long that takes to a certain degree of accuracy.
In the same way we see mutations diverge groups of animals into becoming distinct new species. We also have a lot of other observed data and we can make predictions based on that and test them to see if the predictions are true. The more predictions based on that are true, the more certain we can be that the theory works and that the mechanism that is described by the theory is a fact. Evolution is a fact. It's okay that you don't know all the data and therefore can't see for yourself how you can go from genetic mutation to homology and beyond, just as long as you understand that scientists would benefit the most by proving someone wrong. That gets you the most news coverage = money. So if the data would point somewhere else, we would probably know that. You can be as certain of that as we are that our sun will still be there tomorrow.
V No dude! They are two halves of the same thing! One is-micro the other- macro! You can't have one without the other regardless of the title they are given!
@TheRationalizer Im sorry, but no one has ever observed, demonstrated, nor reproduced any large scale evolution such as the first single celled organism becoming a fish, or a fish growing lungs and limbs to walk on land. Your only observation is animals bringing forth after their kind which is scientifically accurate with the bible.
Evolution denialists really need to learn about Human Chromosome #2 and inherited endogenous retroviral DNA.
No, they don't care about facts, so it doesn't matter much
Knowledge is of no importance to them, only their dogma matters.
Learning is forbidden by all religions, you Can't know something and believe something at the same time, Knowledge replaces belief, so in order to have beliefs you have to remain Ignorant forever.
@diehard300 PBWY. Your opinions are hilarious and ignorant at the same time - now that only atheists/others are capable of doing!!!
AllTruthRevealed You just confirmed what it's been said in this whole thread.
*Resolution for 2017:*
Stop debating creationists! We as a secular community need to stop debating the color of the sky. The "debate" has been done to death.
Cloe. You have to remember that, although this is old stuff for us, there are a lot of religious people out there - especially young people - who are hearing the real facts about Evolution for the first time. Many never thought too deeply about their faith until these videos came along. We can't let Aron's incredible talent go to waste when there are still so many millions of religious people who need to hear his message. Also, if we stay silent, the creationists will proclaim "victory" and claim that we ran out of good arguments when faced with their "biblical truth." We've got these creationists on the run and we're winning the battle so let's not quit now!
Gage Blackwood
Thank you for sharing your perspective.
But Aron Ra did not win the debate. And to try to stop debates is unscientific. The theist had scientific literature, but Aron had his own opinion, and he is not a qualified expert. He is not an evolutionary biologist.
I agree, and I have had my fill of recycled garbage by Religious apologists and Creationists, BUT there is always a new generation that have not been exposed to the pointed out flaws and attempts by fundamental Religion and there are always attempts to sneak Creation in public schools Science classes, legislation and anti-Science.
The current POTUS of the USA thinks "Climate Science is a hoax".
so this "debate" is not going to end especially when Science threatens and challenges Religion and Certain Industry profits.
The next 8 years will be worse.
stop projecting.
that tactic is as old and tired as Creationists recycled arguments.
Its pathetic.
This is awesome to wake up to this on Christmas. Thanks Aron. Watching it right now
Sabur is exceptional! I have never heard someone say so much, and yet, say so little! He's one of the most long winded people I have ever heard. Someone should've told him that long winded statements aren't the goal of the debate.
that young man is used to lecturing to people who don't understand what he is saying ,he is shocked that someone much smarter than him is showing him the flaws in his reasoning.
cartmanrlsusalla
Subboor Ahamad did a good job; he got several major points completely wrong, rendering his assertions wrong, but he did okay with his presentation.
you are kind. i think i've heard much worse from other creationists.
You are right, his target audience won't understand if he's right or wrong anyways, they will just assume right if they like the presentation and viceversa.
What did he get wrong though? It was Aron Ra who was making claims without even backing them up with scientific literature. Macroevolution is not empirically proven and therefore is not an irrefutable fact. It's a nice interpretation, but we have an interpretation too, which fits the evidence better, we think.
Subboor sounded like a complete idiot. By the end he was fumbling, stuttering and totally contradicting himself. He went down hard. What a desperate fool.
Lol
Before I even check, I predict that the guy denying evolution has a religious agenda. Let's see if I'm right.
And looks (and acts) more like a primate than I do...
Yep. Every one a cigar!
@@warren52nz took u 4 years to watch it?
@Omar Walieed 🤗 Well I have other things to focus my attention on. Religious people are uneducated or brainwashed.
- Don't turn science in to a religion.
- Nobody is doing it...
Says who? The guy who believes a horse can fly, with a man in its back...
Lamarckism? I guess he dug that up just to confuse things. Creationist apologists always remind me of Andy Dufresne: "How can you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate?" And what's this obsession with Sesame Street?
Lol
Isn't it annoying when creationists quote from a scientific article but ignore the actual evidence presented and instead go for cherry-picking on a few words?
Mario Pendic the guy in the debate quoted an article from Nature
Mario Pendic it's annoying cuz he never actually provide any source so I can't track down. But think about it - do you honestly think there is going to be a scientific article published in a journal like Nature that claims evolution is "only a theory"???
lol come on...if anybody claims to have an article about that (in Nature no less), then obviously it's a quotemine.
In fact, let me put it this way: if it turns out the article is NOT a quotemine or taken out of context, and that it is indeed an article claiming macro-evolution is wrong and somehow creationism is true..then I'll suck a Muslim's dick.
mldfry how did that turn out, by the way? Did she do the right thing, or did she give into her creationist dishonesty?
20:45 "Now where did I leave my quote mines? Oh there they are!"
I legit looked the article up and laughed so hard at the stuff that he left out
I agree with all of evolution except for the facts that don't agree with my book of fiction.
Of course a pedophile flying on a winged horse to the moon makes so much more sense
One question: Why is this even a debate now? We KNOW and have KNOWN for YEARS that evolution by natural selection is an absolute, demonstrable FACT.
I think at this point, it's about educating the people watching. Giving them a side by side comparison of what nonsense the religious liars can spew and how reasonable and intelligent the other side is.
I agree with you, however any reasonable human being with a modern education shouldn't have any doubts in their mind about the validity of evolution. It's a sad state of affairs when a well proved scientific theory is still somehow disputed by some.
PhysicsGuru100 Just because it shouldn't be doesn't mean it isn't. Lots of people are raised religious and told science lies to them. Showing them that the opposite is true is very important.
I agree, but I feel that at least for me, I get tired of having the same debates about the same topics with religious people. For instance, I have explained multiple times the theory of evolution along with the supporting evidence to religious people during discussions. However, they seem to just be blinded by years of indoctrination by their respective religions. I guess you could say that I sometimes get frustrated with people who claim to have "debunked" a scientific theory, when they clearly haven't and claim to know more than the scientists that made certain discoveries.
History tells us that if we don't shoot down these science deniers that we will take a step backwards. Pain in the ass?? Sure...but we still need to do it.
philosophy of science is not science the scientific method is science this guy is already attempting to deceive us
Exactly. I hate "the philosophy of science" it is almost like being a scientist or something without having to actually learn anything (especially any proper science)...its like a non-subject. Kind of like philosophy itself. And I should know, I studied it! haha
Andalusian Project the philosophy of science gives a definition that doesn't mean it's the most appropriate definition for actual science it is simply a philosophy the definition of science
Andalusian Project what branch of science exactly is restricted by a philosophy of science the fact that you're trying to use a philosophy of science which is emergent to justify your statements on actual science shows an incredible dishonesty it is not a drink for me to explain that philosophy is not the way science is actually built philosophy is emergent and by its very nature is intelligently designed science on the other hand is investigative
Andalusian Project I don't understand how you pointing out the root of any individual word comes from philosophy of science validates the point that you were trying to make
philosophy of science is not science it is philosophy
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.
you mean Yaaaaaaaaaasss
Right -- microevolution _IS_ a fact. Macroevolution is speculation. :)
Kristen Michelle You say that as though it's damning. There is no difference between micro and macroevolutuon except time. That's like saying forty cents IS a fact, forty dollars is speculation.
Owen, We observe the 40 cents. You're telling me that beyond the rainbow is a bucket of $40.00. That's the difference. We _NEVER_ see macroevolution. Microevolution is nothing but small change over time. We never see the beginnings of any macroevolution such as a new organ, sytem, or body plan. Neither do we observe any higher complexity. We are just told that beyond the rainbow, conveniently outside of our sight, it all happened. The fossils don't document it. Extant life does not document this. It is all a narrative and speculation. It's the materialistic interpretation but it is not proven. It's like saying a helium balloon that is released into the sky will make it to the Moon -- yet we are told to believe this without observing it. So it is not nearly enough to "just believe" that microevolution adds up to macroevolution. Something somewhere has to demonstrate it. And there has to be no other interpretation that also fits the evidence, because if there is, then both possibilities have to be retained until one or the other is determined.
Kristen Michelle So what's the barrier? What stops macroevolution? We know that species can become physically and genetically different from their basal forms. We know that selection drives these changes. What's stopping an ancient form of tree shrew from becoming humans over enough generations? What mechanism prevents it?
Italian and Spanish are both derived from Latin. At no point did a Latin speaking person give birth to a Spanish speaking child. Small, local changes formed the languages over time. Distance and isolation between populations lead to enough, successive changes that Spanish and Italian are completely different from one another and different from their parent language. It works the same way with evolution.
You have species A-Grasslands, which spreads and populates a large area. Species A-Mountains and Species A-Valley are both direct relations to A-Grasslands. A-Mountains spreads further into A-Caverns, and A-Valley into A-River Delta. A-Caverns and A-River Delta are isolated from each other and are now genetically dissimilar enough that they can't interbreed. Maybe A-Caverns have sharper vision in low light. Maybe A-River Delta have stronger jaws to adapt to eating shell fish. This can all be seen in real time, over the course of generations. In the case of things like e. Coli you can see some pretty dramatic changes in a very short time.
That's speciation, and that IS macroevolution. Your inability to comprehend a thing is not proof against it.
Sorry, I gave it an hour but sabors repetitive word-salad finally defeated me.
cyan eyed No shit, the guy said absolutely nothing of any significance what so ever.
Am I the only one who thinks the moderator is most awesome and way better than most?
Very nicely composed lady!
Agreed. She's incredibly sweet and did a fantastic job.
phileas007 she did her job in a most impressive away 🤗
Yessssss
This
She's awesome
1:27:40 "evolution is true but I don't care cause derp"
Creationists get their arguments from the Department of Egregiously Redundant Positions. D.E.R.P.
Everybody can just skip to that time to have the entire debate summed up :)
where tf is that said, i clicked the time was totally untrue aka a lie.
It is a theory of evolution...not a fact of evolution.. Mohammad shahzada
I just added AronRa's book to my wish-list on Amazon.
I bought it the day it released. 😎
went to this debate, the Muslim is in total cognitive dissonance
Vollkorn Vampir Front row I was the really big guy
Aharon Heitsche Yeah coz he used Scientific literature and other guy did not 😂
yeh if u only u knew what cognitive dissonance is ^^
He's not a muslim?
Alright already, that term is being thrown around too damn much! True or not, it's getting old. Not only that but it's the wrong usage of the term! I really don't thing saboor is anxious because he likes Aron but disagrees!
That was the most satisfying debate I've seen from You so far and I've probably have seen most of them. That guy was so scared that if you'd be allowed to push him harder he'd either turn atheist or his head would explode (probably the latter).
When he gave the definition of "fact" my head just popped with "strawman-equivocation"
He actually came up with different definitions of facts as the debate went on. Particularly, the “absolute fact” and regular “fact” definitions that he kept bait-and-switching between.
21:26 whoa!!! quote mining in action there. from same abstract you can read "... the model selection tests are found to *overwhelmingly support UCA* irrespective of the presence of horizontal gene transfer and symbiotic fusion events. These results provide *powerful statistical evidence* corroborating the monophyly of all known life."
Just one minute into the muslims speech and I skipped to arons intro. Its just not possible to find a muslim apologist who can comprehend or give an accurate definition of a scientific theory without misrepresenting it or using the oldest lies.
Zasz
At least you're being honest about it .. from the comments it's clear most haven't even watched the whole thing
Subboor thinks Darwinian evolution is not fact but thinks a 7th century merchant splitting the moon in half and riding to heaven on a winged donkey is perfectly logical.....
OnceUponAtimeThereWasAyoutubeUserWithAlongName 1992 and quran 2:259 as well
dammit evolution and darwin mechanism of evolution is two fucking different thing, so dont pretend y all scientist or something you dawkin sheep
@Ballshippin That is a strawman
+AronRa I am even more honored than ever to have met you when you were promoting your book in LA. Even before reading your book you have been one of my favorite proponents of science. I engaged with a creationist for the first time on some of these comment threads. I would like to announce that I am now going to add anti-theist to describe myself. I can't remember the word you used for anti-faith but when I find it this will also be used. I am still trying to recover from how big of a shock it is that someone can lie and pretend that there is some other form of reality. These people are delusional. But I know I don't have to tell you that. Rah-men brother!
Aron, I am a strong supporter of everything you do and say. So I don't claim to be unbiased. Having said that you made mincemeat of this man. Well done. Keep mincing!
Amusingly "pongo" is a term in the Royal Navy for British soldiers. In the British army it is a term for Canadian soldiers. All good natured.
I dont even know wtf this guy is saying. He is just rambling on trying to sound smart but not making any points.
"This book says, this book says, this book says." And?
He's suggesting that all theories are equally valid in order to make the false equivalency between a singular scientist's theory (Small T for the conversational term) and a Theory of science. He's throwing in a whole other pile of shit on top but that's his main attack. Also he likes to play on the honesty of scientists by saying that it is not a Fact when we all know it is not. To say it is would be arrogant. To say there could in all universes, in all futures, be no other way. Not only would it be arrogant, it would be religion. Instead we say it's as close to being a fact as anything that is known.
Basically an argument based on semantics and quote mines.
Damn, I wish I understood as much about Evolution as Aron does *^_^*
Read a book or two.
@@islam_will_Dominate My situation doesn't require me to have an understanding of Evolution on a scholary level, but you are right ;-)
22:43 woops backfired on him, if islam was the truth, all these hadiths and tafseers and sects of islam wouldn't exist
i enjoyed that. thanks to both of you and i hope aron can find some other sensible and partly informed persons to debate.
😆😆😆😆😆
This video is a great example of how difficult it is to keep track of bullshit.
Subboor has to constantly rifle through his pile any time he goes off script. AronRa has only what he knows off hand.
"you mean my opponent is inappropriately quoting science he doesn't understand" lmao best quote of the night. And why was she telling him that he already has good reason to believe that without even KNOWING it lol.
Or as Abad would say "it's not an absolute fact!" Lol
*Aaron* I do not think this is a debate format in which you should participate because there was no audience polling. The most honest debates by far that I have watched are the Intelligence 2 debates. (Intelligence 'squared' - I don't know how to type the 'squared' bit).. In these debates, an audience pre-debate poll is taken on the subject followed post-debate by a 2nd audience poll. The winner of the debate is declared by counting which side had the highest increase of audience conversion. IF this was conducted at this debate, it was not included in the video & should have been. And yes, I understand that such polling would be skewed if debates were held in territory of either side which is why debates must not be so conducted. Even ticket sales must 'cover' the need for audience balance somehow.
In the name of Allah, the cosmic dictator, I have come to argue semantics for 2 hours.
Regarding Suboor: Funny how someone who wants to avoid confusion like he claims to be doing tries to create as much confusion as possible with needless wordplay and word definitions.
"We all play with the toys the gods give us" Odysseus king of Ithika , Greece.
Said when he was compelling Akleaus to go to Troy...
Classic muslim tactics
I don't get this...
He'll happily quote papers that support his ideals.. but he won't ever mention anything that contradict them.
Over here, in western Europe there is no debate on the subject, as far as I see, not believing evolution over here is like stating that the earth is flat.
Great job AronRa! Subboor sounded like a desperate fool, constantly stumbling and contradicting himself. He was so annoying, I would have slapped him silly out of frustration. Thank you for being so intelligent and level headed. You kicked his ass 100%.!!
The part when Ahamad's grilling of Aron went wrong (at about 1:16:32) is hilarious.
I only expect scientific misunderstanding or misinterpretations and logical fallacies from the Muslim.
TwinG7414 Which is the most ironic part of this. Muslims contributed immensely (in their Golden Age) to our contemporary scientific method.
Yes, as did the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, and so on and so on.
+STR33TSofJUST1C3 yeah that's what made me want to learn arabic
Logic beats Speculation Correct. Ironically, Islam's golden age was also the same period when moderate and skepticism were far more common in the Muslim world. Speaking out against the quran didn't get you killed back then.
STR33TSofJUST1C3 That's right and of course you remember that their decline started when their philosophers stated that mathematics is work of the devil.
I think the last nail has been hammered into the coffin of creationism. Oh, wait, my bad. That happened over a century ago. Creationists just keep arguing like they have a cogent point to make. Then I listen to what they have to say, and realize nothing has changed.
As you noted in the beginning, it became a debate on semantics. The biggest problem with his definition of the word fact, is that it becomes useless.
do you even watch mate?
V, obviously you have no fucking clue as to what semantics means.
Scientific theories are not absolute, Darwinian evolution is a scientific theory, and therefor Darwinian evolution cant be absolute. This paragraph is all you need for atheists lol
Has this video taught you nothing? Cut out the "Darwinian", it's just evolution. The theory explains how evolution happens. Evolution is an "absolute fact" in the sense that it is an objectively verifiable observation, whose explanation is unlikely to change very much due to how rigorously it has been demonstrated.
By Subboor's own admission, heliocentric theory is absolute--even though he later said that a theory cannot be absolute. He said that before he knew about heliocentric theory, the theory of gravity, cell theory or the germ theory of disease--all of which are absolute. He wants to pretend that evolution is the one theory that is not absolute, so that he can deny the science to make-believe something else.
Falsifiability is an essential part of science, to say that there is no evidence which would disprove gravity would be arrogant, and would likely lead to nasty political entanglements (stalin for example was a lamarckian and had geneticists executed over evolution).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
Don't confuse the humility of the admission that they could be wrong (if evidence were presented), with an admission of being wrong.
oh says who? some are some are not - the earth orbiting the sun, as pointed out, is both a theroy and absolute fact.
Ali Dawah you say that is all you need, but the creation stories are so absurd and misleading that we literally have thousands of years of how badly those fables have destroyed the lives of all humanity. Making one human master over another, the constant abuse of others. Hell is literally religion. Yet the crazies wish to deny the theories from the physical evidence that we do have, for the stories of these backwards savages. Please, please dont tell me that god has consistently failed to make anything good and uses one of the most flawed, misinterpreted, misleading, contradicting book's ever written.
Ra and Ahamad were talking past each other as Ra took the debate question to mean "is biological evolution verified beyond a reasonable doubt", which it is according to everything we have learned from science. Whereas Ahamad took the question to mean "is the current codification of the theory of evolution as described in the modern synthesis a fact known with 100% certainty", which it isn't as it is a theory subject change and is changing as new information is found.
This 'debate' is taking place 150 years after the argument was lost.
The winning team has gone home with the trophy, the fans have gone home, the lights in the stadium are out - but "Team Creationist" is still on the field trying to get points on the scoreboard.
+Gage Blackwood Yes and the winning team's grand children have died of old age.
They should never call these 'debates'.
To discredit the fact of evolution he does not come up with evidence, because i suspect he knows that evolution is indeed a fact, but instead goes for semantics. A cheap shot, and very transparent. He cannot come up with contradicting evidence, therefore he attacks the meaning of words. Standard tactics for most apologetic speakers.
What well spoken fluff... he's the Muslim William Lane Craig!
Aron keep up the good work and thanks for your effort.
Good job. I do with you didn't let him get away with as many Apeals To Authority, but I know you're still learning debate and I do think you did a good job. I can't wait to see you do more.
Thanks, AronRa, for spreading reason & critical thinking. I worry, though, giving stage to creationist ideas too often could validate their misguided views.
His Opening statement, literally nullified his having this debate. "Facts don't change, there absolute." Is BS, with that definition only an irrational idea like God could ever produce absolute certainty.....
Some new holes are going to get ripped here.
Hey there Aaron! You still have to work on your presentation style but a great debate overall. It would be awesome if you could take all his quote mines and address them in one of your upcoming videos. Happy holidays!
1:56:30 - The moderator did a wonderful job.
AronRa is brilliant!!!
What a lovely Christmas present for me ! Thank you, Aron - 2 hours of entertainment , rather than me having to listen, constantly, to how George Michael died of Brussels Sprouts wind
Here you have two great exemple of:
1- someone who refuse to understand and keep on twisting facts.
2- someone who have à pretty good mastery of his subject... enought To have à close computer and a dashing red tie.
You can tell the man arguing for creation is completely, desperately ignoring AronRa to the point of forcing a clenched smile in order to stay in his happy place, fantasyland.
Edit:Finished video, he starts listening more and that's to his credit, but he still appears to have all the knowledge bouncing off his skull.
1:27:40 "You're right, I know you're right, but it doesn't matter because I don't want you to be right"
Unlike creationists, educated people are prepared to alter their beliefs when confronted with evidence that contradicts those beliefs . Which strategy is the better pathway to the truth ?. You decide .
Aron explained to me what a theory is...envelopes facts...and I agree with this.
And so ends the debate, thank you all for coming.
He might as well argue gravity is not a fact.
I must admit, this Muslim is giving a much better attempt at debate than any christian that I have ever heard debating this subject.
Yeah, he at least needs credit for that
Nah.
lmao Don't you just hate it when people don't switch off their phones and interrupt the speaker when it rings? :p
I love this debate, the best parts where when a voice of reason took over. When Aron speaks it's like music to my ears.
The only think that left me wondering is, how does he stand so much dishonesty and stay friendly. I would just state the difference between a fact and an observation and leave. I really don't understand how Aron does what he does, but I am immensely grateful that he does and I learn a lot, about science and about how to address premeditated dishonesty.
This is Ken Ham all over again.
This is some serious edging...
All i wanted for the whole Time was for the guy to make a concrete point so i can accurately understand what Position he was actually arguing for, but all he did bring was weird citations and word salat....