what is atheism?

[Koofi Baraawe Pirates]

@Koofi Baraawe Pirates are you muslim?

I don't wanna unnecessarily insult you

Yes I am

 

[MuslimManMe]

Yes I am

I apologize for that earlier post insinuating that you were a disbeliever

Please find it in your heart to forgive me.









You're still wrong about evolution though

 

[Zuzu5]

Theory is the highest form you can attain in science and in that sense yes its on par with gravity. There is tonns and tonns of evidence. You can't do physics without gravity and you can't do biology without evolution.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science...l-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Ask a scientist if he/her would put there lives on the theory of evolution.

here's a quote from theoretical physicist:

"The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No"—most theories, soon after conception."
- albert einstein

 

[tesfey67n]

Ask a scientist if he/her would put there lives on the theory of evolution.

here's a quote from theoretical physicist:

"The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No"—most theories, soon after conception."
- albert einstein

great quote.

 

[Koofi Baraawe Pirates]

I apologize for that earlier post insinuating that you were a disbeliever

Please find it in your heart to forgive me.









You're still wrong about evolution though

I forgive you walaal, I know these things can get tense. Evolution and Islam doesn't have to butt heads it's not one or the other, that's why I posted those vidoes from Muslim people. Rejecting it is to our detriment no one gives a f*ck whether we accept it or not. Wadaads really don't know science sheik Abdul Aziz ibn Baz believed the earth was flat according to his interpretation.

 

[Koofi Baraawe Pirates]

Ask a scientist if he/her would put there lives on the theory of evolution.

here's a quote from theoretical physicist:

"The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No"—most theories, soon after conception."
- albert einstein

No is saying a scientific theory is the absolute truth but the best we know so far otherwise we would be done with science nothing more to discover. In his context he overturned Newtonian gravity and it turns out Newtonian gravity is an approximation of General Relativity but the fact of gravity still remains. Newtonian gravity is fine in normal everyday stuff you can use it to build bridges send rockets to space. But when you go really fast and close to the speed of light it breaks down and you need to use general relativity, so in cern where they are smashing particles together newtonian gravity is useless but when they send rockets to space they use newtons laws.

 

[Zuzu5]

No is saying a scientific theory is the absolute truth but the best we know so far otherwise we would be done with science nothing more to discover. In his context he overturned Newtonian gravity and it turns out Newtonian gravity is an approximation of General Relativity but the fact of gravity still remains. Newtonian gravity is fine in normal everyday stuff you can use it to build bridges send rockets to space. But when you go really fast and close to the speed of light it breaks down and you need to use general relativity, so in cern where they are smashing particles together newtonian gravity is useless but when they send rockets to space they use newtons laws.

"don't try to prove things; try to convince yourself. And be your own harshest critic and your own greatest skeptic. Every scientific theory will someday fail, and when it does, that will herald a new era of scientific inquiry and discovery. And of all the scientific theories we've ever come up with, the best ones succeed for the longest amounts of time and over the greatest ranges possible. In some sense, it's better than a proof: it's the most correct description of the physical world humanity has ever imagined."
-Astrophysicist and author Ethan Siegel

 

[Koofi Baraawe Pirates]

"don't try to prove things; try to convince yourself. And be your own harshest critic and your own greatest skeptic. Every scientific theory will someday fail, and when it does, that will herald a new era of scientific inquiry and discovery. And of all the scientific theories we've ever come up with, the best ones succeed for the longest amounts of time and over the greatest ranges possible. In some sense, it's better than a proof: it's the most correct description of the physical world humanity has ever imagined."
-Astrophysicist and author Ethan Siegel

Yes I don't disagree with it. Did you even read what I wrote instead of throwing quotes at me. He is basically describing what I wrote how we went from Newtonian gravity to general relativity. Newtonian gravity is wrong and it failed, we herald new era of science of general relativity (Einstein isn't a genius for no reason) , but we couldn't have general relativity without newtons theory of gravity. At the end of the day the fact of gravity still remains

 

[Zuzu5]

Yes I don't disagree with it. Did you even read what I wrote instead of throwing quotes at me. He is basically describing what I wrote how we went from Newtonian gravity to general relativity. Newtonian gravity is wrong and it failed, we herald new era of science of general relativity (Einstein isn't a genius for no reason) , but we couldn't have general relativity without newtons theory of gravity. At the end of the day the fact of gravity still remains

Yes i read what you said, i also replied with "Cern is also doing the same" idk what happened to that.

 

[Koofi Baraawe Pirates]

Yes i read what you said, i also replied with "Cern is also doing the same" idk what happened to that.

Yeah they are trying to go beyond the standard model. The Higgs Boson was predicted in the 1960s by the standard model. It got discovered in 2013 at the LHC, people were hoping to get new physics thats how science works. They were pretty sure they were going to find it but that was less exciting than getting new physics. The main point being experiment had to be done and evidence had to be obtained to confirm it. Now to discredit the standard model you have to go through the evidence obtained so far.

 

[Kafir]

Well if the theory should be possible, wouldn't it make sense that the creature should be able to spend unlimited time outside of water, because this mutation, (i suppose)or this transition isn't a rapid one, but rather a event that would not only take enough time, but also have to be in the right circumstances at the right time (i mean you tell me), which i'd also like to know what these circumstances were like?
And the examples you gave with the dolphins, and whales are absolutely fine, and i dont disagree that they can remain on land for a certain time, but that still doesn't prove anything regarding the theory of intermediate stages, since the dolphin and the whale as you correctly said only can remain on land while they are moist, then they have to retreat to water, or they'll die.
And i mean we dont have to bring all kinds of scientific research, but rather we can actually assess these things logically, would be logical that humans would develop big fur covering 95 % of the body as a result of a drastic change in the weather, or would it make more sense that the human would die, because they wouldn't be able to survive in such condition, because their genetic makeup isn't composed to withstand that?

Whales/dolphins are sea creatures with some ability to live on land. Their ancestors were amphibious animals similar to hippos, whose ancestors further back were land creatures. You say you want an intermediate stage for whales/dolphins? You're looking for Ambulocetus. A whale ancestor who walks on land, breathes air, and can live in the sea.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4524232

Even earlier you have an even more terrestrial ancestor of whales/dolphins. Indohyus

https://www.nature.com/news/2007/071218/full/news.2007.388.html

"Well if the theory should be possible, wouldn't it make sense that the creature should be able to spend unlimited time outside of water, because this mutation"

Are you looking for an example of a fish who through a single generation through a single mutation was able to fully live on land, breathe air and move about?

 

[Subeer]

Whales/dolphins are sea creatures with some ability to live on land. Their ancestors were amphibious animals similar to hippos, whose ancestors further back were land creatures. You say you want an intermediate stage for whales/dolphins? You're looking for Ambulocetus. A whale ancestor who walks on land, breathes air, and can live in the sea.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4524232

Even earlier you have an even more terrestrial ancestor of whales/dolphins. Indohyus

https://www.nature.com/news/2007/071218/full/news.2007.388.html

"Well if the theory should be possible, wouldn't it make sense that the creature should be able to spend unlimited time outside of water, because this mutation"

Are you looking for an example of a fish who through a single generation through a single mutation was able to fully live on land, breathe air and move about?

That was actually very interesting that you came up with the example of amboletucus, because i didn't knew that creature like the mudskipper before you introduced them.
So again i googled the amboletucus and after some reading on the basic wikipedia i actually found and interesting link to a study that reasearched the strength of the rib cage of semi- aquatic and terrestrial animals, including the amboletucus. And claimed that the amboletucus actually was aquatic.
What they studied was basically the strenght of the rib cage as a result gravity on land, of both terrestrial animals, and semi- aquatic animals and used that as an indicator determine the animals ability to live fully on land.
What they found out was that the strength of the terrestrial-semi aquatic animals was bigger than the aquatic counterparts (amboletucus).

"We estimated the strengths of rib cages against vertical compression in 26 extant and four extinct mammal specimens including cetartiodactyls, paenungulates, and carnivorans, representing 11 terrestrial, six semi‐aquatic, and nine obligate aquatic taxa. Our analyses of extant taxa showed that strengths were high among terrestrial/semi‐aquatic mammals, whose rib cages are subjected to vertical compression during the support on land, whereas strengths were low among obligate aquatic mammals, whose rib cages are not subjected to antigravity force in the water. We therefore propose rib strength as a new index to estimate the ability of an animal to be supported on land while being supported by either the forelimbs or thoracic region. According to our analyses of extinct taxa, this ability to be supported on land was rejected for a basal cetacean (Cetartiodactyla: Ambulocetus) and two desmostylians (Paenungulata: Paleoparadoxia and Neoparadoxia). However, this ability was not rejected for one desmostylian species (Desmostylus). Further study of the ribs of extant/extinct semi‐aquatic taxa may help in understanding the ecological shifts in these groups"

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joa.12518