What scientific developments can be attributed to the Qur'an?

[supz]

The part where he said "not all scientists share the same views on hypotheses", this idiot just admitted that his views are shaped by a bunch of lab dwellers (the vast majority of them being on the payroll) that frequently contradict each other. I don't have anything against scientists by the way, I have respect for scientists who develop theories that actually hold weight in real life.

Continue...

Didn't you just do the same thing. They are professionals you dimwit. Do you go to a mechanic when you are sick? nacas baa tahay

 

[JohnDoe]

Look dude, I don't give a shit what some phylogeneticists believe lmao... There's absolutely no evidence to support their hypothesis on how these amino acids where destroyed... I don't believe that all amino acids are right-handed, I believe that a large number of them are (relative to those that are right-handed). You've still not addressed the points that the author has made, I've read the article in its entirety and no where does he display confusion (in the slightest).

The part where he said "not all scientists share the same views on hypotheses", this idiot just admitted that his views are shaped by a bunch of lab dwellers (the vast majority of them being on the payroll) that frequently contradict each other. I don't have anything against scientists by the way, I have respect for scientists who develop theories that actually hold weight in real life.

Continue...

What's so wrong about scientists disagreeing on hypothesis? The scientific community is governed by falsification and scepticism and that's what has led to its success so if you truly respect science you should apply these principles to the Qur'an which governs you.

 

[Hitman]

Loool, I see I struck a nerve or two.

Didn't you just do the same thing. They are professionals you dimwit. Do you go to a mechanic when you are sick? nacas baa tahay

No, I don't go to a mechanic when I'm sick. I see that your a little slow up there (either that or you've misunderstood me).

What's so wrong about scientists disagreeing on hypothesis? The scientific community is governed by falsification and scepticism and that's what has led to its success so if you truly respect science you should apply these principles to the Qur'an which governs you.

You've said before that there's a "consensus" in the science community that evolution is an accepted theory when most scientists in reality believe that it's a baseless hypothesis, even you would believe that had you looked into it much deeper. It's a hypothesis (with a bunch of loopholes) that are supported by other hypotheses (that also have a bunch of loopholes and no basis in reality). The way I see it, it's a desperate attempt to disprove the existence of God which they've failed to do. Talks about mental gymnastics... Hah. (In before this retard repeats that it's a scientific fact even though there's consensus among all scientists that it's not).

@supz don't worry, the points that the author has raised would cause any Darwinist to pop a vein.

We've rejected your irrational beliefs. You guys are repetitive and a waste of time smh... In the end we all know what happens; you admit that there's no evidence to support your claims and request that we "agree to disagree".

 

[JohnDoe]

Loool, I see I struck a nerve or two.

No, I don't go to a mechanic when I'm sick. I see that your a little slow up there (either that or you've misunderstood me).

You've said before that there's a "consensus" in the science community that evolution is an accepted theory when most scientists in reality believe that it's a baseless hypothesis, even you would believe that had you looked into it much deeper. It's a hypothesis (with a bunch of loopholes) that are supported by other hypotheses (that also have a bunch of loopholes and no basis in reality). The way I see it, it's a desperate attempt to disprove the existence of God which they've failed to do. Talks about mental gymnastics... Hah. (In before this retard repeats that it's a scientific fact even though there's consensus among all scientists that it's not).

@supz don't worry, the points that the author has raised would cause any Darwinist to pop a vein.

We've rejected your irrational beliefs. You guys are repetitive and a waste of time smh... In the end we all know what happens; you admit that there's no evidence to support your claims and request that we "agree to disagree".

Saaxib, you're mentally taxing I swear.

 

[supz]

Saaxib, you're mentally taxing I swear.

Do you understand sarcasm? you are so conceited. Im afraid the creationist is still stuck in the 7th century.

 

[supz]

Loool, I see I struck a nerve or two.

No, I don't go to a mechanic when I'm sick. I see that your a little slow up there (either that or you've misunderstood me).

You've said before that there's a "consensus" in the science community that evolution is an accepted theory when most scientists in reality believe that it's a baseless hypothesis, even you would believe that had you looked into it much deeper. It's a hypothesis (with a bunch of loopholes) that are supported by other hypotheses (that also have a bunch of loopholes and no basis in reality). The way I see it, it's a desperate attempt to disprove the existence of God which they've failed to do. Talks about mental gymnastics... Hah. (In before this retard repeats that it's a scientific fact even though there's consensus among all scientists that it's not).

@supz don't worry, the points that the author has raised would cause any Darwinist to pop a vein.

We've rejected your irrational beliefs. You guys are repetitive and a waste of time smh... In the end we all know what happens; you admit that there's no evidence to support your claims and request that we "agree to disagree".

When did I say scientific fact. nacala, you illiterate retard, nothing in science can be granted absolute proof.

 

[supz]

The creationist argument is that life is too complex for it to have spontaneously emerged without a higher transcendental power.
"The smallest living cell has the complexity of a Boeing 747 jumbo jet airplane. The components of the smallest living cell have the obvious arrangement showing intelligent design, just as the Boeing 747 did not appear from random parts stacked near each other in a junk yard. The minimal cell contains more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations."
I cannot give empirical proof that we have a creator. Nor, can you.
However "lesser" empirical evidence or microevolution moves in my perspective, the right decision.
You argue that mutations are not new genetic information but adhere to algorithms. Where is the evidence?

 

[Hitman]

When did I say scientific fact. nacala, you illiterate retard, nothing in science can be granted absolute proof.

Of course they can lmfao. Is metal a better conductor of heat than wood? Yes. You can test this in the comfort of your own home. If you're claiming that nothing is granted absolute proof, what about scientific laws? (You know, the law of gravity, etc). You're the same guy that claimed e=mc squared proved that matter can come into existence independent of external influence, aren't you?

 

[Zak Jingo]

The creationist argument is that life is too complex for it to have spontaneously emerged without a higher transcendental power.
"The smallest living cell has the complexity of a Boeing 747 jumbo jet airplane. The components of the smallest living cell have the obvious arrangement showing intelligent design, just as the Boeing 747 did not appear from random parts stacked near each other in a junk yard. The minimal cell contains more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations."
I cannot give empirical proof that we have a creator. Nor, can you.
However "lesser" empirical evidence or microevolution moves in my perspective, the right decision.
You argue that mutations are not new genetic information but adhere to algorithms. Where is the evidence?

There's Creator, end off.

 

[supz]

Of course they can lmfao. Is metal a better conductor of heat than wood? Yes. You can test this in the comfort of your own home. If you're claiming that nothing is granted absolute proof, what about scientific laws? (You know, the law of gravity, etc). You're the same guy that claimed e=mc squared proved that matter can come into existence independent of external influence, aren't you?

I meant theory.

 

[Hitman]

The creationist argument is that life is too complex for it to have spontaneously emerged without a higher transcendental power.
"The smallest living cell has the complexity of a Boeing 747 jumbo jet airplane. The components of the smallest living cell have the obvious arrangement showing intelligent design, just as the Boeing 747 did not appear from random parts stacked near each other in a junk yard. The minimal cell contains more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations."
I cannot give empirical proof that we have a creator. Nor, can you.
However "lesser" empirical evidence or microevolution moves in my perspective, the right decision.
You argue that mutations are not new genetic information but adhere to algorithms. Where is the evidence?

No it's not moving to you're direction, not in the least. It really depends on how you interpret the findings of scientists, it can be interpreted in any way.

You're beliefs depend on this unproven hypothesis, I honestly pity you.

 

[Hitman]

I meant theory.

;

Then it forever remains a theory unless there's clear, empirical evidence that supports that theory (in a way that no alternative conclusions can be drawn).

 

[supz]

No it's not moving to you're direction, not in the least. It really depends on how you interpret the findings of scientists, it can be interpreted in any way.

You're beliefs depend on this unproven hypothesis, I honestly pity you.

you claim that its all interpretation.

 

[Hitman]

you claim that its all interpretation.

What is it if it's not interpretation?

Your views are irrational and baseless wallahi. It's a scientific fact that something can't come from nothing.

 

[supz]

;

Then it forever remains a theory unless there's clear, empirical evidence that supports that theory (in a way that no alternative conclusions can be drawn).

I agree. That is how its defined.

 

[Zak Jingo]

Evolution is not a Law Of Science, not approved, so it will always remain 'Evolution Theory'.

 

[Raamsade]

Zajinko, There are no laws of science there are laws of nature. In science, theory has different meaning from the vernacular. In the vernacular, theory means something without concrete evidence to support it. However, the scientific definition of theory is explanatory framework that best explains observed facts. Pay close attention to the highlighted bit because it's the crux of the matter here. Without observational and experimental data, there can be no scientific theory. So, a theory is merely an elaborate explanation of fact, in science at least.

 

[JohnDoe]

Zajinko, There are no laws of science there are laws of nature. In science, theory has different meaning from the vernacular. In the vernacular, theory means something without concrete evidence to support it. However, the scientific definition of theory is explanatory framework that best explains observed facts. Pay close attention to the highlighted bit because it's the crux of the matter here. Without observational and experimental data, there can be no scientific theory. So, a theory is merely an elaborate explanation of fact, in science at least.

If @Zak Jingo hasn't realised this distinction then I've been wasting my time

 

[You]

Evolution is not a Law Of Science, not approved, so it will always remain 'Evolution Theory'.

Evolution is supported by many independent lines of evidence. Literally everything we have found points at evolution, and you go around saying that its not approved, yet believe in Adam and Eve when there is not a single line of scientific studies that support your story.

It baffles me how people can still deny evolution but believe in that Adam and Eve fairytale. Why do you insist on being illogical?