Somali Atheist; what made you leave Islam?

[NoName]

As I recall after giving up on that I said "prove evolution to me beyond a fraction of a doubt"

I've no interest in changing anyone's mind. If you want to learn more about evolution pick up a book on evolutionary biology.

 

[Raamsade]

Never will you hear an established scientific fact such as gravity being referred to as the Theory of Gravity.

That's because you're a confused child.

Theories explain facts; they are not facts and they do not become facts. For example, the evolution of all living things from a common ancestor is a FACT. The Theory of Evolution explains the FACT of evolution. But at no point will a The Theory of Evolution become a fact. It will always remain a theory offering an explanatory framework for observed fact(s).

The better a theory can explain observed facts, the more likely it offers the most apt understanding of observed facts. This is why it takes ages for a new theory to gain traction because ample evidence needs to be gathered and controlled experiments need to be performed.

 

[The_Cosmos]

As I recall after giving up on that I said "prove evolution to me beyond a fraction of a doubt"

The fact that you even ask that question is proof that you literally deon't care about the facts, you just want to be ignorant about the science that clearly destroys the fairytale you call Islam.


The fact that i have to do your research for you is evidence that you want to live in a bubble of scientific illteracy.

 

[InaCabdulqadir]

The fact that you even ask that question is proof that you literally deon't care about the facts, you just want to be ignorant about the science that clearly destroys the fairytale you call Islam.


The fact that i have to do your research for you is evidence that you want to live in a bubble of scientific illteracy.

The first thing I have to ask, is it really necessary that you end your argument with an insult?

Concerning the video, my Internet was slow so I wasn't able to finish it. From what I did see it basically explains what evolution is. What I meant by the question and what you understood from it are two different things. I meant disprove the arguments against evolution.

For example:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Here is an extract:

Almost all of the transitional forms in this list do not actually represent ancestors of any living group or other transitional forms.

How can the lack of transitional fossils of living species be explained?

 

[InaCabdulqadir]

Another example would be:

As you can see in the above photo, Indohyus is the ancestor of the Pakicetus. This is incorrect.

Jerry A Coyne wrote in his book "Why evolution is true"

Indohyus was not the ancestor of whales, but was almost certainly its cousin. But if we go back 4 million more years, to 52 million years ago, we see what might well be the ancestor. It is a fossil skull from a wolf-sized creature called Pakicetus, which is a bit more whale-like than Indohyus.

He clearly states that the Pakicetus is 4 million years older than the Indohyus but he himself has placed Indohyus before the Pakicetus to support the theory of evolution.

Sources:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
"Why evolution is true" - Jerry A. Coyne
Amazon link:

 

[InaCabdulqadir]

That's because you're a confused child.

Theories explain facts; they are not facts and they do not become facts. For example, the evolution of all living things from a common ancestor is a FACT. The Theory of Evolution explains the FACT of evolution. But at no point will a The Theory of Evolution become a fact. It will always remain a theory offering an explanatory framework for observed fact(s).

The better a theory can explain observed facts, the more likely it offers the most apt understanding of observed facts. This is why it takes ages for a new theory to gain traction because ample evidence needs to be gathered and controlled experiments need to be performed.

Even if a theory explains facts, they can still be wrong. Take the phlogiston theory for example.

The point is, a theory can be disproven.

 

[TelephoneMan]

I just could never relate to it, and always saw it as some dumbass Arab cult.

Circumcision, being forced to read Arabic in dugsi by violent teachers, terror attacks, praying 5 times a day, women have to be covered and have no rights in certain Arab countries, Ramadan, "can't eat/do this because it's haram", Arabs still favouring their own, learning that slavery is/was OK in this religion.

I just don't see the point, and no fictional story is going to make me think otherwise. My parents and teachers had their chances to explain to me why certain Islamic rules are important instead of just blindly enforcing them on me, but they failed. The ship has sailed and I have no interest in giving it another try.

That's not to say I'm completely "white-washed" though as I dislike them much more than Muslims and Arabs.

 

[Raamsade]

Even if a theory explains facts, they can still be wrong. Take the phlogiston theory for example.

The point is, a theory can be disproven.

A scientific theory, by definition, must be falsifiable. Meaning, it must offer the means by which it can be falsified or disproved. So, yes a theory can be "disproven." That's why science works. That's why science increases crop yields, cures the sick and feeds the hungry. And this is why religious theories don't work because they're simply not falsifiable.