Was Darwin Wrong? (National Geographic)

[Hamayun]

People say Harun Yahya is biased.... maybe not as biased as National Geographic. Apparently this is now proof accordin to National Geographic. They have started to preach :D

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrBi32IzOC8

They also seem to make ridiculous assumptions about what Theists believe :blind:

[Mahir]

great MashAllah

[Wilma_Hum]

People say Harun Yahya is biased.... maybe not as biased as National Geographic. Apparently this is now proof accordin to National Geographic. They have started to preach :D

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrBi32IzOC8

They also seem to make ridiculous assumptions about what Theists believe :blind:

Biased? To teach science is not biased. To twist science as Harun Yahya does is not being biased, it is to distort of the truth.
Harun Yahya has no creditability within the scientific community.

[Hamayun]

Biased? To teach science is not biased.

To teach science is not biased I agree but calling an unproven theory "definite proof" is.

Peace :)

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[SixTen]

To teach science is not biased I agree but calling an unproven theory "definite proof" is.

Peace :)

The atomic, big bang, gravity etc theories are also unproved. Stop teaching them all right? :skeleton:

[Hamayun]

The atomic, big bang, gravity etc theories are also unproved. Stop teaching them all right? :skeleton:

Are you even reading my posts??????? :enough!:

Show me where I said that????

Can you please read my post above your post again please?

or if you are too lazy here it is again:

To teach science is not biased I agree but calling an unproven theory "definite proof" is.

Peace :)

[Ali_Cena]

Biased? To teach science is not biased. To twist science as Harun Yahya does is not being biased, it is to distort of the truth.
Harun Yahya has no creditability within the scientific community.

Hi, umm well its all good saying this and that, "you can talk the talk" but i think you can walk the walk, show me some evidence on scientific basis, that Harun Yahya is biased, go on....
you shouldnt go arond calling this and that biased, when you dont have evidence on scientifict manner, if you do show us then...
Peace

[Wilma_Hum]

To teach science is not biased I agree but calling an unproven theory "definite proof" is.

Peace :)

Anyone who says evolution is "definite proof" are as ignorant about science as those who say it is all a shame.
It is a theory and by definition, is unproven.

[Wilma_Hum]

Hi, umm well its all good saying this and that, "you can talk the talk" but i think you can walk the walk, show me some evidence on scientific basis, that Harun Yahya is biased, go on....
you shouldnt go arond calling this and that biased, when you dont have evidence on scientifict manner, if you do show us then...
Peace

I have no intention of "Walking the Walk" for you. :statisfie
For whatever reason you have chosen to ignore the millions of supporting facts about evolution.
You dismiss the finding of thousands of people who have years of education and decades of experience. Why would I assume, with my days of knowledge, think I would show anything you haven't ignored already.
By the same logic, if you read Harun Yahya works and don't see the problems, I can't help. You need a logic class.
But the fact that I don't present evidence in a scientific manner doesn't me stupid. You can chose to accept the ramblings of some one educated in Interior Design, be my guest.

[Ali_Cena]

I have no intention of "Walking the Walk" for you. :statisfie
For whatever reason you have chosen to ignore the millions of supporting facts about evolution.
You dismiss the finding of thousands of people who have years of education and decades of experience. Why would I assume, with my days of knowledge, think I would show anything you haven't ignored already.
By the same logic, if you read Harun Yahya works and don't see the problems, I can't help. You need a logic class.
But the fact that I don't present evidence in a scientific manner doesn't me stupid. You can chose to accept the ramblings of some one educated in Interior Design, be my guest.

Hi wilma, lol we seem to be talking a lot lately.:)

umm i dont dismiss the findings of evolution, as i do belive in evolution, you cant disbelive in it, i mean it happens-microevolution and a bit on macroevolution, what i dont belive in is the evolution of humans, umm i dont belive in abiogensis, and common descentl lol, so i dont ignore the thousands of facts you say, umm the thing is, Harun Yahya might have some dogey moments science wise, but the way you came across sounded a bit too mean on the guy, i mean he is correct most of the times. thats all i am saying.

okay if you dont present information doesnt mean you are stupid, it means you cant back up your case :D lolz.

umm i see you around wilma.

[Qingu]

Anyone who says evolution is "definite proof" are as ignorant about science as those who say it is all a shame.
It is a theory and by definition, is unproven.

Actually, the vast majority of scientists consider the theory of evolution to be proven. Furthermore, in scientific terminology, the word "theory" actually means the idea is sufficiently tested to be considered proven. For example, the "Theory of General Relativity" is considered proven. A scientific theory is not "just a theory" in a colloquial sense.

Darwin did not know about genetics, which is an essential detail of evolutionary theory. But his basic ideas remain true today. Details of evolutionary theory as we learn more about about biology, especially genetics and embryo development—that's how science works. But no one really doubts the basic ideas of evolution—organisms change over time through natural selection—except, of course, religious people.

[جوري]

you should browse this forum for discussions of evolution some active as we speak to see what stands and what is controverted by scientists some of whom reside on board-- yes strange as it is, you can hold a doctorate and be religious at the same time! in general i'd refrain from speaking on behalf of the 'majority of scientists so we are not rehashing topics ad nauseam and committing logical fallacies whenever one of you gets the urge to affirm his/her own belief system!

adaptation doesn't equate to speciation.. without getting into too much details in this particular thread.. if you wish to add something of substance on what has actually been 'proven' do it on one of the open threads, as the lot of you are so predictable to the point of sickening!

cheers