Challenging Atheists On Evolution! M.Ali & @SubboorAhmadAbbasi

How are you brothers and sisters? How's everyone doing? Where is that brother? One guy here is saying something funny. Where is he? Let me try to find him. Yes, that's what you say. Okay, I'll let you go this time and next time you're not going to run away with these comments. Yeah, how's everyone doing? Yeah, it's not returning the favor, but I I've not done him any favors anyways. But brother Sabur is going to come on inshallah. He said he's got something uh some emergency he needs to deal with. around 30 minutes or something like that. He said he's going to be home and then he's going to join inah. So we will start without him because he's got some uh something he needs to do. So do we have atheists waiting or no? Okay, let me actually let me put the link. Obviously it's it should be clear that this is today is for uh for atheists for non-Muslims. Yeah, it's not for Muslims. I don't want Muslims jumping on I don't want to ban people. Yeah. So, please don't don't join unless you are a non-Muslim. But how are you? How's everyone? Alhamdulillah, good. Hope to see you again in Nottingham. Inshallah, if we are alive. Okay, I think it's already slow mode and subscribers only, but let me check. Uh yes already slow more than subscribers only. So you are late for the party this time sister uh traveling. Okay let's put the link and see if we got some atheists already ready to join while brother Sabur is able to come and join us inshallah. Okay. So, all of those atheists who believe in evolution, you got the link in the description. You can uh join inshallah and tell us why you believe in evolution. Link is only for atheists. Please, there's no camera for whoever just joined. You have to turn your camera on. Okay. Where are all the atheists? You know, we've got those atheists in the comments after the the what you call it after the presentation, stuff like that. But I don't know. Let's see whom we're going to get inshallah. should have some okay uh a lot of people joining but their devices are not connected uh or people are joining I hope they are actually atheists okay Sakuno I don't I need to see you I don't see you I don't know what what do you have there okay Wesley that seems interesting okay you are a non-Muslim Wley yeah I can't hear you by the way just give me a thumbs up if you are not a Muslim. Okay, I'm probably going to start with you. You're going to be the star of this party inshallah. Okay, you can you can type in the private chat if you're saying something because I can't hear you are in the backstage by the way. Any other atheists are also welcome to join uh one by one inshallah. Sorry, I am Muslim. Don't be sorry, man. There's nothing to be sorry for, something to be proud for. Sorry. No, Sankia Kumar. I don't know what that name is, but you've got to have a camera. Sorry, that is not going to work. Okay, I'm going to bring you on. Yeah. Okay, one second. Okay, you want to do something, so do it. Or just type in the private chat what you want to say. The link is only for atheists, please. Yes, brother Sabur will be here in a bit. If you're just joining, he's going to join us soon, inshallah. Uh, yeah, if you want. Okay, turn it off now. Turn it off now. I will I'll add you. Yeah. Okay. How are you, Wesley? You are Hi. Hello. Can you hear me? Camera on. Don't worry. You don't need I thought about turning my camera on, but I have I have Why not? Why not? Well, it it depends on it depends on how much I want to get involved with YouTube or not. I'm still not decided on that. I think that um I'm trying to figure out. So, I am doing well. How are you doing? I'm okay. I'm okay. You mean get involved? Do you mean make a a channel or something like that? Is that what you mean by getting involved or Right. And I don't really want to be I don't really want to be like it's hard to explain, but like I don't really want to be like a personality sort of like figure. Like I know like a lot of people like they when they create a channel like they they do it like for like a sort of like personality kind of um and like for me I think that it's more important to just like focus on the sort of like I guess rather boring maybe a bit like dry intellectual aspects of it. and I haven't really decided if I want to like, you know, um, how I want to go about navigating that. So, okay. So, what do you have, what is your world view? What do you have to to present to the people? Because there has to be some sort of a niche or content that you'll be presenting, isn't it? Well, yeah. What I'm sort of like interested like within like the context of like religions and even like science and stuff like that is I'm just sort of like curious about like how it is that like um kind of like how information travels in a way and like and um why it is that like people believe certain things and like different parts of the world like and how it is that like you know religions or even like methods and just like ideas and information in general is spread and like how people are like convinced by like narratives. is and like just beliefs in general. I find all that stuff fascinating and I'm I'm kind of just like interested in asking questions and like trying to like figure out like why it is that like you know somebody in some some part of the world like might find Islam to be convincingly true and something some parts of like what their understanding of Islam is is like something that they consider something that they need to act on or you know live their life towards and just as well like you know why is it that there's like this sort of like you know difference of how people behave in like one area of the world versus like another area of the world. It seems to me to be all relevant to like the the level of information that they have access to and all the sort of like biases that exist that are like more than just necessarily like you know how like a book travels or um what people say but like more but like also just like a matter of like you know things like cognitive biases like um things that like I know you bring up the concept of like fithra which to me it seems like a very and you also bring up the like Oxford study I think about about how like there seems to be like a strong cognitive predisposition to think that there is like a higher power of some sort and I think that that stuff is like just very fascinating to me to like figure out like you know because if that is the case that people have like a general I don't think that it the study concludes that like everybody is going to like believe in a higher power like intuitively but I think that if that's the case that like say maybe 90 plus% of people are intuitively going to be theistic or theistic or whatever. No, it's not the studies. It's not about the future. You you you're talking about the future. Study is not predicting someone's future. Study is stating their their current st state of affairs. Right? So they are saying currently those children have a a an innate disposition to the divine or to a higher power or something beyond. Right? So that is what the study is concluded. It's not really saying in the future they will believe in God or they will not believe in God. Right? Because you can be born and that is the Islamic concept is that you can be born with that disposition to believe in a creat but the fra gets clouded and that's what the narration of the prophet says. Well that's what Muslims Yes Muslims say and believe some I should say. Yeah but fra is no no no it's not some Muslims it's the narration that mentions the fra of the prophet. So it's not about Muslims now it's the prophet himself. Right. He is saying that it gets clouded by the the parents they change the disposition but they make you Christian they make you Jewish they make you Hindu etc right but the f is an Islamic concept anyways if you're using because so we have to run from an Islamic parl right so if we're accepting an Islamic concept then we accept what Islam says about that concept which is also the idea that the is it can be clouded and it will be clouded and it is clouded as we can see today by those people who come and claim that there is no creator this or that It's it's a clear evidence that this is clouded even though I think I believe deep within that they already know but point is today's stream is a bit because I don't know you're coming with a with maybe a different worldview let me just explain one thing and then we see where we go from there yeah okay let me just see where we go from there right so today's topic is is focused on because brother Sabur is not here yet so I'm going to leave leave it a bit relaxed yeah but generally the the topic of today is evolution right and the topic of today is not Muslims being questioned on the federal the religion. Right. Right. The topic of Yeah. Yeah. Because this is it's completely different thing now. But topic of today is the atheists who believe evolution is a fact. We are challenging them on their Yeah. Go ahead. See this is the problem like right off the bat is that I don't know like if any atheist would argue that evolution is a fact that would just be wrong because evolution is a theory. It's not a fact. It's a theory. It's like a theory. the theory as I understand it is based on like many different observations and understandings which are based on facts. A fact can just be like a sentence like I have brown hair, you're wearing a hat. Like those are just some boring factual statements. And my understanding is that with evolution scientists make observations like they look at things like related to like you know fossil records and um you know genetic variation like phenotypic traits and stuff like that that they see and then from those observations from those factual um observations they make they then create a framework and that's what's called evolution. So I don't think that you know like focusing on evolution is a fact. I think anyone who says that evolution is a fact would be wrong and that's not what science my understanding is anyways is because like science is fundamentally a work in progress. Like just because you have like one theory even if like you have an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that there's some like utility or truth whatever you want to say behind certain aspects of the theory it doesn't make it like infallible or like perfect per se. there's always like maybe I mean unless there's not like but generally there's like an assumed possibility that like might new evidence might come in and then it could like you know counter some sort of like framework that scientists have made and so um that's how I understand it. Well, uh, you're going to be here. I don't know if you're going to be here for the rest of the live stream, but if you are, you will see, you will see if you watch, if you continue to watch and you you're not there, you'll see other people making that claim that yes, evolution is an absolute fact that this, you will get people making that claim. And I did come across many atheists making that claim. Maybe you're coming from a more Yeah, you're you're coming from more from an understanding position to the problem of induction, understanding to the presuppositions of what science is and how how it's based on empirical reality and how empirical reality therefore is limited and it cannot lead to absolute truths etc. You're moving from that position which is a rational position to hold right. Our problem is our main problem look if someone comes and says I don't know if evolution is true or not. Okay, there's evidence. We don't know. Maybe it is true. Maybe it is not true. Maybe it is a fact. Maybe it's not a fact. We've got some data today and this is what we've got certain conclusions from this data. Therefore, yeah, if someone comes like that and he speaks to Muslim, I don't think any Muslims have issues with that, right? Muslims have issues with those who come and they claim this is a fact. This is a reality. Look, your in fact, they go to the extent here your religion is wrong because it's not in line with the theory of evolution, right? which then becomes completely stupid because it is based on a scientific method, scientific method is limited, etc. But the these people exist. You want to say something? Yeah. Well, I guess I'm I thought about asking a question, but maybe it's just like the wrong question because like I sort of wonder like if if like like again like I'm sure that you're well aware that there are Muslims that don't view like a conflict between like Islam and evolution, right? Like I'm sure that you're you've heard of I mentioned that before but like I don't understand why it is that like some countries that have like um majority Muslim populations like Turkey like go so far as to like consider banning um evolution from the curricula like I don't understand like if if there was no I need to verify the information. So I'm not first I would say that Turkey is not that close to Islamic teachings and anyways mean yeah that's the first thing I would say and anyone who goes to Turkey would know that right so I don't know if that's based on an Islamic uh position but I would agree with this I would completely agree with this I would completely agree with with not teaching evolution in schools I'm look I'm of the position that look evolution is a is is a pile of rubbish for me person my position you know so it belongs in the bin So I I don't I would not waste the time of my uh children and and relatives and people that I know or Muslims in general to learn about something which is hocus pocus right basically. So I would agree with that position right but what I'm saying is there are Muslims who try look there is there is me and there is Islam right there is me and there is Islam. I can hold a specific position that is not necessarily uh what Islam ask is asking you to do right it's not against Islam but it's not something that Islam is asking you to do so for example someone can say there's nothing in the Quran or in the prophetic teachings that goes against specifically that animals evolved right when you talk about evolution they talk about directed evolution that God is directing the process and all that I'm sure you already know about that so okay yeah yeah you've got those people who will say this there are things that you have to reject as a must like for example the humans they are a spec special creation of god I'm sure you know about that right like because like a lot of people who exceptionalism exception they apply evolution and conclude that because of the what we understand about evolution there had to have been like common ancestors and that they like it kind of like like I I agree with that interpretation like I see like conflicts there with like the creationist story within like the context of humans um so I I do think honestly that there are parts of um evolution and like um Islam and Christianity and Judaism that are incompatible within like just based on not even so much just the text itself but even just like based on the historical record of how people um seem to understand what the text itself meant like it like I don't see like I know a lot of Muslims don't it's interesting to me because like I just don't see any historical record of Muslims like making conclusions that are like really the similar conclusions about life that like maybe Richard um not Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin um or other um scientists made. I mean, you can correct me if I'm wrong. I'd be like curious to know if there were any um Muslim scientists who were also like making similar observations about Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. And and Charles Darwin did not really have anything different from the Muslims at his time. It's not like he discovered something that they did not know, right? So what he was using was was general known information, right? So other people could have come to that conclusion before him, right? His time. Mhm. That are Muslims, right? But no, Muslims did not come to these conclusions because Muslims have a clear-cut vision of how humans were created, etc. And animals are they are they are creation of God and they are perfect from the sense that they are perfect for the function that they are needed for because the word perfect has to be put in in into sounds very what's the word theological it's purpose focused as opposed to exactly because people misunderstand this word purpose is what God wants of that entity or that being okay right so Allah says in the Quran the one who perfected everything he created perfected it in the way that he wanted the way that he desired the the way that he wanted it to be. Okay. Okay. So, so also the human being is from uh for us is the same story. Allah has created us in the way that he wanted us to be and we are in the way exact way that Allah wanted us to. Okay. Okay. So, uh this would be the the the kind of the Islamic position you've got you you'll have to go against this idea that humans evolved humans specifically, right? You can you cannot relate that with the text because the text clearly opposes that. It has clearcut mentioning of the creation of Adam and Eve directly by by God etc and all of that. So these things you cannot really play games with. There are people who play games and they make everything metaphorical. You know everything is a metaphor and then you cannot have religion really because you're just playing games with everything. Well I mean I guess you could have a religion if enough people interpret it in the same metaphorical way that everyone else did. But that's just really that's all I mean it's hard to get everybody anything regardless. No no no no the the reason you can't is because if if I can every if can anything can be a metaphor if anything can be a metaphor I cannot have principles that I rely on. So when you say to me worship God I'll say to you that's a metaphor. When you say to me pray five times a day I'll say pray here is a metaphor for something else. When you say to me say this I'll say no actually this is a metaphor. They don't actually want you to say this. So when I start making everything a metaphor, you cannot have anything because anyone can interpret the way they like. And that's why you look at certain religions like Christianity where you will get every Christian has his own point of view of the Bible. Everyone believes his own things because there is no limitation. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Of course there are commonalities like Jesus died and all of this stuff, but generally Yeah. Yeah, when you go into the details of what the trinity is and what is Jesus for you and you start seeing all of these when you start peeling the layers, right, you start to see the problems with this idea of metaphorical and literal, right? In Islam, it's it's quite clear we take everything to be literal unless there is a reason in the context, right? That takes us to a metaphorical meaning. So the meaning is always literal unless there is there is evidence in the context or evidence that is clear that takes us from the the the literal here to metaphorical. So if I've got 100 verses that are clear and one verse that can mean two things and the literal meaning of it opposes the 100 verses then most likely this verse is not does not mean literally what it's saying because it's opposing 100 clear verses. Do you understand what I'm saying? Right? So we can use that as a principle. So generally that's a principle given us given to us in the Quran in chapter 3. So we we take things to be literal. So from that perspective you've got the creation of Adam and Eve and you've got that Allah created those animals and this and that and and evolution today become a religion. Anyways, well we're back to evolution. I know some of your viewers were kind of upset we weren't talking about evolution. Um I I am kind of curious how Sabore like if you do away with evolution like how do you explain like genetic diversity like in terms of like um whether it just be simple something as simple as like someone's skin complexion or whether it be like certain predispositions to certain sort of like um uh how do I explain it like certain conditions? I don't want to say um like like for for instance like like how do you explain like how some people can like consume milk to like past well past a certain age or how is it that some people you know are predisposed to certain sort of like conditions like cickle cell anemia like without sort of like applying evolution to humans like how do you I guess you're not maybe necessarily the one to ask but I'm just like curious how would you like try to like describe how those because like if if everybody was like created in like the image of Adam and Eve or like whatever then like how how can like because the the image there is a different thing. I don't know what you mean by the image there. It's more of a Christian concept. Depends on what you mean by the image there. Um well like if if they were created I guess most Muslims would argue that like um humans were made like the same way that like they look like today that they weren't like something that like you know they they didn't evolve from like simpler life forms or something like that. Yeah. Yeah. Of course. Yeah. Of course. Yeah. That's what we say 100%. But point is look this is the point I want to make now. Let's let's kind of build some layers here. Right. First is what is your position on evolution? That's all you need to start with. Well, I just think that it's a useful a useful theory that I think provides helpful and useful explanation to figure out like, you know, to help like explain like why it is that we see so much diversity. And I think that it has a lot of applications in regards to us understanding, you know, medical conditions or just like why it is that some people like might perceive or act in very different ways than what maybe that we might assume that they would based on our own understanding. Like it just seems to me that without evolution again, you're left you're left in the dark not really having any idea of like why it is that some people have like why there's so much like diversity within like not just other other animal species but also within like the context of humans like um it just seems to me that it's hard to have any sort of you know anything to work with if you're not if you don't have evolution. Um, so you are an inter you're using it as an instrument, right? You're looking at science as an instrument. This is what you're saying. You're saying it is it is just a theory out there. It's given us explanations for for things. It is working a working model when it comes to certain things in life, but you don't have really a strong position regarding it. But the question is, are you a naturalist? Um, I would say so. Um, in terms of like I think that um, naturalistic observations like are the best I guess you could say like to simplify the best explanations. The best you know naturalism they are the only explanations. I'm not saying they are the best explanations. I'm saying that they are the only explanations. Are you a naturalist from that position that you that there has to be a naturalistic explanation for the things that happen? I'm not convinced that there is anything above nature. I guess you could say to put it another way, I don't think that I don't believe in a metaphysical. So yeah. So you are saying everything is happening through natural causes, right? Yeah, pretty much. And that would answer your question. The reason you're trying to look for explanations is because you're assuming that everything has to be explained through natural naturalistic processes that you already started with this false assumption. And that false assumption is which you cannot prove is that that everything is influenced only by natural causes. No, but but we all make assumptions. We in order to have a framework whether it be Islam or No, I was just answering I was answering what you were saying because you're asking a question. How do you explain X Y and Zed? Right. I'm I'm telling you the answer to your question is the following is that not everything has to be explained through through naturalistic processes anyways. Not everything has to be explained through naturalistic processes. And to assume that they have to be explained through naturalistic processes is something that you need to justify. So you need to give me reasons why at first you have to prove there's nothing supernatural that can influence anything in the natural for you to say that it's impossible. Everything has to be naturalistic process, right? And that can answer a lot of questions that people that can view certain things happening in the cosmos in the universe that right now or let's say today we're not finding explanations for, right? And then you get you get those people who will claim that that is God of the gaps. But to use the term god of the gaps does not really answer whether there could be a naturalistic explanation, a supernaturalistic explanation or not. You get what I'm trying to say? So just to use that term does not remove the possibility that this is this could be the case. Right now the point is this right? What is evolution to you? What is the definition of evolution? Um I would say it's more of a a theory or a framework based on observations um in a sort of can you go into when someone says evolution are you are you talking about like the observable evolution which no one probably you know Muslims do not have an issue with something adapting to its environment we don't have any issues with that something you can demonstrate to me that X adapted to its environment I don't have a problem with that is happening in front of me in front of my eyes I can see through empirical reality I don't have issues with that Now are you talking about this observable kind of evolution or because we're here we're talking about the evolution that the people are using that the that developing the theory of Darwin etc neody Darwinism or otherwise or whatever you want to believe right because every time we use something someone says I don't believe that okay that's why I I try to ask those Darwinists which kind of evolution do you believe in so do you believe do you believe that humans uh uh and animals evolved from this magic custard right that that turned into a fish and then started walking etc etc then one origin and then we've got all of these species that we have today and that happened through a a long period of time gradualism and homology is one of the what do you believe you have to give me some some explanations into what what evolution is well I don't know if I would say a fish like a a tuna fish or an anchovi or something like that but I think that yeah I think almost there's I think that the evidence is reasonable that humans probably evolved from simpler life forms so to speak or or like that over time and this maybe it's hard to say but like I tend to agree with like the scientific consensus because like of course with evolution there's always like the possibility that organisms can lose like complexity over time like just cuz um and that that might be very well a part of the human timeline as well but as far as I understand for like the case of Humans generally I think that it's reasonable to say that humans evolve from simpler organisms like okay so you are talking just about humans or animals as well um animals as well I mean but then this is like uh the this like really stretches like what do you mean by simple like um because like I know that organisms can like evolve they can lose traits right like organisms can like gradually over time or I should say that the environment can basically select for organisms losing like you know um wings or something like maybe organisms that had a certain type of wing basically couldn't produce offspring enough and got like you know eaten by a bunch of birds or something like that or some of the organisms. So over time you know that part of the evolutionary tree so to speak died off. So eventually like you know those characteristics like um were lost. How would you know when you how would you know when that took when that took billions of years you were not there to see it right so like the best evidence that I think that there is but but just before that sorry just before you answer this point you claimed something that was very funny for me you claimed that there's something called scientific consensus uh where is the scientific consensus on and what on what on what specific thing what is the claim you're making of a consensus uh I'm trying to think like with what oh the the scientist ific consensus of um humans evolving from simpler organisms. Well, I have to be like really careful and not say like are you saying all scientists agree on this? Not all certainly not all will ever agree on anything. Well, probably not. But do you know there there was there was a paper published. It's called um a scientific descent of evolution. I haven't seen that. Have you heard about that? This is 10,000 scientists, PhD holders saying that they do not agree that random mutation can can account of the the the life that we have today. They don't agree with the with the with they say we have to move now from Darwinism or Darwinian evolution or neodyarwinism or whatever you want to call it has to be questioned because when we look at the evidence these are are 10,000 scientists right this is a piece of paper you can Google it you can read it right they all signed this this form saying that they have this general disagreement this idea okay now this this is just an example now but when you claim they have consensus you cannot generalize it and make it like an umbrella right do they agree that random mutations happen do agree that homology is evidence of evolution. When you start going into the details of what you call evolution is, you start saying all of these different beliefs of all of these different scientists of all of these different disagreements on every single detail of evolution. So to come and claim there's a consensus and try to make it a general umbrella that okay yeah humans evolved that doesn't work. The the processes in which they would say it evolved every single aspect of it you'll find disagreements among those people quote unquote that you're calling scientists. That's number one. Number two, ignoring the people that I'm telling you about, which which the people brush away by calling creationists. Just because you believe in creation, that does not negate the fact that you studied science and you are a scientist. You know, you actually worked and you got a PhD and you studied and you got a conclusion. So this is this stupid idea that certain people who believe in evolution tried to propagate. Okay, not just creationists. I don't care. You bring them a paper of someone who who don't who doesn't believe in evolution to them is by default that person is neglected and pushed away and I mentioned before in my presentation the documentary of uh called the expelled which is present on available on YouTube showing you real life examples of people PhD holders professors etc excommunicated because they're they're questioning this idea of Darwinism or neodyarwinism or the wind revolution etc whatever term you want to use okay so so they are excommunicated from their work. They're excommunicated from the whole academic field, okay? Let alone just their own work and being fired. They're not even allowed to get a job again. So to come and claim there's a general consensus, that's what they they convince the layman. They convince the layman that there is a consensus amongst the scientists that X Y and Z happen. But when we start going into the details, it's not as as as you're saying, but somebody just posted I don't know where their sources that they say that nearly all or around 97% of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological saying who's who's saying who's saying I you'd have to you'd have to you just Google it. I can't come on Wesley. You got you got to do better than this, right? I can't you can't just Google information. I can Google search the information about the Quran is completely ridiculous. Right. Well, I'm curious of what their sources and like what's what sources? I give you an example. I give you an example of a a published uh paper is called scientific descent of of evolution. Just Google it right now from Darwinism or from evolution. Just Google it. It will pop up and give you 10,000 names of 10,000 science. I'll give you an example of the documentary called The Expelled. Right? This is available on YouTube by the way. Go on my channel. I've done a live stream. Sorry, I've done an presentation on evolution. And you will see in the end of that presentation I put I played a part of that video you'll find it's just called the expelled. If you Google the expelled on YouTube it will pop up. Right? So these are realities now. We're just not talking about maybe this is the case. No they this is actual published papers. Well, like if we think about like a scientific consensus, like if we think about like climate change, if I'm not mistaken, the majority of scientists like will say that um humans have contributed to like the effects of climate um change basically like which is that's pretty much a boring statement to say, but that doesn't mean that they all like agree that necessarily what is like you know the most what what has contributed. But climate climate change cannot be this is this is a disanalogy because climate change and evolution is a complete different thing. This is one thing that has so many subfield so many information that within it that are disagreed upon. Climate change is just one idea. Do you understand climate changing? No, this is just a basic idea based on specifically with regards to human human activity advancing like the acceleration of you know um not just like you know the climate is just changing like just just cuz like that's just it but it's more specific. Um no let's let's let's come back now to the idea. So where is the evidence that you have because you said you believe this. So what is the evidence that you have to believe that humans evolved right now human evolved according to you that that took billions of years right or millions let's say millions of years took millions of years right millions or billions which one do you want to choose are you with me or not I can't hear you I've lost your your voice maybe you're muted you're doing something can you speak again yeah I can hear you now I can hear you now okay well I can't open new tabs I was I was trying to pull up some information but Um I can't write. You're trying to cheat. It doesn't work. No. Um I was just joking. I was just joking. I was trying to get numbers on like that statistic. Um but um you're not going to get numbers because things research is not done like this. And and look, even if it says 99%. I just demonstrated to you speaking to you about uh examples that will disprove this idea and and even the idea that people are excommunicated if you were to go against something. So let's say I'm excommunicating everyone who opposes me. Okay, the people are left are 100% agreeing with me because I excommunicated everyone who disagrees with me. So you just it's ridiculous to claim that the majority believe majority can believe if you if you excommunicate the rest but as I said I already given you a paper but let's let's not stick on this topic for long. Yeah. Yeah. Look look look look at it and do some research on that because very important. Now point is this. What do you believe? How do you believe humans evolved and how long did it take and what was the mechan how did it happen? Um um don't Google it. No, I'm not trying to Google. I'm sorry. No, just say go ahead. Go ahead. Um well that's just if it's not evolution like if if organisms did not evolve due to like you know natural selection or you know um genetic mutations you know like then you know that's I like that's how I believe that they would have had to like evolve. I don't see any sort of other good you believe it because you believe it. No, I think that um because what you just said is a circular reasoning literally um let me let me let me elaborate on like I think that genetic information like the um gradual exchange of like genetic information and like not just necessarily in the way that you can like you know go because like obviously I'm not looking at DNA under a microscope right um but I think that you can like make conclusions like even if you don't have a microscope you can still like look at um certain traits like maybe it'd be like somebody's hair color, somebody's hair texture. You can see like some sort of like similarities through like the parents and stuff like that. I think that there's like who which which which believer in God disagrees with that? Well, which does believe how did you jump from look look how did you jump from my hair looks like my mother's hair to that I was a fish in in a pond that evolved and a cell that became a fish that evolved into Well, we're talking about millions millions of years. We're not talking about like you know no billions of years even how did you jump from my hair is like my mother's hair equals that billions of years will take a a cell into human life because over time you have you know like over time those effects like result in diversity like not everybody is going it's not as simple as just like everybody having you know like all it is is just a the father and the mother's genes like all inherited like 50/50 like everybody has like some of their own mutations as a result of like um you know alter we don't disagree that you inherit genes from your parents. Who disagrees with that? But the claim is not that you inherent genes from your parents but I'm talking about like with regard to diversity. If you're asking like how it is that like you know um I don't really like this phrasing but if you're asking how it is that like humans can like evolve from like more simplistic sort of like organisms then um if if over time you have like all these mutations it seems reasonable to me that you could have um organisms that like you know if you go on for like millions and billions of years you can have like organisms that look completely different like those millions and billions of years ago and like very different from like today. So like yeah, I can't go back and look at some like fish. Okay, let me ask you. Let me just explain to you what you're saying doesn't make any sense. Let's assume God created a man and a woman. Okay. And they were they were multiplying and they multiplied and they passed on their genes until today. That explains the phenomena that we have, the phenomena that we have. And we don't need to use evolution to explain that. So So you all of what you're just saying is assumptions. You're just saying because there's the observable reality that we inherit genes from our parents therefore evolution which by the way my problem with evolution is people always jump into conclusions the things that don't even lead you to those conclusions. So just because I inherit genes from my parents that can be explained through through many different ways. It does not has it has nothing to do with this idea that we were a cell that came from a magic custard and then it moved into three different shapes of life and then humans starting by from different animals and mating etc until having humans today homo sapiens. Okay? Right? That that has nothing to do with me and taking genes from my parents etc. Point is this what what I'm trying to demonstrate is you're making a claim and what you're saying has nothing to do supporting that claim that you're making. So, do you believe humans mated with other uh uh species or do you believe humans were just humans? I mean, if you go back far enough, like is it really even reasonable to say that they were humans? You know what I mean? Like, because um you know, the people the people that we see around us today aren't the same as like whatever monstrosity um we could have like evolved from like 10 million plus years ago, like whatever. So um so I'm sorry what was your question again? Okay it's okay look no problem. Point is what I want to demonstrate is one thing right and and and I think this will be demonstrated with a lot of atheists is that majority of atheists believe in evolution because they're told to believe in evolution. They don't believe in evolution because they've done researchers researching what evolution actually teaches. Right? They don't believe in evolution because they know the intricate details of how evolution works and how it or how it takes place. Right? So, and and you just adopting a specific belief from your community is a form of brainwashing. Well, that could be said if you're going to use the term brainwashing, you could say the same about Islam or anything like that's Yeah, that's what that's what atheists say. That's what atheists say. That's my problem. See, the problem is I don't that stand like that that's a helpful way to go about it. No, no, no. I'm I'm I'm saying that atheists claim that religious people are brainwashed even though religious many religious people can be brainwashed. There's no doubt about that. Like I would say Christians are a great example of that or most Christians. But generally generally not all religious people are brainwashed. But my point I'm trying to make is that atheists are making that claim when they're themselves brainwashed to believe in these things like evolution for example that they've not studied they do not know the the intricate details of of evolution. They do not know even the mechanisms of how evolution takes place. Like do you know do you know the mechanisms yourself? What mechanisms like natural do you know do you know what homology is? Um homology not really. No. Okay. Okay. So do you know that that whether natural selection is uh random or not random? Um how does natural selection work? So my understanding is that randomness doesn't mean like randomness means undirected like in the context of evolution. It doesn't mean like with regards to like whatever consequences that might have on the organism, it doesn't mean that like um mutation. Are there scientific papers that disagree with you that say that there are forms of directed directed selection? Um, they don't attribute it to God, but they still say it's directed selection. Um, oh, I'm I'm thinking about like variation. Um, and I'm not thinking about um um selection particularly in that regard. Like um like with regards to like selection, like my understanding of selection is just that you know over time certain organisms are basically just um you know killed off through natural selection. It's not for it's not for the good of like the organism per se. It's just like you know whatever organism is able to like survive long enough to reproduce and have the most offspring you know carries on its genes you know in the in successive generations. Uh that's my understanding whereas like regards like you know uh is that a scientific understanding of natural selection or your understanding? That's my understanding. Um, yeah, but this is my problem, right? You Well, I mean, I'm not a scientist. Like, no, it's fine. It's I'm not I'm not by I'm not trying to put you on the spot. Right. Point I'm trying to make is the following. Right. It is a fact that most atheists and I've I've done this from experience from every atheist I come across, nearly every I've come across, they strongly believe in evolution. Okay. But they cannot justify his process. They don't know the details of how evolution takes place. What they do is most of them argue from authority. They claim oh look scientists believe it. And when I start showing them that okay though there are reasons why those people that who you're calling scientists believe it and there are those people who disagree and there are this these things that happens to those people who disagree they start actually thinking again about their position because the position is just coming from a point of authority. Ex community of of scientists said to me it is correct. Therefore ex community is correct. If you were to go to a Muslim Yeah. Go ahead. Can I say and admittedly most people aren't really working with evolution thinking about it like within their day-to-day lives, right? Like so like they don't they strongly believe in it. I mean um belief is like a very interesting word, isn't it? No, they actually take it to be a fact. I would ask you to I would I would advise that you ask some of your friends. That's what I would advise. Well, I know what you I know what you mean. like like most people aren't like going like really in depth at and it's like really disappointing for me because like I'm interested in learning about this stuff but I find that like a lot of Muslims are also not particularly thinking about evolution like a lot of Muslims seem to me to just think that you know so and so says evolution is incompatible you don't have to I don't have to believe in this theory uh I don't have to research a theory that I need that that people are proposing me to believe and it's not a part of my faith I'm saying you already believe it. It's not like if they believe it, they have to research it. You understand what I'm trying to say? So if evolution is not a part of the Islamic paradigm to begin with, they don't need to bother their time with it. But I'm talking about the people who already believe in it. I'm talking about believing in something strongly without researching that thing. Okay. Right. Well, uh, then like I don't really think there's anything that we can really say on that cuz, um, yeah, we can only we can only say that you've not researched it in detail and you believe in it. Well, what for example, what do I believe? Like what is it that I don't have? You said you believe in human. You said you believe that humans evolved. Like the reason why I conclude that they said was because you know um there are factors like mutations. Everybody has like their own mutations, their own you know aspects that don't those mutations are not random. Um so if if the if there are mutations that happen in our bodies and this these mutations are directed and these mutations are god-given where is the issue? Well, yeah. Well, I mean like certainly like you know humans are not adapted to like live in like very like extreme climates like the north of like Greenland or something like that. So you're not going to see like a lot of humans, you know, surviving like this very like brutal conditions and you know surviving in that area. But um like in regards to like factors like related to like diversity and like trying to think out like why it is that um how it is that like people evolve. Um you have to like account for like the environmental factors and you know the genetic factors, right? because otherwise like it's it's not really something you can really work with. Well, I don't have an issue with what you just said. Okay. But that does does it lead to the conclusion of the question that we're asking? Okay. No problem, Wesley. Okay. But did you come across the the today's live stream about evolution in the in in detail or you just came across the channel and you were coming to speak? Um h a little bit of both maybe. Um, I I'd seen your channel before and I wanted to like hop in on some videos. I thought that that I thought surely there would be more atheists because of the way that you like basically click baited, you know, Darwinian delusions and stuff like that. Like I thought surely there would be more um atheists here. There were maybe like a bit more I don't know. I guess I couldn't imagine that there would be that many academics who would want to like engage in like this sort of like um conversation. But um that's that's basically just like I I saw your video. I was like, "Oh, this is something that's interesting." And I I kind of I really wanted to learn more about like Sabor's like um disagreements like in more depth, like what it is about like evolution that he considered like to be I don't know just bad theory I guess you could say because I don't know what else to describe like what it is that he's trying to do. Honestly, like I don't Okay, hopefully my position is clear, right? So, Sabir, he he's going to come on. I I don't I'm asking you is it clear or not? I'm just saying my position on evolution. I mean, um it's clear that you don't find it convincing. Yeah, absolutely. And look, uh let me just clarify my position, right? I don't have any issues with adaptation like humans adapting to their environment or animals, I already mentioned that adapting to their environment. I believe that God has given us certain faculties in our cells in our genes and our DNA etc. that allows us to adapt to our environment that allows us to adapt to certain situations. There's no issues with that. Right? But to jump from that into that we were a a cell in a pawn a magic custard that turned into a fish and all of this pre all of this. Where does the magic custard? It's about it's about aiogenesis. Abiogenesis. Do you know a biogenesis? Is a biogenesis though part of evolution? Because like my understanding is that it's the beginning. How can you have evolution without without the start of the start of life? But my understanding is biological life. But my understanding is that like evolution doesn't necessarily concern itself with like what might have happened before. Like that's a very different like biogenesis and abiogenesis are like very are not like are not necessarily part of like the theory of evolution as I understand them. Those are outside of evolution. Like evolution my understanding is that it just deals with um organisms and doesn't make any sort of like assertion of what might have happened before. Um, but then you don't need evolution because because if if what you're saying is the case, then we can have humans or animals that are adapting to their environments and having these mutations that are not random without having the the theory of evolution. But the idea of like like neodyarwinism or the belief that there is one origin that's a part of evolution you don't that's one of the assumptions of evolution there is one one single origin but theoretically I mean this doesn't really and that and that is linked to a biogenesis what is that one origin where did they come from you cannot just run away from this idea that how did everything start and how did we start having that first species that you're going to say evolved into different species You have to explain where that species came from and what kind of species it was and then how it evolved to different species. But I don't see how evolution is like particularly incompatible. Like let's say I know this is not your religious belief but let's say that you had a religious belief that God created life forms some basic simple form of life and then from there like you know eventually this resulted in like all the diverse life forms that we see like so like maybe it wasn't like a sort of like Adam and Eve story but it was just like God working in a lab um and found like you know a certain string of chemicals and then like ha this is this is life. I mean, I guess you could say that is a biogenesis. I mean, in that context it would be, but like you could also like argue that like have maybe a religion that like the god just like poofed religious religious people just poofed um life into existence without any necessary need for there to like have to be you know a biogenesis is my understanding. Like I don't I don't think that biogenesis and abiogenesis I don't see anything that suggests that like those like I know that a lot of scientists like either these things are very important because they affect the assumptions of evolutions like for example I mentioned to you some of the assumptions of evolutions are affected like for example the one origin or another assumption of evolution that can be affected which is the idea of tree of life of the of of what is the progression of the tree of life because we need to look at where the did five star and then we need to look at the time frame that it took these species to evolve and that time will make a difference for the theory. How long did it take and when did it take when did it happen? How long did it take it to happen? All of that will will affect. So you will find evolutionary quote unquote evolutionary biologists talking about a biogenesis how and how it is a problem because it is a problem. Well, certainly, you know, speaking of scientific consensus, my understanding of evolution again is that it's it doesn't concern itself with biogenesis or abiogenesis. As someone posted, I hate to read this, but it is it's what I'm trying to say. Like, it's it's more coherent than I could string it together, unfortunately. But they say that um a biogenesis is not evolution. The former is an explanation for the origin of life. The latter is an explanation of the diversity of life. So, evolution doesn't concern itself with the origin of life. Like that's not what the framework is used to do. It's not to posit the origin of life. It's to but is the origin of life a part of the progression of the theory or the explanation or understanding of the theory. I cannot just ignore I'm not saying it is evolution. I'm saying that understanding influences evolution. It is important to look at it and understand it because it is if we did not have that for example as I said to you that the assumption of one origin. Okay. If we if we change that into many origins, that will affect the whole theory. Okay. Um the assumption of how long when was the first humans uh when did the first human evolve, how long did it take him to evolve and all of these ideas. All of these things can be influenced. How long did it take those animals to evolve? The tree of life, etc. All of these things can be influenced by a biogenesis. So to try to say, "Oh, I don't care." No, I'm saying to you that specialists do care about it. Well, I know that certainly a lot of scientists like either think that a biogenesis is the more convincing explanation compared to like you know just um or like they don't have an explanation agreed upon explanations for it anyways right but I I just don't see what this has to do with evolution like again like what happened like look I think we are going in a circle because I I just explained like a couple of seconds ago why but anyways anyways but like again like I I just don't you have anything you want to say before I let you go and then let someone else on. Is Sabore not here? H Sabor is I don't know. It took him longer than he said, but he's probably coming on. I think I think I might be the last one here. Um so last one to what? Uh no, the last one in the in the in the queue. Um well um I don't think that if you want to wait for Sabura, I can keep you in the backstage. Yeah, I think that's Yeah, that that'd be great. When he comes, you might ask him something. You might want to speak to him about something. This is Yeah, cuz I'm curious about his questions. Okay. All right. I will Okay. I'll I'll keep you in the backstage then until he comes. Okay. All right. Bye. Okay. Let's see. Uh, a lot of people I don't know if they can turn their camera on or not, but Okay. C cerebrum machine or something like that. Cereum machine. Can you turn your camera on? Rio, you have your camera on as well, but I don't see you. And I I see your ceiling, but I'm not trying to look at the ceiling. Okay, wise man, can you give me a thumbs up or wise man, you are you are driving. Are you sure you're going to be okay to be on the video while driving? Okay, I'll bring you on now. I don't know what you're saying, but you are mid driving. So, yeah, I can put it I can Hold on. Let me just uh close. That sounds very dangerous. That's how it say. No, I'm good. I'm a good driver. I'm a good driver. All right. Is that better? No. As long as you're say are you safe though doing this? This that's I'm safe. I'm safe. I'm safe. Okay. So, so you're a Muslim? Oh, yes. I'm a Muslim. Yeah. So, stream is today is for non-Muslims. I'm just trying to look for Oh, okay. I was I was trying to figure out a different one in No. Come on a different one in Okay. Uh okay. Okay. You did you did but you're a Muslim. Are you a Muslim? Sir Abraham something. Can you just confirm whether you're a Muslim or not? You look like a Muslim. So I don't know. Okay. Are you are you going to show me your face or should we move on to someone else? We've got as well. a person called. I've seen him maybe a few times in other streams, but I'm going to keep you for a while until Sabur comes and then you can be the the the long discussion with you maybe. But let's see the other people. Uh Rio, are you able to join or no? I'd prefer to say not the same religion, but I'm arguing in favor of evolution. Why you prefer not to say your religion? Uh, Muslims don't join please. This stream is for non-Muslims, for atheists, those who believe in evolution. So, okay. Pancake or pan? Yeah, pancake something. Are you able to turn your camera on? No. Okay. Let's bring you for for a second now. Okay. Oh, yeah. Okay. Uh so you said you don't want to talk about your religion. Mhm. But you're arguing in favor of evolution. Uh yeah. Okay. So start by telling us or by telling me uh what is evolution to you? Yeah. Okay. So I have like this three-step process I'm going to go through. But I think the two main things are you're going to get um descent with modification and uh descent from a common ancestor. And uh you know you were talking to Wesley about descent is that evolution to you? Uh yeah that would be the two things descent from a common ancestor and descent with modification because descent from a common ancestor and how do you know whether whether you descent you descended from common ancestor what do you use for that mechanism? Yeah so you you would make a prediction. Just one second. Sorry. Okay brother. Okay. Welcome. How are you? I'm good. I'm good. Alhamdulillah. Everything's fine now. My Yeah. Yeah. Wesley was waiting for you. There was someone called Wesley. He wants to ask you questions. We bring him on later after this guy because we just added him right now. He said he he wouldn't you wouldn't want to state his religion. He said sure. Uh can we do it like this? No. Or let's stay the way we were. Sure. Firstly, I'd like to apologize to all the viewers. I had a emergency so I couldn't actually make you on time. That's okay. I'm now here. Yeah, that's okay. Okay. So, uh, I was just asking him what evolution is. Yeah. He just he just joined. So, we're asking him, can you just start start over? Start from the beginning. So, can you tell us Yeah. Yeah. Can you tell us what evolution is for you? What what do you consider evolution? I said uh the two main things are descent from a common ancestor and descent with modification. I think that's the two main things. Yeah. Descent from a common is the common ancestor one or more? um uh going to go with one. It actually doesn't change it that much. You know, you're talking about with Wesley about um a biogenesis and so you know, you've got your uh magic custard, right? And you might say, "Okay, well, we've got it's not my magic custard. This is the it's the atheist magic custard. I'm okay. I've got the direct creation of God, you know. I don't have magic custard." Go ahead. Yeah. So you uh so uh the evolutionist, right, has his magic uh custard. And you might say, okay, well, you've got uh four bacteria or whatever or like four um common ancestors. But uh that actually doesn't matter that much because I I don't know if you know about that thing where uh even humans, right, we all descend from a common ancestor uh that's like quite recent. I can't remember how many thousands of years ago, but it's because there's so much like interbreeding and intermixing that it doesn't really matter. It doesn't really change it that much. So, are you claiming that if there is more multiple origins of life and there is one, it does not affect the assumptions of what you were calling evolution and it does not affect how the theory works. Yeah. So, common ancestor with who? So, so if in order for me to be a common ancestor with something else, we need to be descending from same origin. So if there's multiple origins that by default affects what a common ancestry is. Um yeah absolutely kind of. Okay. But let's say let's say instead where hang on. Okay. So let's say I'm waiting. I didn't do anything. Go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Sorry. My bad. Okay. So let's say you had four bacteria as the common ancestors, right? So there were four bacteria. They had kids or whatever, right? I mean bacteria uh um asexual. Asexual. Anyway, but imagine, right, you have four like uh original um what should you call it? Uh organisms, right? They have kids and those kids have kids and those kids have kids and then you end up with humans and giraffes and stuff like that, right? It's a similar concept, right? That you have descent with modification and they come from uh common ancestors, let's say, right? I mean it would it wouldn't it wouldn't change uh the idea that you know humans are related to to chimpanzees and then eight. No it wouldn't but there would be severe implications of there being four independent origins as opposed to one because four would mean that the environmental conditions are conducive to create life which means there could be more than four. So um the the issue here is and this is what Elliot Sober emphasizes and what a lot of Darwinists don't actually realize and which is why he in his writings is really trying to emphasize this point that Darwin himself and Darwinists after him they try to distinguish the question of what you're calling descent with modification and today we call it you know the theory of natural selection that from the origin of life that from aiogenesis that these are two separate domains and one doesn't affect the other. And what sober basically argues is that's not the case. The tree of life, the two assumptions are about the origins and about the transitions. And both of these are linked. Now, I can understand that this isn't popular knowledge. In fact, even in academia, a lot of academics, they don't actually even know about sober's paradox because remember in academia, there may be someone who's studying biomacroolelecules, looking at RNA, DNA, and you know, looking at all this stuff, somebody else studying zoologology and certain things that philosophers are coming up with in remote parts of the world, they're not aware of. But if you look up Sober's paradox and you look up the problems with uh the this trying to separate out the origin from the the evolution of life, the tree of life, it's inseparable. You simply cannot do it. So what Muhammad said right now is absolutely correct that the origins, the amount of origins that you have, it has a direct impact on the implications of common ancestry. Now what you said is something very interesting. You said, well, if there's four um bacteria which lead onto say one particular type of organism and that organism evolves over a billion years into into elephants and and chimps and human beings, those things would have a common ancestor. problem here is there's a huge problem with your inference now because the inference of homology that similarities is due to common descent would only work would only work well it has multiple assumptions but one of the fundamental assumptions to make it work is that there is one origin of life because if there's multiple origins of life then you can have multiple DNA sequences which are identical but they don't have the same origin and on my channel you'll find Paul Nelson and me, we did this, you know, live stream on testing common ancestry. It's about maybe 12 hours or something, right? And all of these ideas are broken down from, you know, from their base Legos all the way to the complex skyscrapers they become. So, I'd advise you to watch that series. That's fair. There could be some like highle thing that I'm completely unaware of. Um yeah and just to say one thing linked because before Sabur brother Sabur came on I was literally saying the same thing to Wizzley and how the a biogenesis has an effect on and most people don't have this knowledge they think that it doesn't matter a I don't need to care about aiogenesis in order for me to believe in evolution and they disregarding as it as it as if it doesn't have an influence on the theory you know so it's quite it's quite strange but go ahead what did you want to say corri uh yeah so could you give like uh one example of the way that it changes like what what was important about the DNA. So I I'll give I'll give you a very simple example. Mhm. When it comes to the concept of a a biological bottleneck. Are you familiar with this concept? Uh not by name like not the name. Could you explain it? Okay. But you're familiar with a bottleneck. Yeah. that like I guess if you have too few uh of population is that the idea I guess yeah you you're getting close so there is a biological constraint which constrains everything downstream okay so say there is one origin right if there is one origin then everything downstream has to be linked to that bottleneck so say the say we have the or say we have um a or orchid of life, right? We have many different um origins, but then somehow as the tree is growing, there's some sort of bottleneck, right? Okay. What would basically happen is everything downstream would be affected by this bottleneck, right? So, you wouldn't you'd be able to find lineages in terms of DNA sequences going from these nodes all the way down here. You'd be able to actually do this pretty easily, right? However, if there is no bottleneck, if you can have as John Mapsy Lamar believed and and his his ideas, you know, predate Darwin, all right, and you know, Lamarism and neolarism even nowadays is a hot topic because of epigenetics. He believed that there was multiple origins of life, huge, huge, huge amounts of origins. And as you have these parallel lines of evolution, you're going to have species, right, which are going to have, you know, today we can, you know, study genetics and Lamar obviously couldn't. You're going to have DNA sequences which are similar, but those similarities are are due to the fact that the origin the the the actual environmental conditions to facilitate life have have allowed life to come in again and again and again and again. So therefore you don't have the bottleneck and you can't say that these genetic similarities are due to common descent. They are simply due to the fact that they have the same origin and that origin is multiple times. It's not just once. So one of the things that Paul Nelson does on the channel in in terms of the testing universal common ancestry in the series and if you go to my channel and you click on playlist you're going to find it there. One of the things he does is he breaks it down in terms of the lottery. Now, do you know that thing where you know there's a there's a giant um bowl or something and they have different numbers in there. They spin it around, they take one out and there's a sequence of numbers, right? That sequence is extremely rare. Now, if you get another machine next to it and you spin it around and you get the same sequence, that's extremely unlikely. That is only possible if there's one origin. However, if there's a huge amount of origins, then you can have any number of sequences. It's it's completely possible. So, one another way of thinking about it is this. Have you heard of this? Um, you know, human beings are 99% similar to 98% similar to chimpanzees. Have you have you heard this before? Yeah. Yeah. Okay, good. So, let me ask you this question. And I just I'm only doing this not to sound condescending or anything. I my honest view is is simply to engage and sometimes I do that in a passionate way so people think I'm being condescending but I'm not. So I just want to ask you a series of questions about this. Yeah. Okay. 98% genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees. Firstly, is this a number that is categorically agreed upon within the evolutionary sciences? Uh one thing I want to mention is that that number depends on like how you count it and Excellent. Excellent. So the number changes if you uh compare proteins, RNA molecules, genes, whatever it is you you can do it that way. Another problem is could I just uh interrupt for for one point but they would agree right that the uh that the chimpanzeee or gorilla or whatever is closer to us than you know a giraffe or whatever when you when you measure absolutely they would but all I'm doing is I'm explaining to you the background assumptions okay now I just want to ask this question is there any evolutionary scientist or geneticist who does that test but before the test. They don't already believe that humans and chimps have a common ancestor. Uh uh an evolutionist that does it. Yeah. Uh well, no. No. Of of course not. Of course not. So the question which I ask some of the opponents that I've debated is what would be the case if they're not related? What would the percentage be? That's an interesting question, right? Yeah. Uh, yeah. So, you were saying because if they had if there were um multiple uh common ancestors. No, no, we're going to get to that. That's that's that's the juicy part later on. That's the juicy part later on. Yeah. Okay. So, firstly, the point that we're going to understand is it's incredibly difficult to answer that question simply because the nobody doing the testing actually is testing. if humans and chimps are related. All they're doing is they believe it's true and they're coming up with numbers based upon how they actually uh measure. Right? It's got nothing to do. Now, here's here's an interesting point. Carl Lanaeus, have you heard of Lanaeus? You know, the Lenan taxonomical system that we have. Uh no, I haven't actually heard it. Okay. So Carl Lenus was a Swedish scientist who put together you know life into these categories and the Lenan system is still used today. He existed before Darwin you know he put humans and chips together in the same category right but he didn't believe they had a common ancestor. So the idea but that would have been because of similarities and traits and things like that, right? Yeah. So so let let me let me just get to this point. This is very interesting. If the anatomy is similar, why on God's green earth would the genetics not be similar? It would obviously be similar. That's like the most obvious thing. So I asked this to um an atheist skydive Phil in speaker's corner. I said, "What would be the null hypothesis if this hypothesis is wrong? And do you know what his answer was? Uh-huh. His answers were his answer was randomness. Yeah. Got it. His answer was randomness. The problem is you've now set up a scenario where common ancestry cannot be falsified. Right. So, okay. Okay. So, if we go with and look, you know, there's something in science known as logical symmetry. Yeah. And I'm going to make this other point then you respond because I've spoken for a while. Logical symmetry. Similarities are due to common descent. That that's a that's a proposition. The logical symmetry of that would be what? What would be the logical symmetry of that statement? Similarities are due to common descent. Well, something like differences are due to um uncommon descent. Yes. Yes. Separate ancestry. Okay. So okay but okay no one second one second that logical symmetry that you acknowledged it doesn't exist in the biological sciences it exists philosophically which means if we take orphan genes which don't exist in chimps but exist in humans then that would mean humans and chimps don't have a common ancestor if we're just to study these but because of methodological naturalism human chimp ancestry and the tree of life and all of these things as a foregone conclusion and all the science is shoehorning of the data later on. This is what this is what's important. The reason the reason that isn't there is because of like the context of the uh of the theory, right? Of the hypothesis, sorry, of evolution, right? And then the predictions that you make, right? So, it's like how uh it's kind of like how causation works one way in time and doesn't the other way. I don't know if I don't know if you're getting that analogy that I'm making. No, no, that that would be a disanalogy because okay, causation is something that we can decisively show. Okay, that that this is important. Okay, we may have problems defining causes and you know you have all this discussion but we would agree that an effect follows a cause, right? There's certain things we would agree about, right? However, okay, sorry. You you see naturalism is according to Michael Roose who is the most well-known academic in the world when it comes to Darwinism in fact he's published more papers than the vast majority of academics his number in terms of impact is one of the highest in the world so he's an atheist he's published with Oxford Cambridge he's one of the top philosophers in the world if not the top philosopher of science he categorically said naturalism is a faith it's a faith the problem is Darwinists have taken naturalism and they've built a theory based upon naturalism and they want us to accept the conclusions and what me and Muhammad and others are going to say is yeah your conclusion's good but your conclusion is as good as the assumption is based upon and the assumption is based on faith according to even Darwinists themselves. So that's the problem of us not knowing the background to the uh the tree of life. Okay. So you said it it's disanalogous because we can show that uh cause causality that uh effects follow their uh causes right but one way of showing something is I don't know you know to watch it and like look I I uh push this bottle and then it moved but another way is to gather evidence uh uh for something you might like make a prediction that if this is true then I expect to see this right fantastic okay fantastic Okay, I'm just going to draw you a circle. Okay, this is the circle of Darwinism. Okay, I'm going to try and do it away from my face where it sees it. So, this is the circle of Darwinism. And if you go a bit further and you make the circle of intelligent designers like this, these two circles overlap. There's an area of overlap between these two circles. Okay? For example, both of these um theories, intelligent design is a theory and Darwinism is a theory. Both of these theories can explain similarities genetically and anatomically. Both of these theories can explain adaptation. Now, when it comes to something like junk DNA, this is where you know Darwinists would say actually um junk cannot be explained by intelligent design. And then some intelligent design proponents would say actually we do accept that vestigial organs can come. It doesn't get rid of design. But then other design opponents would say actually we can show that what was considered to be junk is no longer junk. Like for example the whole issue uh on my channel the other day I covered a paper about uh transposable elements which were initially thought to be useful. Then they were called junk then now they've been proven to be useful again. And in 2012 there was a study done by the encyclopedia of DNA elements and Francis Collins and other scientists. For decades, decades they believed 98% of the human genome was full of junk. Then they discovered that actually 98% was actually non-coding DNA which they thought was junk. Only 2% coded. But then 98% actually facilitated the 2% that was actually creating the proteins and it was helping with gene expression and genes being switched on and off and that knowledge is basically helping us medically and if you go to my website you will find uh this was my thesis at university and I actually wrote on junk DNA and it got peer reviewed by internally and alhamdulillah I got a distinction for this. This is something I'm going to be publishing uh soon uh academically because it takes time to publish. you can't publish straight away. So, this is peer-reviewed and it's actually on my website and what you'll find there is the history of what happened with junk DNA. So, what you're saying is you can make predictions and that can show a theory to be true. However, the problem is sometimes two theories make the exact same prediction. Okay. Therefore, your point is do you get do you get the point? Yeah, I I do get the point. Uh I want to so I want to say one thing on that and then I want to get into this kind of mini presentation explanation of evolution that I had kind okay um so one thing on that is um okay what do you think about this like so the uh the unfalsifiability aspect right so if you if you do walk in into a room right someone's murdered on the floor uh I don't know there there's a knife on the floor or something like that right um and most people are going to say okay well who murdered him who got the knife. Maybe we could check the knife for DNA, something like that, right? But you could say, well, you know, philosophically, it's possible that there was a ghost that picked up the knife and killed the guy, right? But you don't actually have a way of falsifying that hypothesis, even though it makes the same prediction as prediction that oh, there a murderer walked into the room, got a knife, killed this guy. Makes the same prediction. Both hypothesis make the same prediction, but one of them is is on false survival, right? because you can just make up any old thing and it will make the same prediction. Yeah. I mean firstly we need to discuss whether falsifiability or what's known as the poppers naive falsification is the right method for science. I personally believe it's not and many other philosophers believe it's not. So the idea that was quite popular about 40 years ago is that if a theory makes a prediction and that prediction turns out to be false or if there's a piece of data that falsifies uh uh the prediction of the theory or if there's something that doesn't fit that theory has failed. So that idea of naive popperan falsification that was replaced by the idea of scientific holism which is what a lot of philosophers subscribe to which is why what I subscribe to which is a theory can have anomalies a theory can have things which turn out to be false it can make predictions which are wrong it can even have sub assumptions which are wrong but overall if the theory is useful it's still valid so that's the first point I'm going to make that I don't think falsification is a good way of measuring whether something scientific or not falsification or falsifiability like the the ability to falsify basically uh potentially infinite hypothesis and make the same prediction. So, so that's the second point I was going to talk talk about, right? So, when you come up with a hypothesis, technically you can come up with anything. You can come up with anything. However, we have to use Okam's razor to cut out hypothesis and actually shave down to hypotheses that we have evidence for. So, have we got evidence of ghosts killing human beings for the past hundreds of thousands of years? How long human beings have been on Earth, uh, life has been on Earth, animals kill each other. It's been going on for millions of years. Living things kill living things using blunt instruments or horns or whatever it is. So, we have plenty of evidence of killing happening from that perspective. Humans killing each other. when it comes to and even this is interesting if we go back to early human civilization a couple of thousand years ago you have spears and humans killing each other you got that so we will shave down hypothesis such as it was a pink giraffe it was a ghost and we'll stick to it's the fact it's a human based upon the fact that you've experienced that in the past so there's nothing wrong with shaving down those things based upon your past experiences okay um so okay on that let me just ask you one on that cere what do what do you believe falsifies the theory of evolution okay so the some of the things I've heard is okay well if you found a no not not what you've heard but what you believe what can we discover that will lead us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is false yeah so technically something like finding a rabbit um uh before you find um uh I don't know what The term for this is no I'll explain before before any mammals were there like you know before uh reptiles. Okay. Yeah. So basically look what you're referring to is the popular phrase that um to refute Darwinism all you need to do is show that there are rabbits in the precamrian. Yeah. So before the Cambrian explosion there was rabbits. Now the problem with this is and this is something I've discussed on my channel previously I think with Paul Nelson or or whoever. The fact is that in of itself will not actually disprove Darwinism. It will not actually make a difference at all. If we found rabbits in the precamrian, all it would mean is that there's rabbits in the precamrian. It wouldn't mean that I I'll explain. I'll I'll explain why. I'll explain why. The reason being is because finding anything out of sequence if the theory fundamentally is based upon naturalism and everything has one origin. So the origination probability is close to zero and the transition probability is close to one which we get from the origin of species that Darwin believed there was unlimited changes that could be made then it doesn't matter what animal you find and I'm going to give you one thing that will falsify. You see if someone says to me how do you prove Islam is false? Yeah. And then I say to them I'll tell you how you can prove Islam is false. You can prove Islam is false by going to the moon digging down a mile deep and if you don't find the wordsahillah then Islam is false. So I've given a criteria which is impossible to actually validate which is what the Darwinists do by speaking about rabbits and I'll tell you one thing which can falsify it according to Darwin. Darwin said that if it can be shown that any organ was put together without numerous successive slight changes, then my theory would absolutely break down. So Darwin was adamant that gradualism, if it broke down, it would break down his theory. Gradualism is to Darwinism what monotheism is to Islam. It's the crux of it. And gradualism has been absolutely shown to be wrong in the fossil record. And and do you acknowledge that gradualism has been like totally dismantled by the fossil record? Uh gradually totally dismantled by the uh No, I haven't seen uh anything about that. Um you know, you always see scientists going to uh great efforts to show that each thing can be shown by gradualism like the eye or uh uh I'll give I'll give you evidence. I I'll give you evidence, right? I'll give you direct evidence. The first person the first person to note that the fossil record doesn't fit with gradualism was Darwin. Darwin in chapter six of his book he actually said this. He actually said that the fossil record doesn't fit his theory and he was really worried about this. Now he gave an answer and the answer is known as the artifact hypothesis. The artifact hypothesis is the hypothesis that the the fossil record is not well preserved because of two reasons. One, things haven't been preserved. Two, we haven't been looking long enough. So according to Darwin, it was the imperfection of the fossil record which gave the impression that there was no gradualism and he believed gradualism existed. However, what happened is Niles Eldridge and Steven J. Gould in the 1970s and they were paleontologists. They exposed the fact that since Darwin's time to now the idea of gradualism has died in paleon in paleontology because we've found time and time again a single pattern and it's not gradualism. The Cambrian explosion which Darwin was worried about got worse over time. What they found was this. They found in the fossil record there stasis. So species remain the same for millions of years, hundreds of millions of years. Then you get this massive punctuation. Okay? Then you get stasis and you get punctuation. Now what they did is they came up with the punctuated equilibrium theory. And just to give you an idea of this theory, imagine a 24-hour clock. In a 24-hour clock between 3.8 billion years and us today, you would expect life to evolve gradually. Okay? However, in the 24-hour clock, in less than 2 minutes, the majority of life came about. There are 35 known filer and 20 of those filer came together in the Cambrian. So, the majority of life came together in less than 2 minutes. And this is all against gradualism by the way and this is well documented in Ste. When you say gradualism, you don't let me let me just give you the last reference. Yeah. Stephen J's Steven J. G's book the structure of evolutionary theory. It's a huge book. Read that book and you'll find all the evidences I'm talking about. Now I'm sorry I want to add just before you answer. I just going to be very quick on the ghost thing. Uh just linking it to to the example that you said. It is the same example. If I were to say to you my criteria is find the red eye. What is the red eye? It's the eye that that if you use you can see these ghosts but we cannot see them with our naked eye. Right? You say to you to me what is the red eye? The red eye is buried somewhere in the universe in some specific reality. If you dig deep enough with the correct speed and the correct uh you know correct points, you will find that red eye and that's how you'll find the ghost that I said that killed the animal. Problem is you're not getting the the ridiculousness of these claims. But when someone says bring me something that refutes this idea of the reality is you are attacking certain theories. are are you saying these things are not full? There's a lot of I'm struggling to keep all the threads I've written. Okay, go ahead. Go ahead. I'll let you speak. No problem. So, I just the first thing was when you say gradualism, you don't mean like slowly. You mean like gradually gradual changes like you get stepby-step changes, right? You don't mean like slowly, right? So, okay. So, this is this is important to understand. When we say gradually as human beings, we have our own subjective understanding what gradual means. gradual according to the fossil record what it's basically showing and the rate at which um we actually have the evolution of life. So we're not talking about mine or your understanding of gradual steps. We're talking about if Darwin's theory is correct. If the earth is old as 3.4 4 billion years, 4 billion years, whatever it is. If this is the case and this is the level of complexity that we have, this is the level of um DNA that we have in any particular animal, then how is it that life evolved in this period? And the the actual answer is according to the the gradualist is that say 500 million years ago, we would expect this many species. Uh 1 billion years ago, we would expect this. um 20 filer would not come into existence during the Cambrian, right? You'd expect things to gradually come, but they don't come gradually. They come in punctuated equilibriums. That's the problem. And this is well documented. Ah, I don't get why you'd expect them to come gradually, but it's going to it's going to get so many we're going to spiral into so many like details and like Are you saying Are you saying Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. Darwin gives you the answer. Uh Darwin gives you the answer. Darwin's answer is this. Darwin's answer is there is no God involved. Darwin's answer is everything comes about due to natural selection. Okay. Yeah. And and those that those selection pressures will change like we know that organisms can go through a period of fast uh change because you know the the environment changes quite quickly or whatever. Um and sometimes they'll stay static for a while. So, okay. Sorry. So, so, so you're saying if the environment changes quickly, the changes will happen in the cells and DNA quickly. Is that what you're saying? Uh, yeah. Cuz who who which which who said that before you? Which which scientist says that? Um, what's that book? Um, are you saying to me these random Sorry. Are you trying to convince us right now? uh these random changes if they if we've got five hurricanes happening today just around us then because of all of these quick uh changes look if you're refuting gradualism by saying that gradualism is not a time no no sorry if you're refuting this idea this principle this understanding of gradualism by saying it is not a long period of time then can you explain to us why are we not seeing species that are evolving today in front of us um why that does not because it does not need a long time so can you explain to us no right no right no right no right no right does need a long time. What I mean is that the time frame can change. So you can get different amounts of change uh of an organism, right? Um so so quickly the million years a million years is a long time for us, right? You can have uh three units of change in a million years or you can have five units depending on the environment, right? So uh what was I going to say? Um no, no, but are you still limiting? And you're still limiting the number here and you're still saying it's taking a long time. But if you if you're saying only three or five, but you're claiming that you can have this massive changes in genes and massive changes in organs and massive changes just because the environment changes a little bit quickly, which I don't think that it's a claim that scientists make. And if you were making that claim, then you have to just to explain to us that if you got certain depends on what certain species and animals that evolve very quickly, can you give us an example of that happening today? Why are we not seeing this? Yeah, but it quickly still wouldn't be that quick. So, what what So, Subur can you tell me what was the time frame for uh 20 film appearing? Was it like 10 years or is it like millions of years? Yeah. So, no. So, this is a very common contention. Um the time period of the precamrian, we're talking about hundreds of millions of years, right? Um so, we're not talking about I mean, sorry, no, let me repeat that again. when it comes to the pre-Cambrian which is I think 580 million years ago and within that say we we take a segment of time which is 100 million years now 100 million years you're going to say oh my god that is so much time and everyone's going to be like oh my god that's so much time how is that rapid the reason why it's rapid is because the earth is 4 billion years old and the origin of life which is supposed to be 3.8 8 billion years to now that means that the life evolving it should have happened in a gradualistic way. But if life is remaining uh the same for millions of years, hundreds of millions of years, then you go through these spikes and then it goes down and it goes through spikes. Now when me or you are saying a 100 million years, we're thinking, "Oh my god, it's a long time." But in the geological record, that is not a long time. 10 million years in the geological record is the blink of an eye. It's literally nothing. So the Cambrian explosion, which took millions of years, is only 2 minutes, less than 2 minutes of the 24-hour clock. And I want I just want to say something. I could be completely wrong. Muhammad could be completely wrong. You could be completely wrong. Everybody who's commenting here could be completely wrong. who is not completely completely wrong is the countless scientists and paleontologists who've testified that the fossil record does not show gradualism. Niles Eldridge and Steven J. Gould when they came up with their paper and they pushed it out this idea of punctuated equilibrium on mass this created a paradigm shift within paleon paleontology. So the things we're talking about are not fringe things on the margin. These are wellestablished scientific historical facts. Are you so are you saying that uh the the claim is right that there's too much change per unit time or is the claim that change should happen uh uniformly both and and they don't contradict each other. Both these claims are true and they don't contradict each other. They complement each other. Okay. So my understanding is that change doesn't have to happen uniformly that uh change uh faster change in environment will uh will induce more change per unit time. Um and that's been shown I I'd have to find because I can't find everything. No no what what you're referring to is this. I I'll tell you exactly what you're referring to. What you're basically saying is say in the period of 50 years there is a group of sheep right and this sheep are the environment's remaining stable right so the changes in the sheep due to natural selection natural selection is not really making that much change. Then you get this severe winter which is coming every year for the next 50 years. All the sheep that don't have enough wool, they die out. And so they go through this rapid change where the population changes. So all the sheep become woolly because the woolier sheep survive and the less woolly one die out. Now these types which you are calling rapid from a 50/50 year perspective. That does not make a difference over hundreds of millions of years. like natural selection is well documented that you're going to have these small scale changes in populations and those are going to change according to environments they're going to go up and down by a few years but that doesn't mean that the fossil record should show such punctuation if what you're saying is correct wouldn't Darwin know this wouldn't Darwin simply say about the Cambrian that the Cambrian it can be explained by the fact that natural selection works fast and slow didn't actually say what you said he said the opposite. He said once we know the fossil record we will see that actually you have gradualism. So if your solution was a real solution Darwin would have come up with it and he wouldn't have considered the as the problem. That's not necessarily true cuz you know he could have made a mistake and people develop an idea afterwards. But I will uh look I I I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that. You don't agree that he he could be mistaken about No. I don't agree that your current idea that you have that this is not something that Darwin didn't consider because because Darwin came up with obviously he took it from Thomas Malfus's you know uh you know supply demand thing in capitalism the this idea of rapid change uh in a in a population due to natural selection and then slower he was at the Galapagus for a long time he was traveling He saw this this thing happening. In fact, he used remember artificial selection which is rapid evolutionary change happening due to human human intervention. He used this as one of the arguments for natural selection. So he extrapolated artificial selection to natural selection. So what you're saying he's like he's obviously aware of what you're saying but he didn't use that as an answer to the Cambrian which is why I'm saying to you that no scientist has said what you're saying because it it just doesn't fly. It it's not actually a solution. You're you're trying to put you're trying to use a band-aid on on a dam that's broken. You're using a plaster a little plaster to it's it's not a solution that's going to work. Yeah, I got you. I I could be wrong. I'd have to uh check uh each thing. But what was I going to say? Okay. Um I want to say about Okay. The rabbit in the pre-camrian. Um okay. Wouldn't that absolutely cast out doubt on whether um the organisms we have now uh you know relate relate to each other in the way we think they do at least, right? Because well, you had a rabbit in the precamrian. So maybe rabbits aren't more closely related to um other mammals than uh reptiles. Okay. Okay. Let's let's ask a similar question on that. Can you say to me what was the scientific response when the Cambrian explosion happened? What was the response because it was not expected. So can you tell us what did they respond with? Go ahead. Uh I'm not sure that what the question is. I'm saying looking at the previous theory pre pre-Cambrian explosion we did not expect something like the Cambrian explosion to happen right so it is similar to the idea that you're saying of finding a specific spec I don't think it is is the same idea it's the same idea so when we found the Camber explosion what was the responses of scientists finding these species that we did not expect to find evolve these specific it's the same idea if um uh what do you call it the preame falsify Yeah, I understand the question. You're saying like, "Oh, well, you you the first hurdle and you just like your wishy-washy. You change up your theory a bit so it can account for it and then you carry on." So, you're always going to believe uh evolution no matter what. That's that's the the idea. No, no, I'm asking you what did they say? Yeah. Go ahead, Sor. Yeah. So, Seream, um what Muhammad is saying is he's saying you pointing out the rabbit in the precamrian is equivalent. I mean, if we were to break down your statements from a purely logical point of view, you're simply stating what would Darwinists do when they see something that they don't expect. So, what he's simply done is he's asked you the question that's already happened not with one rabbit, but that's actually happened with millions of fossils down there in the ground which which are out of place. So, he's simply asking you, you're giving him a hypothetical scenario of there being something out of place. He's giving you an actual scenario of multiple things out of place and he's saying what was their reaction. Do do you see what he's doing? Yeah, I do get very clever. By the way, my my question would be um yeah, are they this analogous, right? Like is the precamrian uh uh explosion is sorry the Cambrian explosion is it the same as finding a rabbit uh in the precamrian and yeah absolutely abs even more I would say is even worse. That's something that that's something that I don't know and I'd have to check it like No, I I'll explain to you why. Because in both cases, something is out of place. But however, the second case is a false narrative. And I'll tell you why. If you tell me, how do you know Islam is false? And I say to you, Islam is false if you can go to the moon, dig a mile deep, and it doesn't say the statement of faith, you're going to say, you've just created a false thing. Rather, what you're going to say is I'm going to show you Islam is false by showing a prophecy came to be false. So that's what Muhammad is doing. Muhammad's saying stick to the facts of what we have of something out of place with the something that is uh you want to be able to falsify it in like a non-red ridiculous non way. Um which yeah, I'd have to look into that as well. Um, and by the way, just sorry it's on the idea of the fossil record. This issue that Darwin had when he said that we've got an issue with the fossil record imperfection, the chapter on the imperfection of the fossil record in his book. He said that how many years ago? And he was pointing out that we did not yet see fossils, but we've been discovering fossils since and these fossils that we've been discovering since are only going against more on the idea and the theory rather than supporting what he's saying. So he just found this lame excuse of we did not look hard enough, we did not look deep enough. Well, that that was separate, right? That was about um uh transitional uh the same thing. It's the same. No, no, it's the same issue. Same thing. So So uh one thing um I I don't want to move on from because I think Muhammad asked a very good question which I'm going to steal and put in my next in the book as a good example. Right. Essentially the precamrian rabbit is the same problem as the ide what we have in reality right now which is that we have Cambrian uh animals which we cannot trace back to precamrian ancestors which is the same problem here. What is your explanation for that? Uh Camrian uh so we can't trace back. Well, yeah, the explanation is going to be something like, "Oh, well, we haven't found them yet." But because And that's what they would say about the rabbit. No, no, you've not found it. You have to look further. You you you might say that, but it would cast out on your entire tree of life, right? That's what No, that's You know how many times the tree of life has been You no longer You know how many Sorry. Wait, I really have to make this point. Wait, I realized you would you would no longer be able to say, "Oh, cows are related are more closely related to mammals than they are to reptiles because who knows, maybe there was a pre-Camrian cow that that modern day cows are descended from." No, no. See, see, you see what's happening is the same thing is happening. You're giving a very um unusual criteria to falsify the theory. Let's stick to Darwin never said to falsify my theory, find rabbits in the Cambrian. Darwin said to falsify my theory, show that gradualism, it doesn't work. Just address just to address the problems that you you brought up with it. You said, you know, it's not a good criteria for falsification. That's fine. Okay, I'll leave it. But just to address the problems that you brought up with it. No, no, no. You you've not, sorry to interrupt you, but you've not understood why I asked the question. It's not about why the idea is a good is a good a good principle to falsify or not. The the point I'm making is that it is not falsifiable. So what you were accusing Sabur with when you were trying to attack the principle that you're trying to use with the ghost it is the same principle that is attacking your ideas and your beliefs because the idea today of what they call theory of evolution it is not falsifiable whatever the new data that we come that opposes what you what we used to believe you just rearrange things you talked about the tree of life I don't know how many times the tree of life have been rearranged you know and we were talking about musical change before the question would be to actually look at uh um does that thing falsify like the you know the core theory or is it falsifying a detail? What is the core of the theory? Can you make it? Well, it would be um uh December modification and the common ancestor. Okay. So, so look can I just summarize something and you let me know whether you agree or disagree with it. Okay. So, the theory of Darwin needs four things. Okay. Uh-huh. It needs variation. Yeah. It needs a mechanism of hereditary. There needs to be a mechanism by which you um so if there's a random mutation, it has to be fixed in the population. It has to be transferred into the population. Okay. Yeah. The third is you need differential reproduction. meaning you need there to be the species that have the um the ability to have offspring wi-i which have mutations which are beneficial they basically outlive the ones that don't so you have differential reproduction right so like you know the sheep example I gave that the sheep who are wooier they survive in winter and four you need time do you agree with this uh what's the fourth one sorry time you need time yeah Okay, but you're going to say you're going to say those things exist anyway. So like you're automatic you're just defining yourself as right because you know like it's like saying evolution is true if uh spheres are uh spherical or something like that. No no I'm not I'm not I'm I'm first showing you the components of the theory. Okay. Okay. And then the implications. These are the ingredients. Okay. So you're going to go and cook in the kitchen and you got four ingredients. These are the four ingredients. Okay. Now these ingredients when you mix them up what you come up with is Darwin's theory. These four things are absolutely necessary. Now the time component here is fixed. And what is it fixed to? Uh I I don't know like it's fixed to the fossil. It's fixed to the fossil record. Oh okay. Okay. So you see one of the things that Darwinists do and it's very interesting. They say and Richard Dawkins says this by the way and you can go Google it. Richard Dawkins says, "We don't need the fossil record." And the reason why they say we don't need the fossil record is because the fossil record doesn't support Darwinism. Exactly. Now, check this. But all we need is Okay, clear. I'd have to like check every single video on the channel. You can go on time stamps and check whatever you want. No, you you can check whatever you want. Now, here's the thing. What does he say? We don't need We don't need the fossil record because we have molecular genetics. But the problem is for you to come up with timings, for you to have even molecular clocks, you actually need to date them according to fossils. So one aspect of Darwin's theory which is inescapable is time. Now since time is fixed and we know what that time is roughly 3.8 billion years and now using the other three ingredients which is differential reproduction, heritability and variation random mutations. Yeah. Now we have to go from the monad to the man. We have to go from the simplest uh organism which can replicate all the way to you know human beings, homo sapiens and and all of the tree of life. The problem now is that according to the time that we have we have to show a sequence of events in the fossil record which shows this gradualism because that's what the theory purports. Darwin said if anything can be shown that it didn't come together in numerous slight successive modifications then his theory would absolutely break down. He's categorical about this. Okay. What we've seen in the fossil record is stasis punctuation stasis punctuation stasis punctuation. So while you're saying Darwin um Darwinism or Darwinian theory or evolutionary theory whatever it is hasn't been falsified or or there aren't these uh huge problems with it. Darwin according to his criteria that he actually gave we can say on multiple accounts that the theory has decisively failed. Um okay according to um okay we let him go and because it's been a while now and and we we've given you like I'll let you say the last thing you want to say. I'll let you say the last thing that you want to say, but we need to give other guests some time as well cuz it's been maybe 40 minutes for you or something or more. So, go ahead. Go ahead. Say the last thing you want to say. I guess I'm not going to be able to get into, you know, my whole thing, but um I want to say about falsifiability, right? Um so, you might say, okay, falsifiability, that's not the right way to go about things. we have to have like a philosophical discussion about that. I don't think I would be able to do that, but okay fine. But the way you responded about um you know there are we know that people kill people. We know that animals kill each other um and things like that. Um so I don't I put I wrote that down. I gave it a name like I don't know a strong natural case or something like that. That sounds professional, but um yeah, if you can show that look, we've got this evidence that evolution is true, like this natural naturalistic evidence that evolution is true, right? Then that would be just like having DNA evidence of a murderer killing someone rather than it being a ghost. And yeah, no no because one is um something that we can measure, something we can see, something we can observe and the second is a metaphysical research program is a philosophical idea is something which can only be subscribed to by faith. No. And let's just be very very clear. There is no naturalist worth their salt in this entire world and no academic that I know worth their salt that has said anything except fundamentally naturalism is something that cannot be proven. Sorry, not proving Sorry, not proving naturalism. Proving that um uh evolution, right? Not. No, but what I'm what I'm basically trying to get to is this. If Darwinism is fundamentally based upon naturalism, which I think is very clear. If naturalism is unproven, then Darwinism cannot be proven. Okay. But I don't that's my point. I don't think you have to assume naturalism. Just like you don't have to assume natural naturalism to assume that uh a human murdered another human with a knife rather than a ghost did it. You don't have to. You're saying you don't have to assume naturalism in order for evolution to work or in order for you to have the models in order for you to for the models that you have today to make sense. Yeah, I don't think you have to. Um, but I think you need to I'll give you I think you need to rethink that because that's that's totally okay. I think I think you need to just think what you've just said. Like for example, if we were to assume I'll give you a very basic like ridiculous example. Let's say okay there is mutations. Uhhuh. And then a person okay says this mutations happens through God's uh will and God's intent. Yeah. You cannot then come and say oh but God doesn't exist because I'm a naturalist and it has to be explained through natural processes. And I'm giving you a very basic example. You're not understanding the implications of naturalism on your theory. Because if if we don't take natural naturalism we can't bring supernatural metaphysical realities to explain the same conclusions or or processes that are taking place. But bring it to the Your voice is cut by the way and I have to let you go anyway. Maybe cut in the right time. Look. Okay. I I can't hear you. Try to mute yourself. Unmute again. Try to mute and unmute yourself. I think it's your connection or something like that. Okay, I'll let you go. Uh anyways, it was it was nice talking to you because we don't want to go in around for for a very long time, you know, and other guests are waiting. Okay. Well, I definitely want to I definitely want to thank um our guest here and please join us again. It was a very pleasant conver. Yeah. And and and by the way, uh brother Sabur has got a channel that is a lot of it is directed towards evolution etc. Uh so it will be very nice if he's doing a live stream. If you want to continue a discussion on a specific field, a specific thing, you can check his channel. It will be in the title. You know, I've I've I've uh mentioned his channel. Oh, he's gone. I think his name bring Wesley because he's been I brought him from the beginning. We had the discussion for a while, but he went he had some questions for you or something like that. Sure. How are you, Wesley? You good? Hey, can you hear me? Yeah. Yeah, I can hear you. So, you said you had some questions for brother Saburi. Can ask him now. Well, like there's just so much you guys talked about. I'll have to You pretty much answered my questions and some some of that. Um, but I I I do want to ask a couple of questions. What's the name of your thesis, Sabore? Could I? Uh, so if you go to my channel, if you go to my website and there should methodological adapt, should methodological adaptionism be replaced? So, this is something I did as part of my master's thesis. Uh, and this is what I'm going to be inshallah publishing in scientific journal. It's going to take some time because it has to go through all this revision and stuff but alhamdulillah I mean it it it's something which I got a distinction for and it's been peer- reviewviewed uh by other people from philosophy background. So it's a solid piece. It's a historical piece uh but it also shows uh not only the changes in evolutionary biology but it also shows the epistemic implications of uh dogmatically holding on to antique ideas such as junk DNA which has been very problematic uh for the evolutionary sciences. Uh, do you think that you'll be doing any more um sort of like um I don't know if you call them collabs, but I guess debates with people like Aaron Raw or Forest Vakai is one of a kind of popular channel who does stuff related to evolution. Is it I haven't heard of Forest Vakai. Uh Aaron Ra I had two discussions with him. I I'm more than happy to discuss with Darwinist. In fact, you know, just to let you know, um, you know, this is something I I'm I'm willing to do at any point. I mean, I've had, just to give you an example, an answer from one professor that I reached out to, uh, and he's from, uh, a background of, uh, evolution. Um, he basically said that he doesn't debate theists. So, I'm actually looking for opponents. I I the my problem is a lack of opponents. Uh, I have a big I have a big sort of issue with this idea that you can just talk to an audience and convince them of your ideas. I believe for anybody to believe your ideas, they need to be put to the fire. They need to be actually put on stage. Like you have to battle an opponent on a particular issue. The problem is as well not only that these Darwinists don't come out to debate but sometimes when you do actually have a discussion with a nuanced evolutionary biologist they don't actually disagree with you. So for example um you will go online you will find a debate a discussion between myself and professor Jeremy Pritchard and he's a atheist evolutionary biologist he's a professor of biology at Birmingham University and we have a discussion does evolution undermine God and we both agreed it doesn't undermine God we both agreed about the philosophy of science we both agreed about changes and all these types of things so I'm looking for opponents I have no problem but I I really don't want to talk Ra again. I've had enough of him. I think Subhan Allah, the people at at an academic level are very are much more humble than the little minions that walk that they use their name, right? They use their name. But when you speak with those academics, I think most of the time they do agree with you. Like when you oppose certain issues, they would say to you, we don't know. For example, we don't have an answer for this right now. But when you speak to some of the minions who use their own names, if you speak to them, they will act like as if they know everything. This is an established reality. we've got answers for these questions, right? So, so when you look at these type of types of debates, you see that people are agreeing most of the time. Yeah. Well, that's why I think that all that plays together, why I think that navigating this stuff is just like very difficult because again like a lot of people are not familiar with like many aspects of evolution. And then like a lot of people the impression I get though is that like a lot of the time in like academia it's sort of like closed off in sort of a way like most academics I don't think particularly will be doing like debate channels or anything like that anytime soon. That's the impression that I get. It's it's interesting, Wesley. I'll tell you something that I found uh myself to be true and I believe anybody who looks into this will will agree. The vast majority of evolutionary biologists, they do not get involved in theism, atheism debates. They do not get involved in these cynical backs and forths and this. the vast majority of them for example there was a study conducted in the UK some years ago and they asked scientists about their perceptions of um uh you know certain things and Richard Dawkins came up negatively again and again so literally people like Richard Dawkins are not the scientists who are actually doing the scientific work you will find Wesley is you will find there's a lot of arguments there's a lot of debates a lot of discussions however one thing I want you to keep in mind they are they are academic ics on the other side of the fence who are Darwinists, who are atheists and these guys do not actually say what Richard Dawkins says. I'll give you an example. Michael Roose, he commented on Richard Dawkins book, The God Delusion. Michael Roose is a bigger academic, a bigger Darwinist than Richard Dawkins in academia. He said, "Reading the God delusion made me embarrassed to be an atheist. It made me embarrassed." So, I want you to look up people like Michael Roose. Look up a debate between Fuzz Vana and um Michael Roose about the origin of life. Okay. Like these are real academics who are willing to openly say that a lot of this new atheist rhetoric is nonsense. Yeah. And I I still I'm kind of curious as to why it is that people like Richard Dawkins tend to like get much of the spotlight in the first place. it. Um, but I guess that's just a I I I actually I actually I actually have a uh explanation I believe of that and that explanation is that people love simple narratives. Religion is evil. God doesn't exist. Evolution undermines God. Let's make the world a better place. These are the simplistic narratives he has. However, if you speak about biology in a very nuanced way, oh, the fossil record doesn't quite fit Darwinism, but there's other areas that there could be synergy. Anybody that's going to be nuanced, they're not going to sell. What sells is controversy. What sells is um binary narratives about the clash of civilizations. So, Richard Dawkins is a very polar figure. That's why he's popular. He's aggressive. That's why he's popular. academically he's considered by people like Eio Wilson to be a science journalist right he's not even considered to be a scientist so people like um you know Richard Dawkins they are popular because they're essentially actors and the world is their theater yeah well um I think okay Wesley let me ask you this let me ask you let's get some benefit from this discussion ask you this but first is asking if there is any atheist because they all ran away now we don't have anymore right It's been a while. If there's any if there is Yeah. Yeah. If there is any atheists who would like to join and talk about evolution, they can join. But generally, I want to ask Wesley, let's let's talk for more of a general discussion. What is your position? Are you are you believer in God? Do you completely reject existence for creator? Do you I I don't believe in a god. I I think that speaking of simple narratives, I think that religions provide a lot of simple narratives that influence societies. And I think that like I I don't want to be I don't want to talk about into like all the depth of like how they influence societies and how they influence the way that we make decisions, but the more and more that I try to like study religions, it seems to me that I see a lot of similarities and a lot and the differences to me seem to be um the differences are like really interesting because when we talk about they all agree on God's existence. I don't I don't think that I I don't see any you agree with me right so so all of this evidence also all of all of those religions has those has this idea and you also spoke in the beginning when I talked to you about the fra and how it's innate to have this idea of existence of I don't think it's innate I wouldn't say that it's innate I'd say most people are predisposed to belief in some sort of higher power but I don't think like I think that some people with certain I don't uh like altered states of consciousness let's say like maybe they have like schizophrenia or maybe they're autistic or maybe they just perceive reality in a non-typical an atypical way like I think that people like that might not necessarily be like predisposed to believe in like a higher power or anything like that in a particularly um similar way we're talking about people who are younger not yet influenced by by other people around so the study is focused the study is focused on on children people who are not influenced by all of these ideas that you're referring to. The study concludes as I said to you before is that they have an innate receptivity to God or the creation the creator right but that's not the only thing we we've got many other evidences as well and I said to you in the past if you look at the past every civilization had some sort of a higher power that they that they looked at or they believed that right so this idea is it's it's a part of your human nature that's what that's the reason I'm using this terminology because it already existed what about China I mean China doesn't necessarily I would say that there are a lot of superstitions So Wesley, just an important point about China because obviously I've been looking into China a lot last couple of years. Um, China actually has had one of the fastest demographic changes in terms of religiosity. According to some estimates, China is going to be the largest Christian nation on earth in a few decades. I just want you to imagine that China is going to be one of the is going to be sorry the largest Christian nation on earth. Okay. Now, have you heard of the fallen gong? Oh, yeah. I'm I'm a little bit familiar with them and some of the things they back and Okay. Do you know that this religion which came about some 40 50 years ago, I don't remember. This religion before it was persecuted and the organs were harvested, all this stuff happened. Do you know this was actually one of the fastest growing religions in China? Um it doesn't surprise me particularly that much. Christianity is growing in China massively, right? Um Islam in terms of China is quite cretailed. So it's it's not well they have invested interest in curtailing that it seems. Yeah. Yeah. They do. And what's interesting what you'll find you see the Chinese people they are now reaching the middle class status for a big number of them. Now they've reached the you know before they were in poverty and there were difficulty there all these things. Now the middle class is looking for spiritual answers. It's incredible. At my university I remember this Chinese person accepted Islam. Chinese people are accepting religion. And what you find is they're going back to Dowoism. They're going back to Buddhism. They're going back to uh Christianity. You know Christian notorian Christianity. I believe maybe Muhammad knows about notorianism. Notorian Christians actually went to China a long time ago. So the thing is the world as a whole is becoming more religious now than it was in the 1960s. In the 1960s, you know, Time magazine had this uh cover which says God is dead. Right now, what do you mean God is dead? God is everywhere from a political point of view. You go to Afghanistan, you go to Latin America, you got Trump in America. Well, he's gone now, but you get what I mean. Religiosity is part and parcel of human nature. It's not going to go anywhere. Well, of course, it's not equally distributed. certain countries are less religious and other countries where they have more people might have like faster you know growth in terms of like religious rates. Um I do is the fastest growing everywhere. But the thing that like I still am like left with is it just because even if like the majority believe in something and is predisposed to something and even if arguably it's useful that still to me is just not convincing enough to suggest that it's true. convince you that sorry to cut you off, Muhammad. Go ahead. Go ahead. No one is saying it's to convince you it's true. What Muhammad is saying, what I'm saying is it's data and that data needs an explanation. And the explanation that Muhammad gave is human nature which is linked to God. So that that's what's missing here. We're not saying that means God. He's using the data to make an argument. Okay. But I I still having this question for you. What would convince you in particular that God exists? Um, it would have to be probably something extremely, you know, naturalistic. Like obviously like if some if some sign in the sky said I'm God, like I'm real. Here's my holy book. And it just like falls from the sky and lands in my hands or something like that. I would think either, okay, maybe I'm hallucinating, but like maybe there is something maybe there is something to this. So, so that's not proof because maybe you're hallucinating. Well, it's a pretty convincing one. You you would say, "I had a dream. I was hallucinating. I didn't really see this." In fact, you mentioning hallucinating is very is very interesting because that's in essence what the Quran says. The Quran says in chapter 15, that if Allah were to make a ladder for the disbelievers and they go up and they look at heaven, they look at the creation, they would say, "Our eyes have been dazzled. to people that are affected by magic. So even if they were to to see these naturalistic things are not necessarily evidence for the existence of a of a creator. I hear that. And like for me though, I'm like really interested in like what those t like to me I can't help but hear things like that and think of them as like nation building tactics, right? Like made by men. I don't see a different question. Do you believe anything is 100% absolute or certain? Um um I don't the thing is like I don't I don't function in that way. Like so let's say that like there's like a I just assume for instance if I let go of like a pin you know that it will fall to the ground. I don't concern myself with is it like 99% certain because like maybe there is a magnet up a superpowered magnet up above me that I didn't account for writes it. So, um, you know, I guess you've not answered my question, though. Do you believe in that anything is absolutely true? 100%. There's no doubt about it. Um, I'm trying to figure out what you mean. Like, I believe that some things are true or false, but I don't absolutely true, which means does not allow for the possibility of being false. I don't think that I don't think anything can't be falsified or how you don't think anything can be falsified by but by nothing not that nothing is I mean how do you explain it let's just say for the sake of convenience let's just say that I think that yeah 100% certainty is is possible let's I mean no it's not it's not for hypothetical s I'm asking you what you believe you know we're not just arguing for the sake of hypothe hypothetical situations. I'm asking you, you you yourself, do you believe something is absolutely 100% true? Let's just say no because I find no value in thinking that way. Yeah, I know the answer is no. Therefore, asking asking someone to prove something by is by default is nonsensical because if you already hold the position that nothing is absolutely is 100% true and you hold the position that you you're only accepting your experience that is not even true. You're accepting 90% your experience and what you see based on empirical reality. Then you're already limiting your scope and there's no point of a religious person presenting something to you to begin with. You already limited the scope by saying I don't think something is absolutely 100% true and then you limited the scope secondly. You limited the scope secondly that the evidence has to be empirical seen by the eye etc. or held but I think that's just the nature of humans. I think we always like even Muslims limit the scope of their knowledge through like their religion like everything that we observe gets filtered through our biases. We're not we're not gods so to speak. We are limited to like our biology. we're limited to like cultural conditioning and um whatever models and assumptions we made that are informed through like our experiences like so I don't think that you you talk about human nature we already talked about human nature and God is a part of that human nature but still you reject that part of human nature if you were if you if you working from a human nature perspective you would be accepting that idea of existence of a higher power that it is existing in other human beings is a part of humanity I reject the notion that 100% of people are going to find it natural to believe in a god or a higher power a specific one particularly okay can something come from nothing for you what's your definition of nothing absolutely abs absence of everything I don't think so okay what is your position on the universe then where the universe come from so my understanding is that when physicists talk about nothing uh in general what they mean is like no not you you wly I'm not you go to other people I'm trying Let's talk about you you yourself or or or your position is what they say if nothing if you mean nothing in the sense that there are states where like possibly matter can't form no I said to you the absence of everything I don't think so I don't think that I can I can't conceive of that concept of like absolutely where the universe come from I don't know okay what attributes do I require by necessity to bring a universe into existence if I wanted to make a univer universe. What do I need? Um, uh, I don't know. I'm not a universal creator. Would Okay, no problem. Would I need an immense amount of power and and and knowledge in order for me to create atoms that if you split, you got nuclear explosions, the whole universe is full of atoms. Do I need a level of intelligence and knowledge to have laws, gravitational systems, etc.? Do I need to be not restricted by time and space the same way that creation is restricted by time and space? The answer would be disappointing. I don't know. I I like I I literally don't. No, no, no. But these things are necessities. You cannot bring the universe into existence without these things. So it's not I know or I don't know. Why can't intelligence be an emergent property though? No, no. Let's leave intelligence now. Let's talk about power. Let's talk about not being not being bound by time and space the way the creation is because you'll bring time and space continuous into reality. So by essence you'll be eternal from that perspective. You will be independent of the universe. The universe will depend on you because you brought it into existence. Okay? And you've got this immense amount of power and energy etc. Bringing the universe bringing the universe into existence. And you have to have knowledge in order for you to have these systems gravitation etc. Now if you've got these characteristics then what do we refer to that as generally as human beings? What do we call that? A creator I guess. Uh okay. Okay. So we should then agree on the existence of a creator. But you talk about intelligence and you assume that you know No, I don't I know I use knowledge by the way. I'll tell you something interesting by the way that intelligence even though sometimes we use that term but in the attributes of Allah you're not going to find that that name you're going to find the name of of knowledge you're going to find the attribute of knowledge Allah attributes attributes knowledge to himself but necessarily the word intelligence you're not going to find it I believe in the names and the attributes of Allah yeah so that's why I'm using a term knowledge specifically so knowledge power, power and energy, the the way that we were talking about being independent and eternal, bringing the the universe into existence. Those are basic attributes that by necessity have to be there in order for you to have the universe. Well, then I I like in the context of Islam, I'm left with like the question of like yeah, then we move into Islam, right? But the first point, but with but with Islam, you're talking about like a God that has clearly set forth rules and I would say has goals. um is my understanding like um like how do you determine that like God is what set forth these rules? Like what is your like to me it just seems like it would be man-made like the Quran could just be man-made and humans just have a predisposition to follow and learn language and like that's sort of like the but that doesn't mean that it's like from God. It doesn't Yeah. First after establishing there is something with possessing these attributes we look at the scripture that came or the the religious claim that has been made we analyze it and based on that we make our conclusions right so I'm not saying you therefore believe become a Muslim I never said that right I never said we have these attributes we have that creator therefore become a Muslim but I'm saying if that creator is there and everything around us has a purpose has a role has functionality is function in a specific way everything around us right we're not the old one out there are many you bring up you bring up the idea of like function like the way that I understand its function is it's it's a I don't I'm not aware of like the reason why function is so interesting to me when I think about like religion is because it's very much a human way to look at the world in terms of like how it functions who does it serve and I just have a difficulty in this regard thinking about like like like it it just seems you're a human you have to look at things in a human way but how can we know if a god perceives things to be in that way like like you know by God telling you by God telling you by God it's not it's not it's not that God perceives it's not that God perceives things in these ways it is that God commanded you to function in that way these are two separate things right now the point is as I said to you is to look at that scripture or the evidence because you've got many people who made that claim throughout history how many prophets of God have you heard of many right so when you heard people claiming okay we established some sort of a creator certain attri attributes. We've got multiple people throughout history making a claim. Then we need to be actually testing those claims because if those claims are correct and I die and I end up in an eternal damnation of hellfire, I can only blame myself. Right? So, so what I need to do is actually to put some effort into looking into those religions into looking into those scriptures and then making my conclusion whether this is from God or not. But to say, "Okay, no, no, no, no. I don't think I think this is a human or this or that." And it completely denounce it and ignore it is not a rational position to take. Like, have you looked into Islam like read the Quran and looked at the evidences that people display to say this is from God? Not 100%. I'll say that much. Okay. Not not 100%. Excellent. So, that's that would be my advice and and and we'll end the discussion with you there because I think brother is tired as is late already. No, no, no. I I'm I'm not actually tired I I was actually very cold. Okay. Okay. Okay. That's okay. Um so so Wesley um you know what Muhammad was saying there uh I just wanted to reiterate something which he said which is quite interesting. So he said look there has to be knowledge behind the universe because there's knowledge. There has to be um you know immense power. You split the atom you get nuclear thing. What he's saying here are things which are basically logically deductive. They're not inferences. They're not like okay this kind of make. No, it's actually it has to be the case. It has to be the case that there's a there's a creator and that creator is all powerful, knowledgeable and you know all these types of things. Now the the thing is for you how is it possible how is it possible that that creator that god that what whatever name we're going to use for the divine would create everything and then not give guidance that like just think about that it doesn't make any sense it's like you know a factory being set up by a manager and then he leaves for 100 years and all the factory but why does it need to make sense as a human. Why would if it's a god, why would it need to make sense to you? I I would I would I would say there is much more on that. I would say to put it that simply, I'd say there there is tons of reasons for us to assume that it did give guidance. So, it's not as simple as just an assumption that it didn't give us guidance. So, me looking at ants, how they're guided by the creator, having their own systems of prisons and dealing with one another and functioning with a queen and army. Exactly. Right. So when I look at this creation and the tree given oxygen taking carbon dioxide everything in reality is functioning in a way that is innately built within it. Also looking at the human beings themselves and how they have innate morality which shows that that creator is given the creation something right is giving them certain senses of sense of morality that is universal with everyone also the fact that as I said that there are multiple people throughout history making the claim that we are coming from the creator. So I I do not just say it's a deadbeat dad that gave birth and ran away only. But there are every reason. I find pictures from my dad in there. I find a video of him saying no look please call me find me. I'm going to be there. I'm ignoring all of these evidences and then choosing not to believe or not sorry not to even look at those evidences of those religions or people who are making the claim that they are from God. So it's it's completely a ridiculous position to hold. I would say definitely I feel like I feel like I'd have to push back a bit on the notions of um objective morality. We're getting we're getting off track, aren't we? Oh, okay. But but Wesley Wesley, I I would say one thing, right? I would say something and this is something that I've spoken to people about and they've actually tried it. The fact is if you really want to know what the truth is, you should just pray to God to tell you what the truth is. And that will become manifest and clear and direct to you. And so many people I know personally that they didn't believe, but they asked God and they weren't even sure if God was there when they prayed. That's how merciful God is. They didn't even know if they truly believed that God was there. But God guided them. So look, me me and Muhammad, we can tell you look, how do you know it's not the like placebo effect? Like if you believe it, you will believe that it's what happened. Like it seems to me a lot of religion relies on this. Like if you believe the prayer worked, then you conclude that it worked because you feel that it worked. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's that's kind of different to what I'm saying that you're saying. Okay. So someone prays, they get better, they get better, and placebo effect, they feel better. Yeah. And they but here I'm saying to you, you're using your mind to try and come to what is the truth? What is going on in this world? Which religion is true? Is there a god or not? If you pray to God, God will give you that insight, give you the passion to research and look, use your mind. God in the Quran and this is something you can't disagree with Wesley. No one can disagree. The Quran tells you do not follow your society. As in don't follow your peer pressure, parents, culture, this, this. You can extrapolate it. Don't follow your own desire. Because sometimes we do things that are not good for us. Follow your reason. God tells you again and again and again, do you not think? Do you not reflect? Do you not ponder? At least we can agree that we should be using our reason to come to conclusions about life. Uhhuh. Right. And that's what the Quran says. You should read the Quran and see what God says. Okay. But my experience to reason suggests that I need to think more about like why it is that there are so many like even within Islam there's no consensus about like what Islam actually is and how do you define that's completely not true. No that's not true. So like is the five pillars of Islam and six articles of faith are agreed upon by every Muslim. Yeah. Every Muslim. Are you sure? Yeah. which is which is to say to establish the prayer to give the zaka to to pilgrimage and Ramadan those five and the six articles of faith to believe in Allah his books his messengers his prophets the last day and destiny all Muslims agree that you have to believe in these things you have to practice these these these practices you're not going to find someone who says I'm a Muslim but I don't I don't believe a pray at all I don't believe you're not going to find these people who are actually considered Muslims if someone is like that no no if someone is like that no not majority would be a consensus that person is not a Muslim because these are the are the foundations so Wesley to to make it simpler in the world today there's 1.8 8 billion Muslims or two billion I don't know what the number is okay 99% of those people who claim they're Muslim if you ask them of the five pillars or six pillars of iman like if you of faith basically ask them these things they will they'll testify they will testify to these things so there isn't that much difference don't make the rule you cannot say people disagree on Islam based on on a fringe my even accounted for minority that wouldn't agree with each you know, so you can't you can't do that. So Islam is agreed upon, but just to say that just because there are different point of views of one thing, therefore I'm going to completely reject that thing. Do you think that's a reasonable proposition? I I'll I'll give you another problem with that, Wesley. Right. And I know I know you're a very intelligent person. You're asking these very honest questions, right? You see, there are many different interpretations of a phenomena in science. Sometimes these phenomena cannot be understood for an incredibly long period of time. Currently one of the phenomena that we're finding extremely difficult to understand is quantum mechanics. So you have the many worlds hypothesis. You have the capernacopenhagen Copenhagen school. Thank you. Many worlds. Yes. Yeah. Many worlds. Exactly. Excellent. Many many how many multiveres. Right. Right. Exactly. So the thing is none of these theories can be discounted because someone says well there's too many so they're all wrong. Mhm. that no one says there's many different interpretations of quantum mechanics. They all can't be right therefore they're all wrong. There is no logical flow from they there's so many to they're all false. What is clear is if there is a phenomena there is at least one real account out there which we need to reach, right? But why couldn't they all be false? But okay, there has to be one true description of what's going on even if you don't know it yet. The question is how do you know they are false? You need to investigate them. If you have already not investigated them, then you cannot be making the claim if they're all false. You need to first put the effort into investigating into these different worldviews looking for the evidences for Islam for other religions. And trust me, it's going to be very easy to know that Islam is the truth. You can trust me on that. You It's not going to take you long when you talk to other religious people trying to ask them for their evidence. It's not about trust for me. No, I'm saying do it. Trust me means do it. Trust me doesn't mean accept my words and become Muslim. Trust me means actually go and you will see what I'm saying you is the truth. That's what I mean by trust me. Yeah. Well, see like I I tried communicating and following some Muslim channels for a while, which I I think you guys would both agree that that's probably not the best way to learn about Islam because a lot of situations happen on these channels. But yeah, read the read the Quran. That's what you should be doing. But the thing that I guess that like even if I read the Quran like cover to cover and spent my entire life trying to understand every single thing about you know what is intended like what is what what the text is trying to say. Um, I I still don't necessarily see how they would like I I just don't see how like you guys seem to like like I just think that it just gets us nowhere because like at the end I just see that the difference between like somebody who like believes in one particular religion isn't is really just a core the core assumptions that they buy into. Like I think that you know like even in the context of science like what separates a lot of scientists in certain fields and disciplines are like the core assumptions either that they they take or adopt and um focus on. And like for me having those assumptions is not particularly satisfying in regards to you know me like believing in like a god or something like that like and I just I think what you're saying is is it's yeah completely in in opposition to the reality like what does a a Muslim let's not just say a religious person what does a Muslim benefit from Islam and to say that gets you nowhere that is a complete oh gets from Islam right so it's it's it's not that you only get satisfaction in the heart and the mind it's not that you only get this system which is perfect in in in comparison to human systems which are fallible which keep changing you already got a perfect system sent to you by the creator of how to to run your life of how to run your family of how to run your society of how to do everything literally it is it is been set for you in the best manner possible Right? The fact that you if if this is the truth then there is an afterlife and you will get not nowhere you will get to paradise which has an eternal eternal pleasure. Right? So so I I don't know how you're leaving all of the of the picture and say it gets you nowhere. No, it gets you everywhere literally not just nowhere. So it gives you what no atheist will ever have. So it gives you assurance assurance of your rational faculties. Gives you satisfaction of the money of the mind and the heart. It gives you objective morality. Right? It gives you as I said to you these these societal uh uh uh societal laws which are perfect. It gives you a community. I what does it not give you is the question to ask. But that's just the thing is it seems to me very much a self-fulfilling prophecy is that like when I think about I know you're contradicting what you said before. Well, when I think about religions and how they spread, like I think that they seem to us to you guys in particular, they might seem like very convincing. Like Islam might seem very convincing to you because like you guys very much benefit from that identity and have learned to associate with that identity as a result of like socioultural upbringing factors. I don't want to talk too much about that. So, so Wesley, look, the the problem with that line of thinking is it could apply to anything, but it's actually known as the genetic fallacy, right? So, I could read about the Big Bang in a comic, right? I could find the Big Bang comforting, but those two facts together does not affect the reality that the Big Bang is actually a real model. Likewise, there are atheists out there who are very upset at the idea of hellfire and very upset at the idea of there being heaven forever because they'll be bored out their brains. And so therefore, they find it comforting to be an atheist. And I can turn around and say, "Well, you're an atheist cuz you the problem with this particular sword is it cuts all ways and it doesn't actually lead to any real conclusions." So the one of the things that you can try and do is actually look at this. Why would just consider this point why would people who weren't bought up as Muslims for example the early Muslims were all converts all of Arabia they were all converts okay why would people give up women wine wealth status power materialism everything even their lives for the sake of something immaterial like just think about it and these were poor people and even today here here in the We have so many people accepting Islam. You have people here who are brought up in liberal societies taught wokeism, liberalism, feminism, humanism, Darwinism, scientism, all this stuff and they reject it all for something that came from Arabia in the seventh century. Like you should ask yourself why would people make these changes? So you know this is important to you in your analysis. Well, for me, just one one more one more quick thing to add. Just one more quick thing to add is that you got I think the study in the University of Edinburgh. I'm not sure, but I believe they've done a study on the how long does it take for a person to accept Islam and they came to approximate average of seven years that they spent six to seven years of studying Islam before they adopt Islam. It has nothing. They just not just done basic research here and there. No, they've actually looked into this in detail and then after doing that those people are not Muslim who does not benefit whatever all of the benefits you were mentioning is not for them but they still choose to accept. Which populations did they sample? Were that like the British population was Yeah. It's it's you go to the I believe it's a university of Edinburgh. I I'll try to put it uh if I find it. Yeah. But the point is the point is what matters, right? The point is what matters. People are accepting Islam on a daily basis, right? You'll find this, you'll find this all over. You find this on on this small channel of mine. You'll find this on channel of other brothers on YouTube happening on a daily basis. Okay? Right? People are accepting Islam and they are not benefiting the things that you're saying. And when you look at their reasoning for why they accept Islam, none of them none of them put these the reasons that you're putting. They all say it's rational. It makes sense. Their evidences I couldn't just ignore all of these reasons. I listen to Well, they don't have the extra context. So, um, Wesley and Muhammad, I'm going to ask your permission to head off. Absolutely. I've got early work tomorrow morning. Brother Sabur, for coming on and for everyone listening, inshallah, if you are interested in topics of science, evolution, etc. Brother Sabur has a channel. It's called The Delusions. If you want to go check him out, I'm sure there will be benefits there for you. Inshallah. Yeah. So, Wesley, uh, I'll probably uh, let you go as well. Yeah, it's getting late. So I I I hope you read No problem. I hope you read the Quran. As I said, do some more research. Try to read the You have nothing to lose. Trust me, you got two billion people in the world. A quarter of the population of the planet believes in this book. So it's I would say it's worth it to at least read to see what what those people believe in. Yeah. I think that's at least at least if I was a Muslim, I would just say it's hard to predict, but it might be worth it in certain aspects. So I'll give you that. Yeah. Yeah. So, so, so I would I would I would recommend you do and if you need a copy or anything, you have questions, you can just email me. Yeah. Okay. Uh, thank you for coming, Wesley. Thank you. You have a good one. No problem. Okay, brothers and sisters, uh, all of you, what do you think about the the life? We didn't get that many atheists to be honest. And honestly, I didn't think we'll get that many atheists trying to prove evolution because generally they're just keyboard warriors. And when it comes to actually trying to uh when it comes to actually trying to to investigate and look into their beliefs, you saw what they came up with today. They don't know you don't know the assumptions of the faith. They don't know the the details of their beliefs. They would just try to attack one individual because because they leave a whole presentation for one and a half hour and pick two minutes of one person that said something and try to act as if they've dealt with the with evolution or sorry you've dealt with the the the whole um sorry I'm just removing this link. Yeah, they will act as if they dealt with the whole presentation. So it's strange. Subhan Allah. Yeah. black before leaving the stream. It was good. I came two hours later. Oh yeah, alhamdulillah. Brother Sur, he joined a bit late. So it's good he came on the part where he joined. I did have a basic discussion with Wesley in the beginning trying to see uh what he believes in. But this is always the case. Trust me. And the point of this stream brothers and sisters is that we should be more on the offensive when it comes to these topics. Yeah, I don't want us to be on the defensive. Don't be on the defensive as if you're trying to justify something. They need to justify to you where are these clearcut evidences the evolution happened and it is true, right? And all you need to do is just to ask. All you need to do is to ask and you will see how they fumble. They don't have answers. They oh this they don't they don't know what to do when you start to actually question them and their beliefs. Right? So that is the main point that we get from this inshallah. Yeah, inshallah I'm I'm going to leave this live up inshallah. You can watch it later if you like the Muslim. What about doing I don't agree that it is compatible with Islam anyways. That's not my position. Why would I do a stream demonstrating that? I believe those people that try to show compatibility between evolution and Islam lead a lot of people eventually to leaving Islam because those people who try to find their compatibility and then link it to the Islam what they end up or what end ups happening what end up what ends up happening is that those people okay they say this is true for animals. So why am I being a hypocrite rejecting rejecting it when it comes to humans just because the Quran says so? If this evolutionary perspective is true, if these evidences are true, then I need to be consistent with my position. I should accept the whole thing. Should accept the whole theory. So I'm not with that position of trying to to link the two together. And I'm I'm clearly against especially that most of it is hocus pocus as I said many times. A lot of people get triggered when I say this, you know, but because it is like this, why would I try to like literally bring some bit of garbage and make it compatible with Islam just to appease the western society that believes in it or the people who fabricate evidence to believe in it? You need to ask yourself first, why would I need to try to do that to begin with? I don't know what you mean by that question, but okay. There's no compatibility. Listen to Allah. Not all, not the evolutionists. They're all atheists, satists, blue-haired demons. Maybe a bit harsh. Yeah. Subhan Allah. They most of them are are like are atheists. They're trying to push a specific agenda. What they're trying to do is to convince you that these things can happen randomly. All of this intricate beautiful creation and design of allahel that we as humans can look at and see and be a sign for us to increase our belief. Allahel ask you in the Quran, those who ponder on the creation of the heavens and the earth, oh Allah, you did not create this in vain. Oh, glory be to you. Subhan, protect us from the punishment of the fire. Allah is saying this is the the case of the believers. They look and they ponder on the creation of the heavens and the earth. When they say, "Oh Allah, you did not create this in vain." How can you ponder on it if they just tell you there's a bunch of random mutation that happen? They are trying to attack very the very simplistic people the layman that have this close the clear basic futra when they look at something like these beautiful animals and creation of Allah butterfly rainbow they know there has to be something behind this they're trying to attack that the the live Q&A are all in the uh playlists if you go to the channel and click playlist you'll find the live streams there, a Q&A, all of them. And I'm not saying that everyone has to hold my position when it comes to evolution. I'm telling you my position and I'm telling you what I think the people who believe in evolution will end up doing in the end. It's very problematic. So I got no reason for me to try to link it with Islam to begin with, especially with all the lies, etc. Okay, brothers and sisters, make dua for brother Adutate has been diagnosed of lung cancer as reported by his friend and our Muslim Australian brother. May Allahel give him shifat and ease his pain inshallah. Uh I'm not sure how how correct is this news but if it is true then may Allahel give him shifat and give him a quick release as well okay brothers and sisters Inshallah, I'll let you go. It's getting a bit late here and we'll see you inshallah in the next stream. Inshallah, you enjoyed the stream. There was benefit in it and uh may Allahel accept from us. Anything I said correct is from Allah and anything I said wrong is from me and subhik. I overcast.