America's Most Prominant Muslim Scholar On ISIS

I just owned your *** with a quote out of the dictionary; try not to be so stupid next time ok

Edit:: and i owned ur *** with your own link; im pretty sure you're viewed like a giant rock head now just like you're avatar ROFL

5
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

if evolution was proven without a shadow of a doubt it would be named a law. but its not so, it's a theory. A theory is not the king of science. theory's are always open to be disproved.

A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the universe. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements. Factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing causal relationships (such as those implied by laws) from principles that arise due to constant conjunction.[1]

Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to linear networks, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc. These laws remain useful, but only under the conditions where they apply.

if evolution was proven without a shadow of a doubt it would be named a law. but its not so, it's a theory. A theory is not the king of science. theory's are always open to be disproved.

if evolution was proven without a shadow of a doubt it would be named a law. but its not so, it's a theory. A theory is not the king of science. theory's are always open to be disproved.

This thread is horrible. Now I'm getting adds for Muslim dating sites.

i think we can all agree that we are now in the realm of real controversial topic that is debated on the highest of all high levels

No, we can't, despite you trying to bludgeon your way through. You're outclassed in so many ways man, it's honestly pathetic. The worst part is that you can't even see it.

I'm done. Night folks.

You're*

And I'm an agnostic, like I already said before.

i think we can all agree that we are now in the realm of real controversial topic that is debated on the highest of all high levels; as far as debating something goes. And thus, brings me back to the fallacy of dunk bender saying that believers are more illogical then non-believers. You can't say for certain you know without a doubt that we are a product of evolution. You have to admit for your own future credibility that calling people out as being illogical based on creationism or evolution-ism is unsound logic in itself. The premise that you can be so egotistical to call someone illogical based on creationists viewpoint is bewildering. I would bet most moderate atheists(2% of the world) would even agree with me about this.

So with that in mind, can you really still call the believer illogical; and think down upon their viewpoint?

i think we can all agree that we are now in the realm of real controversial topic that is debated on the highest of all high levels; as far as debating something goes. And thus, brings me back to the fallacy of dunk bender saying that believers are more illogical then non-believers. You can't say for certain you know without a doubt that we are a product of evolution. You have to admit for your own future credibility that calling people out as being illogical based on creationism or evolution-ism is unsound logic in itself. The premise that you can be so egotistical to call someone illogical based on creationists viewpoint is bewildering. I would bet most moderate atheists(2% of the world) would even agree with me about this.

Im still giggling about owning your *** with my dictionary definition hehe

ok then your 12% of the world, still a minority

I got my double mage mythics. im here to party. get used to it

setting evolution aside, mo one has the answer of where life came from. So with that in mind, can you really still call the believer illogical; and think down upon their viewpoint?

EVERYTHING in science is open to be disproved.

tbh i smoke and am actually not in my view religious. i dont go to church. i dont practice much of anything. i just believe in a higher power with some understanding about the world around me. I am a creationist. which is the majority's viewpoint. keep that in mind as you go around calling believers illogical eh? just maybe you wont get trumped by dictionary definitions next time

everything coming into existence out of nothing, which is at odds at the very foundations and fundamentals of science.

Watch the video. Kind of explains everything. http://m.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/barbara-boland/muslim-student-who-ignited-media-firestorm-benghazi-panel-family-friend

How so? Keep in mind that "out of nothing" is a very vague phrase.

The belief in God doesn't contradict science because science and the supernatural do not intersect. This doesn't elevate it above scientific reasoning because there is no fundamental conflict between the two unless you treat the supernatural as something within the realm of science, which it is not.

Thinking where Muhammad came from . . . I think it is almost impossible that he could have known about things like the common origin of the universe, because scientists have only found out within the last few years, with very complicated and advanced technological methods, that this is the case.Somebody who did not know something about nuclear physics fourteen hundred years ago could not, I think, be in a position to find out from his own mind, for instance, that the earth and the heavens had the same origin.

What happens when a hypothetical Paradox manifests itself, like an Athiest scientists claims Athiesm is impossible?

Not directed at you Milamber but who was it that said people are born Athiests?

"This shouldn’t come as a surprise, since we are born believers, not atheists, scientists say. "
Science would argue differently.

New Scientist is a weekly non-peer-reviewed English-language international science magazine,[3] founded by Tom Margerison in 1956.[2] Since 1996 it has also run a website.
Sold in retail outlets and on subscription, the magazine covers current developments, news, reviews and commentary on science and technology. It also prints speculative articles, ranging from the technical to the philosophical.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7216/edsumm/e081023-03.html
A new Essay series starts this week, introduced in an Editorial, on the theme of what makes us human. How, in the two-and-a-half million years that separate us from stone-tool wielding hominids, have 'human' behaviours and attitudes emerged from pre-human behaviour patterns. In week one of the series, Pascal Boyer places religion in a context of the human neurocognitive systems that evolved to allow us to survive as social animals. Religious thinking of some type seems to be the path of least resistance for our cognitive systems; disbelief requires a conscious effort to counter our natural cognitive dispositions.

Theos is a think tank which believes you can't understand the modern world without understanding religion. We seek to inform the debate about the place of religion in society, challenging ill-informed thinking through our research, events and media comment.
"Doing God": A Future for Faith in the Public Square was published to coincide with the think tank's launch in 2006. Since then Theos has published thirteen major reports authored by theologians and social commentators, two major books and a number of other publications and research papers.

you encountered a normal 85% person in the population. A believer's viewpoint , my dictionary definitions have you guys spieling your brains out over theory, Im giggling with 5 of you guys trying to stump me.
And you wanna know what a normal 85% of the population looks like? check my ***, I'm rocking a way smarter setup then what im sure any of you guys have. Iono i represent the majority's thought, and I think I've came out ontop in every way possible. your avatars suck, your chars suck, your posts suck.
this here out of nowhere believer has you smoked by your own fantasy standards
step your game up if you gonna tango

tbh i smoke