Dr. Zakir Naik on evolution - MUST WATCH
- Thread starter Deadlift
- Start date
There is also this video :
You must be registered for see links
where he gives a very convincing answer to the first question. But if you actually pay attention to his answer you will realize that while he disproves that God is a sadist, he proves that God is unjust, a cheater and so is everyone else who follows the Quran.
HashiraMadara
Active member
HashiraMadara
Active member
So "related videos"/"frequently visited channels" leads to "road2jesus" and you happen to be a Christian
You must be registered for see images
Doctor- studied at Topiwala National Medical College & BYL Nair Charitable Hospital according to wiki.
@OP: Joining ISIS? Last time I heard of him, his followers they had spent the night slitting throats.
Kishi Uzumaki
Active member
Awards
When intelligent people keep their mouth shut the fools run around claiming to be intelligent Lol
Awkward Linguist
Active member
Legendary Saiyan
Active member
First saw this like 3 years ago, and while it's true this alarmed me to take his statements with caution, I didn't feel like sharing it -it's all over the internet since 2007 anyway-, or ridiculing it: or else I could spend my lifetime mocking at all kinds of religious people who make stupid claims. That said, I wonder why would one feel the urge to share this of all videos...can't help but sense some bias here. Why not share, say, some Christians making similarly inadequate points? Like, dr. Ben Carson. He gave me cringes too. But I find George Carlin the funniest when it comes to religion.
Now, not that I mean to excuse Zakir Naik on his mistakes, because mistakes he made a lot, but many of these are simply due to his poor English. So really, mocking someone for his pronunciation just because you don't understand clearly what he is saying, is not necessarily a sign of his idiocy. But yeah, his pronunciation is funny and I don't always hear his words well either.
However, most of the points in the video can be explained by being more generous about what Naik must have meant, as the maker of the video has done so some times (btw the video in its title gives all credits to Nabeel Qureshi, despite he himself admits that it was a friend of his who went through a 5 minute speech of Naik- which I'm "sure" was totally randomly selected, not at all with the intent to find one which could be best used to discredit Naik).
Take Galapagos- "Keletropist". G can easily be mistaken for K in said word, and I hear no T in the end. That said, it doesn't take a genius to realize that the consonants are very similar, except for tr. G-l-p-g-s. K-l-tr-p-s. Of course this doesn't explain why on his facebook page he himself spells it as Keletropist, but if I want to play the advocate of the devil even further, I'd say he just wrote down the word by the mistaken pronunciation by which he remembers it. Anyway there is a genus of exotic flowers indigenous to Southeastern Asia (Naik's home) called Calotropis so maybe that's why he confused it- it's not hard either to discover 'tropic' in the word Keletropist.
Next. There is a letter published post mortem of C. D., by the widow of one late Thomas Thornton, actually.
Ok Galileo was a bit off, but initially he was also charged with heresy which was punishable by death, it's another question he was acquitted from that charge and he was indeed sentenced to imprisonment which was later commuted to home arrest, the sentence itself remained in force till Galileo's death: maybe that confused Naik. Sure he shouldn't speak on something he is not certain of, but then, people like Richard Dawkins shouldn't use Galileo's example either to show that the Church was against science (as Galileo's trial was at least as much about him offending his peers and insulting the pope who formerly supported him- thus Galileo kinda "bit the hand that fed him"- as it was about his views: which went more against the officially held interpretation of the Bible in the light of Aristotelian phiosophy, than the Bible itself, as it was correctly pointed out in the video), however, the video was incorrect in saying that the Church was not against science at all: that's not exactly true either, and using Kepler's, Galileo's...etc. religiosity as 'evidence' of that claim, is a non sequitur.
Btw after mistake #2 comes mistake #4 then mistake #3, so the maker of the video is not a genius either.
Ice age: "The current ice age, the Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation, started about 2.58 million years ago during the late Pliocene, when the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere began."
^ the sad case when both the one being fact checked and the fact checker are wrong.
Hominidae: it was a spelling/pronunciation mistake from Naik's part...
I could find a Rudolf Albert von Kölliker ("Ruperts Albert"), so, just poor pronunciation again.
There is a Frank Salisbury too.
Oh btw: "The most important differences between species are in the size and shape of their beaks, and the beaks are highly adapted to different food sources. The birds are all dull-coloured."
So it seems Naik mentioning only the size and shape of the beaks was not so off. Also, niche can mean
"a shallow recess, especially one in a wall"
so, I'd guess Naik meant the hollows on/in trees that birds were pecking at, which resulted in the change in their beaks. That interpretation is supported by the above cited wikipedia source: "...and their beaks are highly adapted to different food sources..." -food source maybe meaning the hollows of the trees in which birds may find, say, insects to peck.
Also, "not in different species" could mean that the changes always happened within the same species, so it doesn't necessarily mean Naik's words have to be understood as that only one species were affected and not 14. He might have meant that ok many species were affected, but the changes always happened within one species. Of course it's another question if that's true or not, but again, this is another example how one's words can be twisted to make him look like an idiot. That said, I feel like an idiot myself to take the time to type all this, but I just wanted to show, inbefore you all die of laughter, maybe give it some more thoughts and do some research. Notwithstanding that Naik himself should do more research as well.
And I left the fun fact for last: Nabeel Qureshi himself doesn't believe in Darwinian evolution (sure he has no issues with microevolution as nobody really does, but macroevolution is always another story).
Btw he is the same guy *****ing about muslims gloating over his cancer, while Christians did the same about Ahmed Deedat.
The lesson is: bias works both ways.
Now, not that I mean to excuse Zakir Naik on his mistakes, because mistakes he made a lot, but many of these are simply due to his poor English. So really, mocking someone for his pronunciation just because you don't understand clearly what he is saying, is not necessarily a sign of his idiocy. But yeah, his pronunciation is funny and I don't always hear his words well either.
However, most of the points in the video can be explained by being more generous about what Naik must have meant, as the maker of the video has done so some times (btw the video in its title gives all credits to Nabeel Qureshi, despite he himself admits that it was a friend of his who went through a 5 minute speech of Naik- which I'm "sure" was totally randomly selected, not at all with the intent to find one which could be best used to discredit Naik).
Take Galapagos- "Keletropist". G can easily be mistaken for K in said word, and I hear no T in the end. That said, it doesn't take a genius to realize that the consonants are very similar, except for tr. G-l-p-g-s. K-l-tr-p-s. Of course this doesn't explain why on his facebook page he himself spells it as Keletropist, but if I want to play the advocate of the devil even further, I'd say he just wrote down the word by the mistaken pronunciation by which he remembers it. Anyway there is a genus of exotic flowers indigenous to Southeastern Asia (Naik's home) called Calotropis so maybe that's why he confused it- it's not hard either to discover 'tropic' in the word Keletropist.
Next. There is a letter published post mortem of C. D., by the widow of one late Thomas Thornton, actually.
You must be registered for see links
Ok Galileo was a bit off, but initially he was also charged with heresy which was punishable by death, it's another question he was acquitted from that charge and he was indeed sentenced to imprisonment which was later commuted to home arrest, the sentence itself remained in force till Galileo's death: maybe that confused Naik. Sure he shouldn't speak on something he is not certain of, but then, people like Richard Dawkins shouldn't use Galileo's example either to show that the Church was against science (as Galileo's trial was at least as much about him offending his peers and insulting the pope who formerly supported him- thus Galileo kinda "bit the hand that fed him"- as it was about his views: which went more against the officially held interpretation of the Bible in the light of Aristotelian phiosophy, than the Bible itself, as it was correctly pointed out in the video), however, the video was incorrect in saying that the Church was not against science at all: that's not exactly true either, and using Kepler's, Galileo's...etc. religiosity as 'evidence' of that claim, is a non sequitur.
Btw after mistake #2 comes mistake #4 then mistake #3, so the maker of the video is not a genius either.
Ice age: "The current ice age, the Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation, started about 2.58 million years ago during the late Pliocene, when the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere began."
You must be registered for see links
^ the sad case when both the one being fact checked and the fact checker are wrong.
Hominidae: it was a spelling/pronunciation mistake from Naik's part...
I could find a Rudolf Albert von Kölliker ("Ruperts Albert"), so, just poor pronunciation again.
You must be registered for see links
There is a Frank Salisbury too.
You must be registered for see links
Oh btw: "The most important differences between species are in the size and shape of their beaks, and the beaks are highly adapted to different food sources. The birds are all dull-coloured."
You must be registered for see links
So it seems Naik mentioning only the size and shape of the beaks was not so off. Also, niche can mean
"a shallow recess, especially one in a wall"
You must be registered for see links
so, I'd guess Naik meant the hollows on/in trees that birds were pecking at, which resulted in the change in their beaks. That interpretation is supported by the above cited wikipedia source: "...and their beaks are highly adapted to different food sources..." -food source maybe meaning the hollows of the trees in which birds may find, say, insects to peck.
Also, "not in different species" could mean that the changes always happened within the same species, so it doesn't necessarily mean Naik's words have to be understood as that only one species were affected and not 14. He might have meant that ok many species were affected, but the changes always happened within one species. Of course it's another question if that's true or not, but again, this is another example how one's words can be twisted to make him look like an idiot. That said, I feel like an idiot myself to take the time to type all this, but I just wanted to show, inbefore you all die of laughter, maybe give it some more thoughts and do some research. Notwithstanding that Naik himself should do more research as well.
And I left the fun fact for last: Nabeel Qureshi himself doesn't believe in Darwinian evolution (sure he has no issues with microevolution as nobody really does, but macroevolution is always another story).
You must be registered for see links
Btw he is the same guy *****ing about muslims gloating over his cancer, while Christians did the same about Ahmed Deedat.
The lesson is: bias works both ways.
Last edited:
Among heathens like Ahmed Deedat or Hamza Tzortzis, Shabir Ally is seriously a breath of fresh air. I obviously disagree with his conclusions, but I'm the first one to admit that he is a fine debater, a master logician and a meticulous researcher.
I would say that he even had the upper hand on William Lane Craig (probably the most skilful Christian apologist alive today) in their debate "What must I do to be saved?".
I shared it for one single reason: it's funny.
I wasn't trying to ridicule Islam or Muslims, far from it. I stated that he was a Muslim speaker because he's famous for that. If he was just a speaker who happened to be a Muslim, I would have gladly refrained from stating his religion.
Of course many of the errors he made were due to his poor pronunciation, like that "paramisha": it's obvious that he was meaning "paramecium" but it's the way he pronounces the word that is hilarious. Same goes with the Galapagos-Keletropist deal.
As for Nabeel Qureshi, I don't know and don't really care about what he believes about evolution. He's not an authority in this field. He is an authority in the Christian apologetics towards Muslims. But even if he doesn't accept it, he at least has shown that he knows about it more than Zakir Naik.
I hope that you weren't thinking of comparing Nabeel to Ahmed Deedat, anyway.
