Why do popular atheists misrepresent academia? - Hamza Tzortzis

[@SubboorAhmadAbbasi]

Atheists please THINK before you comment, leaving irrelevant comments laced with technical jagon means nothing, stick to the topic, why are we wrong?

[@rossheaton5173]

Darwinian Delusions I am glad you are not like some of the other Muslim channels which block and delete comments which they do not like / agree with, I commend you for this. 'leaving irrelevant comments laced with technical jargon means nothing, stick to the topic, why are we wrong?' Firstly I would not relate a comment to 'we' I would relate a comment to 'you', because the majority of Muslims have no idea what you are talking about. Secondly, the majority of scientist dedicated in the field of human biology, evolution, Darwinism, etc would not take what you are saying as peer review or criticism. They would see it as a Theist, defending their faith. And Thirdly, why are you trying to dictate what and how people comment on your video, people are allowed to say what they want. People can choose to respond to them comments, if they want. Your comment (which has been pinned), seems far too close to what I originally complimented you for. Not deleting / blocking comments you do not like / agree with.

[@Robert.Deeeee]

Darwinian Delusions Are you referring to Hamza's immoral behavior? That's relevant because it's just of the many examples of his dishonest behavior.

[@EssenceOfThought]

Do the names Oliver Petrovich and Justin L. Barrett ring a bell? I read through everything you referenced, you'd lied about every single piece. Hell, some of the pieces weren't even peer-reviewed journal articles like you claimed they were. People can find evidence of this and more in my playlist *"The Islamic Liar Series With Hamza Tzortzis & Imran Hussein"* , so this isn't a claim I make without basis.

[@abumuhamedaleealansari7811]

Emotional atheists attacking personality rather than argument is desperate attempt to divert the topic !!!

[@EssenceOfThought]

+Abu Muhamed Alee Al Ansari Actually we mention this stuff as it's all you are. You don't have any arguments reliant on any sort of evidence, just your assertions and those assertions have turned out to be wrong in every single case. Thus what are we supposed to go after?

[@JackReacher340]

I am a student of Biolgy But like other sciences biolgy is not neutral over the years I have observed that Darwinism is forced on the students which is not the method of science.

[@zohebalikhan7404]

I like how you've half of the internet with this videos. None of these atheists have any substantive points, but seem content with insulting your intelligence, and making all kinds of ad hominem attacks. BTW I love all your work.

[@doniamer2009]

I like your videos brother i learned so much from them keep it up

[@doniamer2009]

Killer Bean you're the biggest liar

[@hp5203]

@@jinn_1891 lol, and you be a parrot. If you repeat it 999 times, you'll begin to believe yourself with more conviction.

[@aminelahnin837]

@@jinn_1891 In what sense. Is it because we are repeating the same argument that nobody to this day had debunked? ok.

[@commandar88]

@@jinn_1891 if everyone knew science they would become scientists

[@-.-l]

@@jinn_1891 neggro plz

[@BrotherCADavis]

All these scientific scholars with no accreditation... not a BS, or BA...Not even a Masters, let alone a Doctorate. As a scientist, one has to be open to all possibilities... because exploration and learning is your job. So denying the possibility of God, if fact means you have stopped exploring that possibility. Atheism is not a Theorem...or a Theory because No one is using the scientific method to prove it. Salaam

[@TripleAceAAA]

rofl, yet you have two clowns on a youtube channel with no PHD in science talking about science lol...jokes

[@brianfitton1836]

@Mr. EA a degree in philosophy doesn't make you an expert in science.

[@themercifulguard3971]

@@TripleAceAAA And ironically we have popular clowns like Richard Dawkins who is very educated in biology but likes to talk about philosophy and history in his books :P Which ends up in disaster most of the time lol.

[@Ahle.haq0]

Science cannot prove god's existence or deny it. The reason is simple. The inherent attributes of God derived from philosophy makes it impossible for science to be able to test the existence or non-existence of God. This is why any proof or any theory in science can do nothing to prove or disprove the existence of God himself. It is only through the means of ilm ul kalam does one reach the conclusion of existence of God not through science

[@zazazizizaza]

and because of you two we are intellectually satisfied muslims, alhamd lillah, and jazakum allahu khairan.

[@zazazizizaza]

how is your hateful filthy life doing recently? I see a lot of anger and hate... how about choosing a better purpose and do something good other than running after muslims and harassing them like a dog? in other words, GET A LIFE! Enjoy being ignored.

[@SubboorAhmadAbbasi]

All good is from Allah

[@mohammedfaruki5368]

@@jinn_1891 what's your nationality?

[@dadush4]

@@mohammedfaruki5368 apeman. He s a social scientist. He blindly believes in evolution and has no idea what it entails. I caught him on a different youtube comments. He s projecting his own ignorance on everyone else :D..

[@-.-l]

@@jinn_1891 nigga plz

[@adamharrisakarexon9492]

You guys will do wonders for humanity.

[@searchrightthings.947]

Both of you are so amazing = masha Allah Very good job keep on May Allah bless both of you And all other dawah movement's

[@HussainFahmy]

_Hamza is of Greek origin and his genes are at work with Philosophy, while Suboor sticks to the facts._

[@DawahMotivation]

Shows the hard work and research the bros are conducting. Alhumdulillah

[@DawahMotivation]

Killer Bean is this just a mock comment or a sincere objective observation?

[@siyovushm2317]

May be there are some errors, I don't know. Nevertheless, many of their points are valid. Are you also willing to look at the errors of Dawkins, Harris and others, honesty and objectively?

[@EssenceOfThought]

+Siyovush M Fun fact, I've never read a single one of their books. Why? It's popular science. What I have read are countless studies, many of which iERROR have lied about. Please check out my playlist *"The Islamic Liar Series With Hamza Tzortzis & Imran Hussein"* for more.

[@pleasesubscribe7659]

+Essense of thought do you really understand what lying is

[@MsSomeonenew]

It does indeed show their research...

[@hafizsofian6122]

I love knowledge!!! So much to learn! Gotta stop playing around from right now...

[@unkn0wn_akh745]

Aslaamu alkauim wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh You know what guys..... Al hamdulilah these brothers hard work is amazing. They are amazing I've met saboor he's such a good person. In sh Allah I'll meet hamza one day. May Allah swt reward you brother. Jazak Allah kharian

[@Michael-cl9mb]

Evolutionary conjectures are not facts. Subbor, you make the world a better place by questioning the unquestioned assumptions guiding our culture.

[@username82765]

Proving Bob can't run a mile in 3 minutes does NOT prove Jim can . Likewise, disproving evolution does NOT prove the Islamic Creation believe correct.

[@siyovushm2317]

Atheist: Ever claim must be supported by empirical evidence to be considered justified. Muslim: Do you have any empirical evidence for that claim of yours? Atheist:@&#%*

[@jointhe6461]

Siyovush M: How about the fewer unjustifiable claims, the better.

[@SubboorAhmadAbbasi]

Thanks Michael

[@abumuhamedaleealansari7811]

This is what I called religion and god exit route when faith in crisis is being challenged !!!

[@polobogtrutzh3107]

Mashallah brother Hamza and Subbor discussing big topics may Allah increase us in knowledge ameen

[@abumuhamedaleealansari7811]

Problems with Peer-Review: A Brief Summary summarized version of the arguments here: Point 1. Good science does not have to be published in the peer-reviewed literature. Groundbreaking scientific books, like Darwin’s Origin of the Species or Newton’s Principia were not published in peer-reviewed journals. There are many examples of leading journals like Nature and Science having rejected important research, including research that later won the Nobel prize. Even the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1993 case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. that “Publication (which is but one element of peer review) is not a sine qua nonof admissibility; it does not necessarily correlate with reliability, and in some instances well-grounded but innovative theories will not have been published.” It’s a fallacy to claim that a scientific idea is necessarily unreliable if it hasn’t appeared in the peer-reviewed literature. Point 2: The peer-review system faces two common criticisms: (1) that the system wrongly rejects scientifically valid papers, and (2) that the system wrongly accepts scientifically flawed papers. There are many examples where journals had to retract papers because errors, or even outright fraud, went undetected by the reviewers. Studies have found that peer-review has little effect on improving the quality of articles. Peer-review publication is time-consuming and expensive and often excludes people for no good reason. But the “publish or perish” mindset keeps the system in place. Point 3: If you believe that scientific peer-reviewers are like perfectly objective robots, then you believe a myth. All scientists are humans, and none are inerrant. Political concerns, economic factors, lab-rivalry, support for one’s friends, and other normal human elements are never completely divorced from the peer-review process. Journals have huge economic interests in preserving the current flawed system, and research scientists gladly play along because peer-reviewed papers are necessary for them to maintain their positions. Point 4: Scientific dogmatists increasingly play the “peer-review card” to silence scientific dissent. Despite the deficiencies in the peer-review system, “peer-review” serves as a rhetorical weapon, enlisted for the purpose of silencing dissenting, minority scientific viewpoints. In scientific debates, we often hear sneers like “Does your criticism appear in a peer-reviewed journal?” before it will be taken seriously. It’s hypocritical when scientists push their views upon the public through non-peer reviewed venues like the media, but then try to shut down critics for responding in non-peer-reviewed venues. Point 5: The peer-review system is often biased against non-majority viewpoints. The peer-review system is largely devoted to maintaining the status quo. As a new scientific theory that challenges much conventional wisdom, intelligent design faces political opposition that has nothing to do with the evidence. In one case, pro-ID biochemist Michael Behe submitted an article for publication in a scientific journal but was told it could not be published because “your unorthodox theory would have to displace something that would be extending the current paradigm.” Denyse O’Leary puts it this way: “The overwhelming flaw in the traditional peer review system is that it listed so heavily toward consensus that it showed little tolerance for genuinely new findings and interpretations.” evolutionnews.org/2012/02/problems_with_p/

[@hanzalaomar3234]

You're muslim?

[@zohebalikhan7404]

Thank you for your comment. I would put it even more simply: appealing to peer review is in effect an appeal to authority fallacy.

[@mrxtruction95]

So I'm the only one who noticed the Kandinsky painting at the back?

[@Shah-iu1bx]

can you please work on sound quality

[@ShadesofViolet8]

Thank you for sharing! Interesting discussion.

[@theprince8079]

Jazaka ALLAH khayran

[@SubboorAhmadAbbasi]

wa iyyak

[@TheRationalizer]

Subboor - I sent you an email about your "Cosmological Argument - Argument for God's existence" video but have received no response. A KZbin user named SkyDivePhil would like to debate you on this subject. He has interviewed prominent cosmologists such as Alan Guth and has studied cosmology at an academic level. If you don't feel you are up to it then any iERA representative will suffice - Could you reply via this comment please?

[@SubboorAhmadAbbasi]

TheRationalizer you mean the video I did with Saad Mehmood? Does SkyDivePhil want to debate me or him?

[@TheRationalizer]

If you are Sabboor then you, unless you feel someone else at iERA would be more of a challenge?

[@SubboorAhmadAbbasi]

Send him my email [e-mail]

[@TheRationalizer]

Done

[@solimandawood100]

I think Phil already debated Muhammad Hijab and Shabir Yousef, is he the same person that came with Rob?

[@alwaysflat7996]

4:39 I love the "It's true as gravity" I don't mean that brother Suboor believes it, but those who use it as an argument. Many people seem to think that gravity has axiomatically been established as a fact. I could believe part of the Darwinian evolution to be true and not this nonsense about gravity, the gravity concept cracks just the same under the weight of the evidence and scrutiny.

[@madaranotsoanonymousnowuch1539]

So you believe gravity doesn't exist

[@BenjaminOrthodox]

@@madaranotsoanonymousnowuch1539 he is a flat earther

[@thehatman3089]

Sallam brother Hamza do we Muslims have to wear trousers above our ankle or same level or past the ankle what if it passes and what if it is on level or it must be above

[@mohammedfaruki5368]

@my name is my name lol

[@matahari5465]

Kami suka debat saudara sobuur Ahmad dengan para atheis Tapi sedikit sekali yang menggunakan indonesia Sub Trimakasih..🙏

[@bionipower4965]

Yeeeeeeeeah loved this keep up the good work

[@zubairmithani26]

Love you hamza

[@lacag-lacag]

becouse to lie is not shame in their worldview 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[@عبدالوصي]

Lol nice channel name

[@abdullahtahir7236]

Mashallah

[@abumuhamedaleealansari7811]

Faith in crisis !!!

[@SubboorAhmadAbbasi]

Atheists are panicking

[@abumuhamedaleealansari7811]

Killer Bean man only laugh things off when they have no come back to rebuttal what's being said !!! So they play it off by laughing

[@catotheelder9524]

Atheists are only capable of laughing. They can't match the logic.

[@marwanel5348]

@@jinn_1891 I think your clear obsession with the comments section is speaking louder than your words. You ARE panicking

[@marwanel5348]

@@jinn_1891 It's one thing to ''Enjoy Watching'' and another to obsessively post on the comments section and reply. If you truly think Islam is so falliable then surely it will crumble on it's own, no need for your spam crusade on here.

[@hadisergan1]

oyalaikumussalam oyarahmatullahi oyabaakatuhu

[@BinuJasim]

This video is not for kids...

[@agagagag2609]

Evolution: Generation 1 is a little different than Generation 2, which is a little different than Generation 3, which is a little different than Generation 4, which is a little different than .... Generation 1,000,000,000 Generation 1 is VERY different from generation 1,000,000,000 This is evolution, It's not that difficult.

[@SubboorAhmadAbbasi]

I agree with the logic here, but that is not what we are challenging, you need to watch the video properly

[@karimshah8535]

😳

[@catotheelder9524]

Evolutionists no longer believe in gradual change. They now believe in something called "punctuated equilibrium".

[@pleasesubscribe7659]

+agag agag what was causing those differences ? according mathematics know that the possibility of one cell forming by chance is zero

[@MBa3333]

Little different followed by little different and so on... could also end up as little different...

[@bionipower4965]

For the atheists, Pascal's wager yh? hadoooken

[@ravindsadapal6796]

These two chaps are really serious CLOWNS. If you want a glimpse of their real intellect.... just watch the following two videos: 1 - Hamza teaching embryology to an embryologist, PZ Myers.... 2 - Suboor (So Booring) teaching evolution to Aronra. Their quest to still continue trying to show just how intelligent they are after the abovementioned embarrassing videos.... is of real concern.

[@KindBatman]

Oh hah haha haha playing with his name - oh so intelligent of you ravioli sand pad! hahahaha hahaha

[@henrykhan1510]

Ravind Sadapal You are right, I was going to comment the same.

[@genuine0]

The Thinker Yes I have seen that video, and your lying PZ Myers has never refuted anything he kept on denying. You don't seem to understand the true nature of a debate when you see one do you? On another video PZ Myers was asked what happens to stickleback he said it evolves, but becoming what? A fish, so where is the Darwinian mechanism and what did that stickleback evolve to? Remained a fish. And you think he is someone we should take seriously? He is a liar just like Krauss is a joker and so is the other clown of degrasse tyson. These people all they do is be arrogant they have never once presented one bit of evidence. And you believe them simply because you are BIASED and want it to be like this, atheism has no room in science. The clown I am afraid is you. Show us one piece of evidence that PZ Myers presented during the exchange he had with Hamza, and he had Aron Ra with him that day as well. Give me one piece of real evidence that they used except denying? Denying and refuting are two different things remember that. Subboor debated Aron Ra. Go and watch that video if you hadn't already.

[@catotheelder9524]

I note you are resorting to ad hominem attacks. Please attempt to engage with the academic arguments presented in the video. Peace.

[@pleasesubscribe7659]

hhhhh desperate atheist

[@rossheaton5173]

I would love to see you guys put as much time and effort into showing the flaws and fallacies in Islam. You would be able to produce a lot videos on the topic, because there are a lot more flaws and fallacies in it. At the end of the day; which has more proof, evidence, reason and logic to back its case. Darwinism / Evolution or Theism?

[@fahadabrar]

Ross Heaton lol, you're making perfect sense, NOT

[@fahadabrar]

Killer Bean I am laughing at your delusion. Enjoy your weekend (in delusion) ;-)

[@SubboorAhmadAbbasi]

Good to see you want to change the point of discussion

[@SubboorAhmadAbbasi]

hmm you seem focused on changing the topic, either way can you justify what your saying, please give a concrete example

[@SubboorAhmadAbbasi]

That's a false dichotomy

[@ravindsadapal6796]

• Science & Anti-theism is for those who want to Learn.... • Islam & Theism is for those who want to learn NO MORE.... Undeniable Fact: • Atheists try their best to be Leaders. • Theists try their best to be Followers.

[@SubboorAhmadAbbasi]

Ravind Sadapal nice sound bite, why do you make the link between science and anti theism?

[@faraqsa]

The Thinker undeniable that you are but hurt

[@zuyialwuris9279]

Aquatic Ape theory

[@purposeoflife47]

(y)

[@ocolotav1]

Title should be: Two guy complaining that they can’t understand evolution.

[@catotheelder9524]

Then please enlighten us. I presume you understand it?

[@pleasesubscribe7659]

i guess there is no one earth who cannot understand fairy tales

[@Dawahdude0]

Say, "Shall I inform you of [what is] worse than that as penalty from Allah ? [It is that of] those whom Allah has cursed and with whom He became angry and made of them apes and pigs and slaves of Taghut. Those are worse in position and further astray from the sound way." Quran 5:60 It shows Allah swt demoted some humans into Apes and Pigs No wonder evolution seems fact

[@abumuhamedaleealansari7811]

What's the tafsir of the ayat ?

[@leklektan1358]

Two Muslims entertaining themself and trying to convince others. How many academia are you talking about? Only not so thinking being can accept their logic