Topic: Islamism

[TepidT2O]

They quite clearly don't, as your post on wife beating highlighted

Similar does not mean exactly the same....

[Alan_X]

I'm a little confused here, are you really stating that the reality or not of God is not relevant on a discussion concerning religion and it's role in government? How do you not see the distinction? Sorry, but it is relevant.

If you believe there is a God, you'll start with the premise that the the religion is valid, and the challenges (or problem) come from the "human" side of the equation. That we've chosen to interpret (misinterpret) it the wrong way. If you think believing in God is akin to believing in Santa Claus, you'll start of with the premise that because the religion was written during medieval times (and without aid from a higher power) that its scope is limited, weak, and not capable of being used to as a fulcrum (or assistance) in creating governmental policies, and you'll probably also assume that terrorist groups like ISIS are a natural perverse occurance of following medieval texts

He didn't explain the smart phone either, must have missed that as well. Jokes aside,  I'm not sure what your issue is. Is your argument that in order for God to exist he much have explained every single creation and scientific advancement in history, otherwise it's all a load of rubbish? Obviously, you can use whatever criterion you'd like to dismiss the concept of there being a God, it's really your choice to make. I just don't see answering or not answering your query justifies (or not) the existence of a God. I'm not going to speak on behalf of God, though I will say that the religious books (Bible, Torah, Quran, Hindu scripts) seem far more of a manual for life with an emphasis on the moral and ethical guidelines of society, as opposed to a guide book for dealing with upcoming scientific advancements.

And I'm going to skip the whole "pig" ramble you've just gone on. If you like to eat pork, go for it. For the Jews and Muslims, it's something we'll avoid. Is that really an issue for you? In a society where we have vegetarians, vegens et al, surely everyone is entitled to follow their own interpretation of what they consider is right or wrong to eat. Either way, I don't understand how the discussion of pork is really relevant on a thread concerning Islamism. Especially considering you feel that the reality of there being a God (or not) is not relevant in this discussion.

I'm sure you can google some links for scientific proofs of Islam, but I'm not here to discuss whether Islam is right or wrong, or to present my proofs for why I think it's right. I'm her to debate Islamism.

The relevance of my point about the reality of God is that you suggested that because you believed in God you could dismiss all of the consequent arguments:

You're entitled to your opinion, but your first point is based around the assumption that Religions aren't real, and there isn't a God, and your subsequent points therefore present arguments based on your initial premise. Obviously, I disagree with you on the first point (as would anyone else that follows a religion), and your subsequent points.

My rambles about Pork and other issues make the point that those texts aren't...

a manual for life with an emphasis on the moral and ethical guidelines of society...

... but are far more than that, with detailed prohibitions on what to eat, who to have sex with, and punishments based prejudice and a world view that encompassed wife beating, child killing, slavery. The moral and ethical bits that are relevant to a modern society could be written on the back of your hand and are human not religious in nature.

And of course they aren't...

a guide book for dealing with upcoming scientific advancements.

...because when they were written there weren't any. As far as religion was concerned, science was about honouring God's creation, not overturning it.

And yes, it is precisely because those texts are ancient and primitive that they allow ISIS and the like to use them to justify the horrors they are committing.

[TepidT2O]

Bravo!

[Yorkykopite]

Because of the nature of the claim. If you have a politician who says that his faith has convinced him that society should be more equal then that may sound like a Good Thing. But if you accept the principle of someone putting a view into the political arena because of his faith then you run the risk of the next guy wanting something else less palatable put in there for the same reason. So if we accept that some politicians can foster mild religious ideas in the political arena then, in principle some other politicians can foster barking mad ideas.

You betray an odd lack of faith in secular politics Corky. In a functioning liberal democracy it's just as likely (I'd say MORE likely) that the "religious" politicians will have to trim and compromise with the system than the system will have to trim and compromise with them. I think the history of modern Europe shows that.

Also, let's face it, religion does not have a monopoly on "barking mad ideas". If you really believe "mild" ideas simply encourage "mad" ones because they share some common ground then you'd also have to be on your guard against mild socialism for 'encouraging' mad communism, or mild conservatism for encouraging mad fascism. Then you'll need the thought police.

You worry too much I think. It's sufficient to be vigilant about keeping state and church/mosque/synagogue firmly apart and to purge the judicial system of all religious ideas.  Let the ground rules be set by liberal democracy. No religious-based party is going to thrive with those ground-rules in place, especially when society gets wealthier as it tends to do under liberal democracies.

 

[Alan_X]

That's categorically wrong. You presenting an opinion as fact.

Really? Show me a society where murder, theft and incest within the family, tribal or societal group is the norm and not prohibited. The fundamental moral values do not require a book to say what they are - they come naturally.

They quite clearly don't, as your post on wife beating highlighted

Wife beating is common practice in many societies but it generally occurs in societies where the wife is defined as property, typically in religious texts. The beauty of secular societies is that they are able to develop beyond such primitive instincts and behaviours.

[Yorkykopite]

I'm not sure what your issue is. Is your argument that in order for God to exist he must have explained every single creation and scientific advancement in history, otherwise it's all a load of rubbish?

I'm not trying to speak for Alan but I don't believe that's what anyone's saying in this thread. Your religion may be "a load of all rubbish" but that's neither here nor there. What is relevant is whether your religion - or any religion - is a load of old rubbish when it comes to providing the framework for a modern civilised society. Given the fact that the Koran (etc) doesn't have anything to say about modern science, medicine, and technology etc, and seems obsessed with stuff that is only likely to be useful to people living in a desert in medieval times, it is hardly a useful instrument for building the good society today.

I'm sure your God did know about stuff like aeroplanes and statins and nuclear physics and had his reasons for not divulging this via Gabriel to Mohammed in that cave. But that's not the point. The point is that the resultant book contains just the extremely limited amount of stuff that Gabriel actually did divulge. And that's simply not enough to get us cracking in the 21st century.
 

[west_london_red]

Wife beating is common practice in many societies but it generally occurs in societies where the wife is defined as property, typically in religious texts. The beauty of secular societies is that they are able to develop beyond such primitive instincts and behaviours.

That's subjective on all kinds of levels, but out of curiosity what would you define as a secular society?

[Doc Red]

The relevance of my point about the reality of God is that you suggested that because you believed in God you could dismiss all of the consequent arguments:

I never said anything of the like. I merely pointed out that just as both yourself, and others, have dismissed a religion as merely midieval writings, and used that as a foundation to express other points, that I could just as well use the premise that God is real as a foundation to express my points. Using the same formula you've used, I could dismiss your arguments, but it would evidently be based on my own personal opinions on a subject that can't be proven either way,

My rambles about Pork and other issues make the point that those texts aren't... ... but are far more than that, with detailed prohibitions on what to eat, who to have sex with, and punishments based prejudice and a world view that encompassed wife beating, child killing, slavery. The moral and ethical bits that are relevant to a modern society could be written on the back of your hand and are human not religious in nature.

Your rambles on pork are not a proof that there isn't a God. Just a ramble on what you consider is an absurd ruling within specific religions. And moral and ethical laws would precisely discuss issues as to whom we have sex with. As far as child killing and slavery, if you think Islam condones those actions feel free to pm the subsequent verses. I'm assuming you've probably read a bit on the religion and aren't just throwing up illinformed facts to try to make your argument stronger.

And of course they aren't... ...because when they were written there weren't any. As far as religion was concerned, science was about honouring God's creation, not overturning it.

And how exactly does science over turn God's creation? Unless you really believe that the theory of evolution has been scientifically proven, in which case I must have missed the memo, kindly pm me the link to that research as well.

And yes, it is precisely because those texts are ancient and primitive that they allow ISIS and the like to use them to justify the horrors they are committing.

The likes of ISIS use verses to justify their atrocities simply because they're able to get away with it. Because people choose to accept their explanations and justifications as factual evidence about a religion, as opposed to a weak attempt to justify ethnic clensing. Obviously, those that know a little more about the religion can clearly see the likes of ISIS have no merits in making those claims. And again, they're masquerading under the banner of "the Will of Allah", I strongly believe that there are far more elements in play that create these sorts of terrorist groups than it simply being a case of Muslims interpreting the religion the wrong way.

[Doc Red]

Wife beating is common practice in many societies but it generally occurs in societies where the wife is defined as property, typically in religious texts. The beauty of secular societies is that they are able to develop beyond such primitive instincts and behaviours.

Enough already, your constant need to present your opinions as facts is quite frankly annoying. The Nordic countries have the highest rate of household abuse within the Western World. They are also among the most secular societies (or progressive) and have made the most advancements in women rights. Explain that beauty.

[Alan_X]

I'm not trying to speak for Alan but I don't believe that's what anyone's saying in this thread. Your religion may be "a load of all rubbish" but that's neither here nor there. What is relevant is whether your religion - or any religion - is a load of old rubbish when it comes to providing the framework for a modern civilised society. Given the fact that the Koran (etc) doesn't have anything to say about modern science, medicine, and technology etc, and seems obsessed with stuff that is only likely to be useful to people living in a desert in medieval times, it is hardly a useful instrument for building the good society today.

I'm sure your God did know about stuff like aeroplanes and statins and nuclear physics and had his reasons for not divulging this via Gabriel to Mohammed in that cave. But that's not the point. The point is that the resultant book contains just the extremely limited amount of stuff that Gabriel actually did divulge. And that's simply not enough to get us cracking in the 21st century.
 

That's exactly what I meant. We live in a world that has seen the benefit of rational inquiry and developments in science and philosophy that have moved secular societies far beyond the limits of ancient religious texts.

[Doc Red]

That's exactly what I meant. We live in a world that has seen the benefit of rational inquiry and developments in science and philosophy that have moved secular societies far beyond the limits of ancient religious texts.

Lest we forget, plenty of these scientific, medical, astrological, and philosophical advancements occurred in the midst of the Islamic Empire and some might argue the foundations left behind in Spain were what helped spur them out of the Dark Ages and made them among the most advanced nations in that era (hence their subsequent expansion overseas).

[vagabond]

And how exactly does science over turn God's creation? Unless you really believe that the theory of evolution has been scientifically proven, in which case I must have missed the memo, kindly pm me the link to that research as well.

I'm sorry doc but it's as proven as proven can be.

[Yorkykopite]

Enough already, your constant need to present your opinions as facts is quite frankly annoying. The Nordic countries have the highest rate of household abuse within the Western World. They are also among the most secular societies (or progressive) and have made the most advancements in women rights. Explain that beauty.

I don't know if that's true or how you define "the Western World" but, even if it is true, it isn't perhaps the devastating goal you think you've scored (It might even be an own-goal). In fact you've probably given the explanation yourself. A society with advanced women's rights is unlikely to be a society where women tolerate being bashed in. They call the police and they seek help. A liberal society isn't one that discourages them from doing either of these things. Hence the high figures of reported abuse.

It's possible, and probably likely, that Islamic countries feature far more wife-beating than Denmark - not least because some of the beaters believe they are doing God's work when they attack their wives (even with a piece of grass  ) But we'll never know for sure because no woman in her right mind in, say Saudi Arabia, is going to go to the police and complain.

[Twelfth Man]

https://news.vice.com/video/the-islamic-state-part-1


https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLw613M86o5o4JICWHCJsmzLy4NVtWKu8z&src_vid=jOaBNbdUbcA&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_3471912223

[Doc Red]

I don't know if that's true or how you define "the Western World" but, even if it is true, it isn't perhaps the devastating goal you think you've scored (It might even be an own-goal). In fact you've probably given the explanation yourself. A society with advanced women's rights is unlikely to be a society where women tolerate being bashed in. They call the police and they seek help. A liberal society isn't one that discourages them from doing either of these things. Hence the high figures of reported abuse.

It's possible, and probably likely, that Islamic countries feature far more wife-beating than Denmark - not least because some of the beaters believe they are doing God's work when they attack their wives (even with a piece of grass  ) But we'll never know for sure because no woman in her right mind in, say Saudi Arabia, is going to go to the police and complain.

I specifically picked "Western World" to mean the West, where the woman supposedly have advanced rights. And it is true, it's not hard to research. I've lived in Finland, and the topic is one that is high on their agenda. And your reasoning is incredible narrow. It's certainly not a case that Finnish women tolerate "less abuse" than their fellow women across Europe, there may be exceptions, but not enough to have them so high on the chart. There are other issues that play a part, and it seems a lot of the issues are derived from alcohol abuse (which is high in the Nordic regions, and especially Finland).

[west_london_red]

http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/violence/9789241564625/en/

Seems its pretty common everywhere, and the report includes some detail on methodology including interviews being conducted in private etc

[Yorkykopite]

I specifically picked "Western World" to mean the West, where the woman supposedly have advanced rights. And it is true, it's not hard to research. I've lived in Finland, and the topic is one that is high on their agenda. And your reasoning is incredible narrow. It's certainly not a case that Finnish women tolerate "less abuse" than their fellow women across Europe, there may be exceptions, but not enough to have them so high on the chart. There are other issues that play a part, and it seems a lot of the issues are derived from alcohol abuse (which is high in the Nordic regions, and especially Finland).

Finland, of course, is not widely considered to be an 'advanced liberal democracy'. It is the ugly sister, if you like, of the Nordic states. Sweden, Denmark and Norway are classic western social democracies whereas Finland's historic ties are with Russia. It was once part of the Russian Empire and maintained its relationship with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. Consequently it has many of the reactionary features we normally associate with the eastern bloc. Poor example.

[TepidT2O]

Enough already, your constant need to present your opinions as facts is quite frankly annoying. The Nordic countries have the highest rate of household abuse within the Western World. They are also among the most secular societies (or progressive) and have made the most advancements in women rights. Explain that beauty.

well there is a reason for that.....

It's because they take the issue far more seriously than other countries.

Women are encouraged to come forwards and do so in go greater numbers.

Also (and most importantly) Nordic countries classify domestic a use far more readily than most of the rest of the world.

You have become confused between Nordic nations reporting the highest levels of domestic abuse and them actually having the highest level of domestic abuse.
So, essentially, you are utterly wrong on this point.

[Doc Red]

Finland, of course, is not widely considered to be an 'advanced liberal democracy'. It is the ugly sister, if you like, of the Nordic states. Sweden, Denmark and Norway are classic western social democracies whereas Finland's historic ties are with Russia. It was once part of the Russian Empire and maintained its relationship with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. Consequently it has many of the reactionary features we normally associate with the eastern bloc. Poor example.

Did you just google that. Finland has nothing to do with the Eastern bloc (you're mixing up Estonia), and it's political framework is far closer to Sweden and extremely different than Russia. I wouldn't go about making the above statements in front of Finns, they'd be offended by your dismissal of them as Eastern Bloc .

edit: it's not worth the hassle, and we've already gone far enough off topic.

[Yorkykopite]

Did you just google that. Finland has nothing to do with the Eastern bloc (you're mixing up Estonia), and it's political framework is far closer to Sweden and extremely different than Russia. I wouldn't go about making the above statements in front of Finns, they'd be offended by your dismissal of them as Eastern Bloc .

edit: it's not worth the hassle, and we've already gone far enough off topic.

I agree it's gone off topic. I'm obviously not mixing Finland up with Estonia which was once one of the Soviet Republics. I didn't say Finland was "part of the eastern bloc". I said it had robust relations with the USSR and possessed features "we normally associate with the eastern bloc".

Concentrate Doc. 

[Alan_X]

Enough already, your constant need to present your opinions as facts is quite frankly annoying. The Nordic countries have the highest rate of household abuse within the Western World. They are also among the most secular societies (or progressive) and have made the most advancements in women rights. Explain that beauty.

It's an interesting statistic. The study I assume you are referring to is FAR study "Violence against women: an EU -wide survey". Page 22 discusses the possible explanations for variations in violence against women between various EU Member States.  They explain it as follows:

"Variations between countries in the prevalence of violence reported in the FRA survey need, therefore, to be looked at within the broader context of existing differences between countries with regard to both official crime data and the results of existing survey research on victimisation."

In this context the reported rates of rape in various countries ranges from 47 per 100,000 in Sweden, 27 per 100,000 in Belgium 25 per 100,000 in the UK and down to 2 or 3 per 100,000 in Greece, Hungary, Croatia, Malta, Portugal and Slovakia. Clearly indicating that the levels of reported crime are not necessarily the actual levels of crime and that in more open well developed societies, women perhaps feel more able and empowered to speak out about domestic violence.

Whether it is acceptable to talk with other people about experiences of violence against women

• In a number of EU Member States, the survey found lower rates of violence against women where respondents also indicated lower levels of knowledge about domestic violence experienced by other people, such as friends or family. The results from a 2010 Special Eurobarometer survey on domestic vio- lence against women, which interviewed a representative sample of women and men in 27 EU Member States, found the following with respect to Sweden (a high-prevalence country in the FRA survey) and Bulgaria (a low-prevalence country in the FRA survey):

° 3 % of male and female respondents in Bulgaria have heard of domestic violence through their family circle, compared with 32 % of male and female respondents in Sweden.
° 33 % of male and female respondents in Bulgaria stated that they have heard about domestic violence through friends, compared with 47 % of respondents in Sweden.
° 6 % of male and female respondents in Bulgaria have heard about domestic violence through col- leagues or other contacts at their workplace, compared with 43 % of respondents in Sweden.

• The above can be explained in different ways: either overall rates of domestic violence are much lower in Bulgaria than in Sweden; or the fact that people in Bulgaria hear considerably less than people in Sweden from family members and colleagues about domestic violence – but they hear more from friends than from those groups – is an indication that the matter is considered to be private in relation to two domains, the family and the workplace.In this regard, it could be suggested that in Bulgaria, for example, the subject of violence against women could be considered as something you do not talk about in certain settings and with certain people – including an interviewer who has just entered your home to conduct a survey.

Increased gender equality leads to higher levels of disclosure about violence against women

• Increased equality between the sexes at the EU Member State level is reflected in greater awareness about violence against women at different levels in society, including the media. It is often accompanied by enhanced mechanisms to encourage and facilitate reporting of incidents. This could mean that more women are willing to disclose their experiences of violence to the police, and in a survey interview, as the subject of violence against women is ‘normalised’ within society.

• Looking at FRA’s survey results alongside EIGE’s gender equality index for all EU Member States, it can be observed that Member States that are ranked highest in terms of gender equality tend also to have higher prevalence levels of violence against women in the FRA survey (see Figure 2.4).

In other words, it's entirely possible that the apparent high level of abuse is actually simply the reflection of the empowerment of women.

[Alan_X]

Anyway, let's get back on topic.

[jerseyhoya]

https://news.vice.com/video/the-islamic-state-part-1

I watched (and embedded the first one many pages ago in this thread) the other day. It was interesting viewing, looking forward to checking out the new ones later.

Also worth a watch. CNN on board for a Kurdish helicopter dropping resources and scooping up as many of the stranded Yazidis who are on that mountain hiding from ISIS as they can manage. Wild, depressing video.

[TepidT2O]

Do we arm the Kurds to stop the  IS upsurge?

If we do, will this come and bite us in the backside?

Similarities with arming the mujaheddin in Afghanistan and the rise of the Taliban?

Politics isn't a simple game is it?

[jerseyhoya]

Do we arm the Kurds to stop the  IS upsurge?

If we do, will this come and bite us in the backside?

Similarities with arming the mujaheddin in Afghanistan and the rise of the Taliban?

Politics isn't a simple game is it?

Yes, maybe, not really, the world is a fucked up place

[west_london_red]

Do we arm the Kurds to stop the  IS upsurge?

If we do, will this come and bite us in the backside?

Similarities with arming the mujaheddin in Afghanistan and the rise of the Taliban?

Politics isn't a simple game is it?

The Kurds and their history reads nothing like the of Afghanistan or its people. Secondly, the fact that the Kurdish people have been denied a country of their own is one of the major injustices of last 100 years, their mistreatment by the various states they live across has been regularly ignored by the rest of the world for too long and I really do hope that they can start on the road to freedom by ridding themselves of IS.

[Doc Red]

In other words, it's entirely possible that the apparent high level of abuse is actually simply the reflection of the empowerment of women.

I'll be sure to tell my Finnish friends that work with these forms of abuse as their profession, that they shouldn't overly concern themselves with trying to provide therapy, or discussing solutions. Apparently, our RAWK researches have delved into the matter and determined that alcohol does not play the major part in household abuse in Finland, and in fact, what they've been labelling as household abuse in Finland is actually simply the reflection of the empowerment of women.

I probably shouldn't be using sarcasm on a subject that is a major issue in Finland (feel free to ask any Finn you cross paths , about their opinions on this issue), but if we're dismissing valid counter arguments by bending over backwards scrambling to interpret research as per our confirmation bias (or in Yorky's case, dismissing my point by claiming Finland is more akin to Russia than Sweden, in terms of politics (or culture or anything!), that's a priceless opinion Yorky, it really is) then we're no longer debating. At least, not within the guidlines of a healthy debate.

[zero zero]

And how exactly does science over turn God's creation? Unless you really believe that the theory of evolution has been scientifically proven, in which case I must have missed the memo, kindly pm me the link to that research as well.

Amazing. You certainly did miss the memo.

[TepidT2O]

The Kurds and their history reads nothing like the of Afghanistan or its people. Secondly, the fact that the Kurdish people have been denied a country of their own is one of the major injustices of last 100 years, their mistreatment by the various states they live across has been regularly ignored by the rest of the world for too long and I really do hope that they can start on the road to freedom by ridding themselves of IS.

I don't mean to suggest that it is the same situation as Afghanistan.  Just suggest that it may cause issues if/when they fight/ beat IS and have therefore an armed group with battle experience afterwards....

[Twelfth Man]

Amazing. You certainly did miss the memo.

Staggering that people still refute. It is still a theory that is constantly being tested but there is overwhelming scientific proof for its broad outline. Personally as soon as someone mentions religion the shutters gi up no point even debating the issue.

[Corkboy]

Amazing. You certainly did miss the memo.

I missed that. Wow.

[west_london_red]

I don't mean to suggest that it is the same situation as Afghanistan.  Just suggest that it may cause issues if/when they fight/ beat IS and have therefore an armed group with battle experience afterwards....

I stand by the old adage that if you break it you fix it. This country has a huge moral debt to Iraqi people and especially the Kurdish people

[Doc Red]

Staggering that people still refute. It is still a theory that is constantly being tested but there is overwhelming scientific proof for its broad outline. Personally as soon as someone mentions religion the shutters gi up no point even debating the issue.

It is constantly being tested because it hasn't been scientifically proven. If there was overwhelming scientific proof for the theory of evolution, the scientific community would have already have recieved a a clear hypothesis with the subsequent proof, and everyone else would have recieved clarification on that subject. At this current stage, they are theoretical explanations that have been difficult to prove (replicate) thus far. From a scientific perspective, it doesn't mean the case for evolution is fully rejected, but they can't confirm it either.

So yes, if they have managed to scientifically prove the case for Evolution (as per the rigid requirements within the scientific community) I'm surprised that I haven't recieved that memo. Feel free to share the research details with me as I would be greatly interested in looking over it.

[TepidT2O]

I stand by the old adage that if you break it you fix it. This country has a huge moral debt to Iraqi people and especially the Kurdish people

It's absurdly complex though....

I think you're right, but it's often impossible to predict the outcomes of these actions or, things that look obvious in hindsight don't look like that at the time.

[TepidT2O]

It is constantly being tested because it hasn't been scientifically proven. If there was overwhelming scientific proof for the theory of evolution, the scientific community would have already have recieved a a clear hypothesis with the subsequent proof, and everyone else would have recieved clarification on that subject. At this current stage, they are theoretical explanations that have been difficult to prove (replicate) thus far. From a scientific perspective, it doesn't mean the case for evolution is fully rejected, but they can't confirm it either.

So yes, if they have managed to scientifically prove the case for Evolution (as per the rigid requirements within the scientific community) I'm surprised that I haven't recieved that memo. Feel free to share the research details with me as I would be greatly interested in looking over it.

I think you're confused.

The argument you're trying to make is that you  can't prove evolution by natural selection ....

A theory which has such an enormous weight of evidence behind it, that it is beyond overwhelming....

How did you think we all got here anyway?

[Johnny Foreigner]

In other words, it's entirely possible that the apparent high level of abuse is actually simply the reflection of the empowerment of women.

Only have the link in Norwegian, but in 2012 - 6 % of the people seeing to shelters/domestic crisis centres - were actually men that were running away from their female companions due to domestic violence..

[zero zero]

Evolution as the explanation of the diversity of lifeforms on this planet is a scientific fact. There are hundreds of papers written every year that re-confirm the validity of the original hypothesis, in many diverse fields. There isn't a single memo, doc.

Of course I understand why you can't admit the fact of Evolution by natural selection.

[Yorkykopite]

It is constantly being tested because it hasn't been scientifically proven. If there was overwhelming scientific proof for the theory of evolution, the scientific community would have already have recieved a a clear hypothesis with the subsequent proof, and everyone else would have recieved clarification on that subject. At this current stage, they are theoretical explanations that have been difficult to prove (replicate) thus far. From a scientific perspective, it doesn't mean the case for evolution is fully rejected, but they can't confirm it either.

So yes, if they have managed to scientifically prove the case for Evolution (as per the rigid requirements within the scientific community) I'm surprised that I haven't recieved that memo. Feel free to share the research details with me as I would be greatly interested in looking over it.

Pitiful.

[electricghost]

It is constantly being tested because it hasn't been scientifically proven. If there was overwhelming scientific proof for the theory of evolution, the scientific community would have already have recieved a a clear hypothesis with the subsequent proof, and everyone else would have recieved clarification on that subject. At this current stage, they are theoretical explanations that have been difficult to prove (replicate) thus far. From a scientific perspective, it doesn't mean the case for evolution is fully rejected, but they can't confirm it either.

So yes, if they have managed to scientifically prove the case for Evolution (as per the rigid requirements within the scientific community) I'm surprised that I haven't recieved that memo. Feel free to share the research details with me as I would be greatly interested in looking over it.

Doc, nothing get's to be called a theory in scientific terms unless it has a massive collection of evidence confirming it and it has gone through the most rigorous of testing by scientists actively trying to find flaws in it.  Evolution is as close to fact as it is possible to reach.

I wonder if you are confusing the word hypothesis with theory, or you perhaps confusing the origins of life with evolution, because what you are saying makes no sense.

[Corkboy]

It is constantly being tested because it hasn't been scientifically proven. If there was overwhelming scientific proof for the theory of evolution, the scientific community would have already have recieved a a clear hypothesis with the subsequent proof, and everyone else would have recieved clarification on that subject. At this current stage, they are theoretical explanations that have been difficult to prove (replicate) thus far. From a scientific perspective, it doesn't mean the case for evolution is fully rejected, but they can't confirm it either.

As far as I can see, every word of that is wrong. Bravo.

So yes, if they have managed to scientifically prove the case for Evolution (as per the rigid requirements within the scientific community) I'm surprised that I haven't recieved that memo. Feel free to share the research details with me as I would be greatly interested in looking over it.

I'm still not sure what level of thinking I'm dealing with here, but that's sort of like saying gravity hasn't been proven. I wouldn't even know where to start in showing you. We are talking absolutely bog standard scientific stuff here. Evolution is a theory in scientific terms, which means that it is a body or framework of explanatory thinking in relation to a particular subject. It isn't something you prove. You're thinking of a theorem, if indeed you are thinking at all. A theory is something which of its nature is constantly being tested. Gravity is also a theory which hasn't been "proven" but I expect you accept that one...