Why Evolutiontheory is just a theory and not an Evidence

[ScimitarXEdge]

What do you mean by "real" ? Number Theory does not contradict the Qur'an which is Allah's SWT uncreated and eternal speech..

Theory of Evolution doesn't contradict Islam either, if you understand the Qur'an correctly. Because many Muslims of older times acknowledged evolution like Al-Jahiz and Al-Nazzam. They based their ideas on the Qur'an and the evidence of nature.


Your argument was that based on the word "theory" that evolution isn't established; but Number THEORY also has the word theory; but we know it's real and had evidence and real life applications

So your understanding of theory is wrong, therefore you don't know mathematics


By the way you never explained why an Infinite Union of an Open set is Open using the Proper proof for it.

[Al Hanif]

Wrong, it should be i=1...Infinity, since 0 is not an index here

What ? STFU and back to your catalysis.

....so now explain why every union is open using Epsilon.

There is no need of epsilons.

If (E,d) is a metric space and

Xi is an open of E <=> Xi C E and for all x€Xi, there is r>O such as B(x,r)CXi

Now we have that U(i=0,...,+infinity)Xi C E and

for all x€U(i=0,...,+infinity)Xi, there is one io€[|0,...,+infinity|] such as x€Xio.

That means that there is Ro>O such as B(x,Ro)CXio and thus that B(x,Ro)CU(i=0,...,+infinity)Xi.

So U(i=0,...,+infinity)Xi is an open set.




MOAR QUESTIONS !!!

[ScimitarXEdge]

What ? STFU and back to your catalysis.



There is no need of epsilons.

If (E,d) is a metric space and

Xi is an open of E <=> Xi C E and for all x€Xi, there is r>O such as B(x,r)CXi

Now for U(i=0,...,+infinity)Xi C E and

for all x€U(i=0,...,+infinity)Xi, there is one io€[|0,...,+infinity|] such as x€Xio.

That means that there is Ro>O such as B(x,R)CXio and thus that B(x,R)CU(i=0,...,+infinity)Xi.

So U(i=0,...,+infinity)Xi is an open set.




MOAR QUESTIONS !!!

wrong...this is not an explanation of an open set, this an explanation of the existence of an element in an open set and union of an open set. ......you really don't know math do you? LOL actually there is a need for epilson don't you know the definition of an OPEN set??????? WTH?????? It doesn't explain why infinite union of sets are also open

You're a liar, you don't even know what the definition of open set is LOL

[Al Hanif]

wrong

cool story bro

just ask more questions, i'm in the mood

[Afghanistan2010]

wrong...this is not an explanation of ab open set, this an explanation of the existence of an element in an open set. ......you really don't know math do you? LOL

all are wrong you are right ....


oh common , you are the most desperate case i have ever come around ...you paki

evolution theory by zakir naik - YouTube

[ozymandias]

cool story bro

just ask more questions, i'm in the mood

Way to selectively quote his reply. Nothing like a little intellectual dishonesty to make your point, huh?

[ScimitarXEdge]

cool story bro

just ask more questions, i'm in the mood

no you were wrong

this is the correct proof

by definition of open set E (epsilon) is a neighborhood in an Open set Xi, around x which is an element of Xi, if x exists in Xi, then the neighborhood of x , epsilon exists i Xi , and thus the Union Xi, i=1--> Infinity contains Epilson and therefore the Infinite Union of an Open set is open.

That's the right proof.


You were wrong entirely

[ozymandias]

all are wrong you are right ....


oh common , you are the most desperate case i have ever come around ...you paki

evolution theory by zakir naik - YouTube

Haha! His first argument is that he is too stupid to understand the term 'Theory', and misrepresents the definition of the word in a scientific context. Classic argument from ignorance.

He also loves to argue from authority, another fallacy.

He then uses 'the Koran is fact' as a proof of anything, another fallacy.

He then claims the Koran has never been proven wrong. Again this is not true.

What a joke. He is neither a skilled speaker, nor an educated scientist, and only makes a fool of himself. Pretty much what was expected when I saw it was a Zakir Naik video. They are always this bad -- or worse. At least in this video he is not actually debating someone -- those are just painful to watch.

[Al Hanif]

Way to selectively quote his reply. Nothing like a little intellectual dishonesty to make your point, huh?

LOL.

no you were wrong

this is the correct proof

by definition of open set E is a neighborhood in an Open set Xi, around x which is an element of Xi, if x exists in Xi, then the neighborhood of x , epsilon exists i Xi , and thus the Union Xi, i=1--> Infinity contains Epilson and therefore the Infinite Union of an Open set is open.

That's the right proof.


You were wrong entirely

LOL.

Ask more questions or GO HERE.

[ScimitarXEdge]

LOL.



LOL.

Ask more questions or GO HERE.

hahaha you mask your failures, you probably can't even prove that the an Irrational raise to an irrational is rational :p

[Afghanistan2010]

@scisor can you

is it real that 2 = 1 ....?

[ScimitarXEdge]

what are you trying to ask?

do you mean 2= 1+ (1+x/1) as x-->0 ?

[Al Hanif]

hahaha you mask your failures, you probably can't even prove that the an Irrational raise to an irrational is rational :p

This is a classical exercise. I think you meant to prove showing that an Irrational raised to an Irrational can be Rational ?

Let n being an irrational number. We choose n as a square root of a non-square number.

If n^n is rational, then you have an irrational (n) raised to another irrational (n) which is rational (n^n). And your problem has a solution.

If n^n is irrational, then (n^n)^n = n^(n*n) = n^n² and you have an irational (n^n) raised to another irational (n) which is a rational (n^n²) . And your problem also has a solution.

In all cases, your problem has a solution.

Not all irrationals raised to an irrational are rationals. For example e^Pi is irrational (even transcendental !).

MORE QUESTIONS !!!

[ScimitarXEdge]

This is a classical exercise. I think you meant to prove showing that an Irrational raised to an Irrational can be Rational ?

Let n being an irrational number. We choose n as a square root of a non-square number.

If n^n is rational, then you have an irrational (n) raised to another irrational (n) which is rational (n^n). And your problem has a solution.

If n^n is irrational, then (n^n)^n = n^(n*n) = n^n² and you have an irational (n^n) raised to another irational (n) which is a rational (n^n²) . And your problem also has a solution.
[B]
In all cases, your problem has a solution.
]

WRRRRRONGGGGGG!!!!!

This is wrong proof, .....Let A= Sqrt(2) and B= Sqrt(2) then A^B= Sqrt(2)^Sqrt(2) , then Sqrt(2)^Sqrt(2)^Sqrt2= (Sqrt (2))^2= 2 which is rational

Your proof fails because if you have Sqrt (3) ^Sqrt 3^Sqrt(3)= Sqrt(3)^3, that's irrational

so you don't have it in all cases

remember I asked prove there an Irrational raised to an irrational is rational, NOT ALL irrationals raised to a irrational


wow all that Web Searching and you still got it wrong; your case would not apply because there is no general formula.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Hey Al Hanif, if you're going to web search answers make sure you correctly read them :-p