Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

G'day, I've recently be told that the fertility rate for a country to grow is a minimum 2.1, and in the US at this very moment it is 1.8 - however with the amount of illegal muslim immigrants with their rate of 8.1, soon enough, America will become a muslim country.

Posted

We are a science forum. If you want to be treated seriously, specifically in a debate of this sort that is entirely non-PC and discussing a racial issue, you will need to come up with proper evidence.

 

Random YouTube video and 'quick research' on wiki - without even giving us the research, no less - is far from being good enough, specially for such a claim.

 

Bring proper evidence or there's nothing to discuss.

 

~moo

Posted

*YOU* make a claim here, and YOU need to bring us evidence.

A YouTube video is *NOT* evidence.

 

I'm not going to start researching the claims the video makes. You need to bring PROPER evidence - something that is supported, like official numbers from official offices in Europe and the USA.

 

Where's the proof for the growth numbers?

Posted

Oh!! Very sorry miss, I'll go find it. I should of said prior that I was asking a question >.<

I'll find the numbers real fast.

Posted (edited)
Muslim's claim that their growth rate is 235 percent and 47 percent for Christianity. This statistic came from the Readers Digest Almanac and Yearbook 1983, and represents 235 percent increase over 50 years. Muslims always leave off the 50 year fact to make it appear they are going 235% every year. A simple review of the readers Digest study shows that the growth rate of Islam vs. Christianity is directly linked to the birth rate in Third World countries where Islam dominates and not actual conversions to each religion. Christianity has always been larger than Islam. These statistics from Readers Digest are over 20 years old. Further, we do not consider readers digest to be an authority on such matters. Why will Muslims not quote real authoritative statistics from certified research groups who show Islam is not the fastest growing religion in 3/4's of the worlds countries.

 

Let us hear the same indications from an official source: "The total fertility rate (TFR) is 3.4 children per woman. (...) Muslims have considerably higher fertility than any other religious group. Muslim women have a TFR of 4.4, which is 1.1 children higher than the TFR for Hindu women

My link

 

-Total F.rate-

http://en.wikipedia...._fertility_rate

 

-Muslim Pop-Rate-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population

 

Some of this also comes from my own experience, there has been a increase in the amount of Muslims in my are over the past few years - a big increase.

 

 

Asking whether this happens.

Edited by 7th
Posted

As far as I am able to find most of things you have cited for you point are either not proper sources, or appear to be ones that care a fairly racist bias.

 

The video you posted seems to make many claims, almost all of which are unsupported. The one source which I was able to glean from the video was a paper entitled, "Global Jihad Lifting the Veil of Islam". This paper appears to be published by a sited entitled The Last Days Ministries, which is all about showing what they believe to be an upcoming doomsday. So in my opinion this paper already has no scientific standing as it was "published" by a completely unreliable source. Aside from this the paper appears to be highly biased against Islam as shown by the fallacious generalizations found in the first two paragraphs:

 

Over the past century there have been three giant movements which have emerged to shake the foundations of the world: the rise of Communism beginning in 1917 and ultimately controlling one-third of the world’s population until its sudden decline in 1991; the rise of the Nazi Third Reich in 1933 - which engulfed the world in a war which ultimately consumed 55 million lives; and the rise of the radical fundamentalist Islamic movement, which began in 1980 when the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Islamic fundamentalists took power in Iran.

 

Of these three gargantuan movements, the one which may pose the greatest threat to the survival of Western Civilization, to Biblical Christianity (and all other religions), and to America is the present explosive expansion of radical Islamic fundamentalism and its incendiary philosophy (or religious doctrine) of world conquest by the sword (or, in our day, by the bomb). This 20 page report is very enlightening.

 

So the video really provides no reliable backing for its statements other than some flimsy unscientific paper with racial undertones. Further analysis of the claims in the video have been shown to be mostly false by many different people including snopes.com.

 

The other paper you sited appears to never have been published in a peer review journal, and it appears as if the author is known to have some anti-Islamic feelings, which would definitely cause at least a little bias on a topic like this.

 

The Wikipedia links you posted seem to show virtually no support for your point. The list of the Muslim populations by country really shows absolutely nothing to verify you point. Looking on the map of the other link it looks like that many of the "Muslim countries" show a total fertility rate roughly the same as that of America's, or just above it.

 

So in all I really have not found that much evidence from the things you posted to show that the fertility rate for Muslim's is drastically higher than that of other groups. I also wonder why it would matter if in fact Muslim's did have a drastically higher fertility rate.

Posted

Thanks ser, wrapped it up for me :)

 

Oh, and my fear was decrease in the amount of people who follow my religion. It's okay, I was just a bit jaded from that video.

Posted

Thanks ser, wrapped it up for me :)

 

Oh, and my fear was decrease in the amount of people who follow my religion. It's okay, I was just a bit jaded from that video.

 

 

Would you care to let us in on what your religion would be?

Posted

Have you compared the life expectancies and infant mortality rates too? If a child is born but doesn't live long enough to produce offspring, they'll be included in the birth rate but not contribute to a rise in the population. Does that make sense?

 

I think a little more research is needed.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.