Quran vs Evolution - SAQ - All - The Skeptic's Annotated Bible Discussion Board - Message Board

Author

Comment

[-]

Posts: 49

11/15/08 10:01:47

Bardock, you're going about this the whole wrong way. I really appreciate you're enthusiasm and style, but when you're dealing with people such as this you want to be more direct and less technical. I know you only mean well and you're a genuine truth seeker, but truth (as we see it) only provides annoyance to some. You need to understand that closemindedness often stems from years of intensive and abusive bigotry. The mistake I see you making is only one of articulation, you fail to put your point across precise or concise enough, leaving your posts to seem like a yarn to others, that's generally ok when you're talking to people that want to hear what you have to say, but when dealing with people that have already made up their minds it's better to go about it this way: (watch me...)

My personal opinion of evolution is as follows, it is an undoubtable and undeniable fact of life, however scientists are often over-enthusiastic and exaggerate it's powers IMHO. The problem with evolution is its terms, whilst micro and macro-evolution are observable phenomenon, the theory of evolution as the origin of species is little more than myth in my eyes. In the words of the Quran-

Taha - Verse 50
...Our Lord is He Who gave to each thing it's form and further gave guidance.

This seems to fit well with the fossil record and other evidences of life on earth, nor is there any evidence to contradict it.

Furthermore, in all the observations of the millions of generations of micro-evolution, there has not been any significant changes observe to indicate the eventual diversity of species we observe today. Very similar to the macro-evolutionary process of dogs, which has led to significant changes in bone structure, but still nevertheless a four legged, flappy eared, cute little husk of energy we know of today. Despite the several different species of creatures of which interbred (also evolution) to bring that about.

Furthemore, in response to the hoo haa about the days in which the heavens and earth were created, I feel it important to mention that the Quran states (as listed on this website).

Sajda - Verse 5
He directs the affairs from the heavens to the earth: then It ascends Unto him , on a Day the measure of which a thousand years of your reckoning.

and also

Ma'arij - Verse 4
The angels and The Spirit ascend Unto him in a Day The measure whereof is fifty thousand years.

This clearly depicts a versatile usage of the word "Day" in the Quran. One of you (I'm not sure who) mentioned that a day is defined as a revolution of the earth, yet how could the revolution define a day (in reference) if the earth had not been created yet? No... that would be paradoxical, clearly, as the Quran denotes, a day is only referencing a period of time of which for us is undefined nor need it be.

Last Edited By: Bowofhak 11/15/08 10:05:53. Edited 1 time.

Matthew Ellard.pedg

[-]

Posts: 540

11/16/08 14:10:11

Bowofhak wrote:
Bardock, you're going about this the whole wrong way.

Bardock stopped posting because he pretended to be one thing but was simply another fundamentalist.

My personal opinion of evolution is as follows, it is an undoubtable and undeniable fact of life, however scientists are often over-enthusiastic and exaggerate it's powers IMHO. The problem with evolution is its terms, whilst micro and macro-evolution are observable phenomenon, the theory of evolution as the origin of species is little more than myth in my eyes. In the words of the Quran-
Furthermore, in all the observations of the millions of generations of micro-evolution, there has not been any significant changes observe to indicate the eventual diversity of species we observe today. Very similar to the macro-evolutionary process of dogs, which has led to significant changes in bone structure, but still nevertheless a four legged, flappy eared, cute little husk of energy we know of today. Despite the several different species of creatures of which interbred (also evolution) to bring that about.

This is a useless 1960's argument. The recent example of macro evolution quoted on this board specifically refer to the new genes that have evolved through mutation. You need to read the articles before quoting backward fundamentalist propaganda from Answers in Genesis.

Furthemore, in response to the hoo haa about the days in which the heavens and earth were created, I feel it important to mention that the Quran states (as listed on this website).

Sajda - Verse 5
He directs the affairs from the heavens to the earth: then It ascends Unto him , on a Day the measure of which a thousand years of your reckoning.

and also

Ma'arij - Verse 4
The angels and The Spirit ascend Unto him in a Day The measure whereof is fifty thousand years.

This clearly depicts a versatile usage of the word "Day" in the Quran. One of you (I'm not sure who) mentioned that a day is defined as a revolution of the earth, yet how could the revolution define a day (in reference) if the earth had not been created yet? No... that would be paradoxical, clearly, as the Quran denotes, a day is only referencing a period of time of which for us is undefined nor need it be.

Who cares what the Torah, Bible or Quran say? A "day" is the period of time it takes the earth to rotate full circle regardless of what the bronze age myth books say. If you are not sure what a day means in the Quran then speak to your religious leaders BEFORE arguing about it on this forum.

Bowofhak

[-]

Posts: 53

11/17/08 11:22:20

This is a useless 1960's argument. The recent example of macro evolution quoted on this board specifically refer to the new genes that have evolved through mutation. You need to read the articles before quoting backward fundamentalist propaganda from Answers in Genesis.

Nice try Mathew, but I don't know what you're on about. I never said new genes can't or haven't evolved... I said the origin of species via evolution is not supported by any micro or macro evolutionary observation.

Who cares what the Torah, Bible or Quran say? A "day" is the period of time it takes the earth to rotate full circle regardless of what the bronze age myth books say. If you are not sure what a day means in the Quran then speak to your religious leaders BEFORE arguing about it on this forum.

Well, generally, when one quotes the Quran, you would tend to use the Quran to determine what it means. Instead of a dictionary written a thousand years later.

I'm not too sure how your logic is working on this, if it is working at all.

Matthew Ellard.pedg

[-]

Posts: 543

11/17/08 14:03:48

Bowofhak wrote: Nice try Mathew, but I don't know what you're on about. I never said new genes can't or haven't evolved... I said the origin of species via evolution is not supported by any micro or macro evolutionary observation.
Macro evolution is defined as the evolution that separates species and this sometimes requires new genes. The example of the worms in the petri dish is an observable example of macroevolution with the added benefit of new genes. What did you think was being observed? The new species of worm was a new species. What don't you understand?.

Who cares what the Torah, Bible or Quran say? A "day" is the period of time it takes the earth to rotate full circle regardless of what the bronze age myth books say. If you are not sure what a day means in the Quran then speak to your religious leaders BEFORE arguing about it on this forum.
Well, generally, when one quotes the Quran, you would tend to use the Quran to determine what it means. Instead of a dictionary written a thousand years later. Well then perhaps you should stop using the word "day" which in the english language means a 24 hour rotation of the earth and use some other "magic" word which means something else. I do not see why modern dictionaries have to bend their rules to include bronze age myth concepts and neither does science.

I'm not too sure how your logic is working on this, if it is working at all.
Your'e a theist who belives in god so I'm not really worried about your "benchmark for logic".

Argy Lacedom

[-]

Posts: 2473

11/17/08 15:05:15

The new species of worm was a new species. What don't you understand?.

Two points. The term "species" is a slippery one. The decision where to draw the line when two lines of descent diverge is a human one. This leaves room for apologists to wriggle out of - all they need to say is "I don't agree with your definition of a species therefore a new species didn't appear". Second, they get wriggle room from the biblical term "kind". They can argue (and have done so with me) that kind is not the same as species.

In all of this they loose sight of the fact that they are beginning to accept the fact of evolution is a given, and are just arguing about terminology.

And none of them has ever come up with a reason to support their contention that there is a qualitative difference between macro and micro evolution. Not one of them has ever defined exactly what prevents micro evolution turning into macro evolution given sufficient time.

"If something as simple as matter requires a creator, why doesn't something as complex as God? If something as complex as God doesn't require a creator, why does something as simple as matter?" Hawker Hurricane SAB

Matthew Ellard.pedg

[-]

Posts: 544

11/17/08 20:31:49

Argy Lacedom wrote:
Two points. The term "species" is a slippery one.

Yes I remember our earlier conversation. For a sexually reproducing organism it is the ability to have fertile offspring. For a non sexually reproducing organism it is a complex calculation on the DNA sequence compared the the ancestor. I gave myself a headache by trying to understand how the AIDs virus evolves in the latest Scientific American. I now realise how complex it is to define a virus as there is no one "ancestor virus" but rather a "pool of DNA sequences" that share familiar set of factors. ( There is no vaccine for AIDS as it infects the actual antibody "receptor" that identifies "viruses".....lets wait for it to become airborne and see what happens...gulp!)

Argy Lacedom

[-]

Posts: 2478

11/18/08 00:10:56

It all gets down to the fact that religionists can't grapple with complex problems.

[PS, sorry about the type size - don't have a clue what's causing it]

Bowofhak

[-]

Posts: 54

11/18/08 09:26:44

Macro evolution is defined as the evolution that separates species and this sometimes requires new genes. The example of the worms in the petri dish is an observable example of macroevolution with the added benefit of new genes. What did you think was being observed? The new species of worm was a new species. What don't you understand?.

Yes, I see... but I fail to understand how this demonstrates to you how the world's species evolved from creatures entirely dissimilar. Perhaps you can use a random stroke generator to put an extra touch of paint and compliment a master piece, but that doesn't demonstrate that the entire masterpiece was generated by it...

Well then perhaps you should stop using the word "day" which in the english language means a 24 hour rotation of the earth and use some other "magic" word which means something else. I do not see why modern dictionaries have to bend their rules to include bronze age myth concepts and neither does science.

I think the problem you have is with Marmaduke Pickthall and Yusef Ali, not me. The word that had been used in the Quran was "Yawm" not "Day", "Day" just happens to be the best translation for it as they are both referencing periods of time. You need to realise that the Quran actually predates the English language, when you learn that you'll realise the flaw in your understanding of bronze age language in general, perhaps your science will too.

Besides, the problem here is obviously your interpretation of the word day, not the Marmaduke's or Yusef's.
The word day is rather versatile even in the English dictionary.
Day

1.	the interval of light between two successive nights; the time between sunrise and sunset: Since there was no artificial illumination, all activities had to be carried on during the day.

2.	the light of day; daylight: The owl sleeps by day and feeds by night.

Astronomy.

a.	Also called mean solar day. a division of time equal to 24 hours and representing the average length of the period during which the earth makes one rotation on its axis.

b.	Also called solar day. a division of time equal to the time elapsed between two consecutive returns of the same terrestrial meridian to the sun.

c.	Also called civil day. a division of time equal to 24 hours but reckoned from one midnight to the next. Compare lunar day, sidereal day.

4.	an analogous division of time for a planet other than the earth: the Martian day.

5.	the portion of a day allotted to work: an eight-hour day.

6.	a day on which something occurs: the day we met.

7.	(often initial capital letter) a day assigned to a particular purpose or observance: New Year's Day.

8.	a time considered as propitious or opportune: His day will come.

9.	a day of contest or the contest itself: to win the day.

10.	Often, days. a particular time or period: the present day; in days of old.

11.	Usually, days. period of life or activity: His days are numbered.

12.	period of existence, power, or influence: in the day of the dinosaurs.

13.	light ¹ (def. 19a).

-Idioms

14.	call it a day, to stop one's activity for the day or for the present; quit temporarily: After rewriting the paper, she decided to call it a day.

15.	day in, day out, every day without fail; regularly: They endured the noise and dirt of the city day in, day out. Also, day in and day out.

Your'e a theist who belives in god so I'm not really worried about your "benchmark for logic".

And you're an atheist that can't comprehend eternity, so I'm not particularly worried either. The idea is not to worry about what other people think of you, but whether their opinion of you holds any validity, especially when they have to constantly correct your lexicographical mistakes... hmmm...

Ha Mim

6. ..."I am but a man like you: iti is revealed to me By Inspiration, that your God Is one God: so take the straight path unto Him and ask for his forgiveness. And woe to those who join gods with Allah,

7. Those who pay not Zakat and who even deny the hereafter.

...

9. ..."Is it that ye deny him who created the earth in two days? And do you join equals with him? He is the lord of (all) the worlds.

Last Edited By: Bowofhak 11/18/08 09:40:45. Edited 2 times.

Matthew Ellard.pedg

Quran / Fundamentalism / Bowofhak

[-]

Posts: 545

11/18/08 16:20:56

Bowofhak wrote: Yes, I see... but I fail to understand how this demonstrates to you how the world's species evolved from creatures entirely dissimilar. Perhaps you can use a random stroke generator to put an extra touch of paint and compliment a master piece, but that doesn't demonstrate that the entire masterpiece was generated by it...

It doesn't. This experiment only offers evidence of macro evolution and the generation of new genes from mutation. It's OK . You haven't got a science background so you are struggling already The evidence for evolution on life on earth comes from many sources including comparative gene mapping, mitochondrial DNA, anatomical morphological simularity statistics, the fossil record, environmental evidence and many other scientific areas of study. I studied anthropological pre-history and hominid evolution. You should buy yourself a couple of good books on the subject and then argue on specific issues rather than a global "I don't understand"

"Yawm" not "Day", "Day" just happens to be the best translation for it as they are both referencing periods of time. You need to realise that the Quran actually predates the English language, when you learn that you'll realise the flaw in your understanding of bronze age language in general, perhaps your science will too.

Hmm I think you will find Akkadian pre-dates the Quranic Arabic and the word is taken from Akkadian, the language of Abraham. Therefore I think you really should be showing me the meaning of Yawm in Akkadian if you want to correct your flaws in your understanding of bronze age language and how the illiterate Mohomet tried to use them after hearing the tales of Abraham. (You do understand Abraham was before Mohomet and Mohomet was a messenger boy relating Abraham's stories? )

Thank you for showing me the 20th century meanings of the english word day and trying to apply it to a bronze age myth book written in another language. We do not do things like this science because it is really stupid and a waste of time.

Your'e a theist who belives in god so I'm not really worried about your "benchmark for logic".

And you're an atheist that can't comprehend eternity, so I'm not particularly worried either.
You do not have to worry because you believe in burning bushes, spirit creatures, angels that float around delivering messages, a magic world that is only 6,000 years old. I doubt children really worry about Santa Claus either. Feel free to follow their example.

The idea is not to worry about what other people think of you, but whether their opinion of you holds any validity, especially when they have to constantly correct your lexicographical mistakes... hmmm...
Thank you very much. I will always remember you as the person who quoted the modern english word for "Day" as evidence that some stone age myth book has more validity than "Harry Potter" or "the Illiad". Keep up the good work!

6. ..."I am but a man like you: iti is revealed to me By Inspiration, that your God Is one God: so take the straight path unto Him and ask for his forgiveness. And woe to those who join gods with Allah,
Is that similar to why you cannot have the Easter Bunny decorations up at the same time as Santa Claus decorations? What's the worst Allah is going to do....I'm mean he hasn't done anything that anyone has ever seen. He has watched his Palestinian children being murdered and starved..but hasn't lifted a finger....He has watch us European atheists improve our standard of living while millions of muslims are starving. Perhaps Allah prefers atheists. The evidence points that way....or perhaps he doesn't exist like the Christian /Jewish god doesn't exist.

9. ..."Is it that ye deny him who created the earth in two days? And do you join equals with him? He is the lord of (all) the worlds.
Odd that the lord or all the world is so frightened that he will not show his face in public. He will not make direct contact with his own brethren, he will not directly attack his brethrens enemies, he will not help clean up environmental problems etc...As Lord's go this Lord is pathetic and should be sacked or overthrown as useless. No wonder humans have to vote in other humans into government....we'd be waiting for decades for Allah to even make a suggestion.

You are actually educating me in a funny way. Arabic culture is one of the most educated cultures on the planet. Mathematicians like Ali Gb'her helped drag Europe out of the dark ages through their good work. Arabic and middles eastern culture is as important as any other culture on this planet......yet us Westerners and Arabic culture still suffers from fundamentalist loonies who believe in the flat earth, the 6000 year old and magic gods that don't actually do anything... Perhaps both cultures should buy a little island and stick all our fundametalist Christians, Muslims and Jews on it...and forget about them. We did it to the "Flat Eathers". Are you also a "Flat Earther"?

Rambo123UK

#10

[-]

Posts: 611

11/18/08 21:43:34

I wish I still had the time, energy and dedication to trawl through this sort of crap and reply like I used to, but I should at this juncture say how much I enjoy watching you do so.

The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning.
-- Voltaire

BIBLE BABBLE

Matthew Ellard.pedg

#11

[-]

Posts: 547

11/18/08 22:00:06

Rambo123UK wrote:
I wish I still had the time, energy and dedication to trawl through this sort of crap and reply like I used to, but I should at this juncture say how much I enjoy watching you do so.

Thank you. I am merely walking in your footprints as "one of the masters" of "skeptic arguments against fundamentalists"

Rambo123UK

#12

[-]

Posts: 612

11/18/08 22:46:24

Sir is too kind. I merely vented my rage at ignorant morons from time to time.

The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning.
-- Voltaire

BIBLE BABBLE

Bowofhak

#13

[-]

Posts: 57

11/18/08 22:59:21

Hmmm... I like your reply, very straightforward and penetrating, but if I may....

It doesn't. This experiment only offers evidence of macro evolution and the generation of new genes from mutation. It's OK . You haven't got a science background so you are struggling already The evidence for evolution on life on earth comes from many sources including comparative gene mapping, mitochondrial DNA, anatomical morphological simularity statistics, the fossil record, environmental evidence and many other scientific areas of study. I studied anthropological pre-history and hominid evolution. You should buy yourself a couple of good books on the subject and then argue on specific issues rather than a global "I don't understand"

You're a tad mistaken, my claim was not that I did not understand, but that the findings on micro and macro evolution do not support the theory of evolution as the origin of all species.

Hmm I think you will find Akkadian pre-dates the Quranic Arabic and the word is taken from Akkadian, the language of Abraham. Therefore I think you really should be showing me the meaning of Yawm in Akkadian if you want to correct your flaws in your understanding of bronze age language and how the illiterate Mohomet tried to use them after hearing the tales of Abraham. (You do understand Abraham was before Mohomet and Mohomet was a messenger boy relating Abraham's stories? )

Thank you for showing me the 20th century meanings of the english word day and trying to apply it to a bronze age myth book written in another language. We do not do things like this science because it is really stupid and a waste of time.

Very true, the Arabic language does have an origin, but it wouldn't make sense to use the Akkadian meaning as the Quran was revealed in Arabic, not Akkadian. As the Quran itself states, many times, aware of this fact.

Yusuf - 12
1. Alif Lam Ra. These are the Symbols (or Verses) of the Perspicuous Book.
2. We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an in order that ye may learn wisdom.

Ar Ra'd - 13
37. Thus have We revealed it to be a judgment of authority in Arabic. Wert thou to follow their (vain) desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee then wouldst thou find neither protector nor defender against Allah.

An-Nahl - 16
102 Say the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy Lord in truth in order to strengthen those who believe and as a guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims. 2141 2142
103 We know indeed that they say "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notable foreign while this is Arabic pure and clear.

Ha-Mim - 41
44. Had We sent this as a Qur'an (in a language) other than Arabic they would have said: "Why are not its verses explained in detail? What! (a Book) not in Arabic and (a Messenger) an Arab?" Say: "It is a guide and a healing to those who believe; and for those who believe not there is a deafness in their ears and it is blindness in their (eyes); they are (as it were) being called from a place far distant!"

Al-Ahqaf - 46
12. And before this was the Book of Moses as a guide and a mercy; and this Book confirms (it) in the Arabic tongue; to admonish the unjust and as Glad Tidings to those who do right.

So as the Quran makes clear in many many places that it was revealed in Arabic and not any other language "other than Arabic". I fail to understand why you would want to turn to Akkadian to understand the book, which quite categorically states that it is Arabic. Would you turn to Proto-English to understand what I'm saying when I'm clearly writing in Modern English? Seriously, would you? because that's how your logic seems to apply to me. You wouldn't seriously expect me to be using the proto-English definitions would you?

You do not have to worry because you believe in burning bushes, spirit creatures, angels that float around delivering messages, a magic world that is only 6,000 years old. I doubt children really worry about Santa Claus either. Feel free to follow their example.

You don't think that bushes can burn? I can understand your criticism of spirit creatures and angels, but apparently bushes can burn. Furthermore, you seem to be seeping in Christian ideas into Islamic ones. Islam does not give a specific date to the earth, but it does denote that there has been a long time for it. We are taught that 124,000 prophets were sent to mankind. In only 6,000 years that would be more that 20 prophets per year. Whereas the Quran Denotes that prophet's were sent to individual nations.

Al-muminun - 23
44. Then We sent our messengers one after another. Whenever its messenger came unto a nation they denied him; so We caused them to follow one another (to disaster) and We made them bywords. A far removal for folk who believe not!

And the Quran also denotes that there was a long period of time where the was no human beings..

Ad-Dhar - 76
1. Has there not been over Man a long period of Time when he was nothing--(not even) mentioned?

So as you can see, Islam supports a rather old earth. I think your problem is that you know little to nothing about the Quran and Islam.

Thank you very much. I will always remember you as the person who quoted the modern english word for "Day" as evidence that some stone age myth book has more validity than "Harry Potter" or "the Illiad". Keep up the good work!

You see, that what you wrote up there confuses me, not only because of your lack of understanding of the English words "the", "problem", "here", "is", "your" and "interpretation", but also to the fact that you seem to have a very short term memory and in such you actually, quite bizarrely, confused me for yourself. As crazy as that sounds, perhaps you'll understand better when you go to the previous pages and read your own posts where you use the modern English understanding of the word "day" as evidence that "some stone age" (interestingly changed from your previous post's use of bronze age to describe it) book has less validity.

Please forgive me for suspecting gross hypocrisy on your part.

Is that similar to why you cannot have the Easter Bunny decorations up at the same time as Santa Claus decorations? What's the worst Allah is going to do....I'm mean he hasn't done anything that anyone has ever seen. He has watched his Palestinian children being murdered and starved..but hasn't lifted a finger....He has watch us European atheists improve our standard of living while millions of muslims are starving. Perhaps Allah prefers atheists. The evidence points that way....or perhaps he doesn't exist like the Christian /Jewish god doesn't exist.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, but I always thought that you couldn't have Easter Bunny decorations and Santa Claus (Christmas?) decorations up at the same time because it would be a time paradox. The two festive seasons occur on entirely different times of the year...

I do believe the rest of your post is aptly dealt with by the Quran.

At Tauba - 9
20. Those who believe and suffer exile and strive with might and main in Allah's cause with their goods and their persons have the highest rank in the sight of Allah: They are the people who will achieve (salvation).

85. Let not their wealth nor their children please thee! Allah purposeth only to punish them thereby in the world, and that their souls shall pass away while they are disbelievers.

Al-Kahf - 18
32 Set forth to them the parable of two men: for one of them We provided two gardens of grapevines and surrounded them with date-palms: in between the two We placed corn-fields.
33 Each of those gardens brought forth its produce and failed not in the least therein: in the midst of them We caused a river to flow.
34 (Abundant) was the produce this man had: he said to his companion in the course of a mutual argument: "More wealth have I than you and more honor and power in (my following of) men."
35 He went into his garden in a state (of mind) unjust to his soul: He said "I deem not that this will ever perish.
36 "Nor do I deem that the Hour (of Judgment) will (ever) come: even if I am brought back to my Lord I shall surely find (there) something better in exchange."
37 His companion said to him in the course of the argument with him: "Dost thou deny Him Who created thee out of dust then out of a sperm-drop then fashioned thee into a man?
38 "But (I think) for my part that He is Allah my Lord and none shall I associate with my Lord.
39 "Why didst thou not as thou wentest into thy garden say: `Allah's Will (be done)! There is no power but with Allah!' If thou dost see me less than thee in wealth and sons

Al-Muminun - 23
55 Do they think that because We have granted them abundance of wealth and sons
56 We would hasten them on in every good? Nay they do not understand.
57 Verily those who live in awe for fear of their Lord;
58 Those who believe in the Signs of their Lord;
59 Those who join not (in worship) partners with their Lord;
60 And those who dispense their charity with their hearts full of fear because they will return to their Lord
61 It is these who hasten in every good work and these who are foremost in them.

And many other places in the Quran, which denote that the good of this world is from Allah, but is not always what he will bestow upon Muslims. We are taught that the prophet Muhammaed (Peace be upon him) experienced hardship and troubles all his life and at one point his followers were beaten and tortured for years. The Children of Israel suffered too, before Allah sent Musa (A), many many years later, to relieve them.

Odd that the lord or all the world is so frightened that he will not show his face in public. He will not make direct contact with his own brethren, he will not directly attack his brethrens enemies, he will not help clean up environmental problems etc...As Lord's go this Lord is pathetic and should be sacked or overthrown as useless. No wonder humans have to vote in other humans into government....we'd be waiting for decades for Allah to even make a suggestion.

More than decades actually, a day with Allah is a thousand years of what we reckon. An entire millennium almost passed between his sending of Isa (Jesus) and Muhammad (SAW). Also Allah doesn't just kill and destroy people for no reason. If you check the Quran you'll find that it wasn't until they killed prophets or rejected signs that Allah intervened himself. Allah says that his existence is self-evident.

Al-Ankabut - 29
49. Nay here are Signs self-evident in the hearts of those endowed with knowledge: and none but the unjust reject Our Signs.
50. Yet they say [As you have, Mathew] "Why are not Signs sent down to him from his Lord?" Say: "The Signs are indeed with Allah: and I am indeed a clear Warner."
51. And is it not enough for them that We have sent down to thee the Book which is rehearsed to them? [Like I have, Mathew] Verily in it is Mercy and Reminder to those who believe.

I do not believe that Allah sends signs to us anymore...

Al-Israa - 17
59. And We refrain from sending the Signs only because the men of former generations treated them as false: We sent the She-camel: to the Thamud to open their eyes but they treated her wrongfully: We only send the Signs by way of terror (and warning from evil).

You are actually educating me in a funny way. Arabic culture is one of the most educated cultures on the planet. Mathematicians like Ali Gb'her helped drag Europe out of the dark ages through their good work. Arabic and middles eastern culture is as important as any other culture on this planet......yet us Westerners and Arabic culture still suffers from fundamentalist loonies who believe in the flat earth, the 6000 year old and magic gods that don't actually do anything... Perhaps both cultures should buy a little island and stick all our fundametalist Christians, Muslims and Jews on it...and forget about them. We did it to the "Flat Eathers". Are you also a "Flat Earther"?

I'm not sure where you get your information from, but Muslims generally don't believe in a Flat Earth. Muslims (not just Arabs, but Iranians, Africans and what you would call Russians helped out too) figured that the earth was round a long time ago. The Quran even contains allegories describing the earth as spherical.

Besides, believing in flat earths and 6000 year old earths (although we don't believe in that at all) doesn't really do a lot of damage to humanity, sure it dampens scientific progress, but that's not something the earliest Islamic civilization was guilty of.

I'm happy to be able to educate you, but I'm sorry to say, but you haven't helped me at all. Your deductions are spurious at best and stem from exposure to Christian literature instead of Islamic ones. I'm perturbed by the low level of your logic and the emotional bias that swings here and there in your posts. I would make a suggestion to direct you on the path to improvement, but I honestly don't know where to begin. I can only say, try and read the Quran. It deals with most of the questions you have concerning it.

As I like to, I'll end with a verse from it.

Saba - 34
1 Praise be to Allah to Whom belong all things in the heavens and on earth: to Him be Praise in the Hereafter: and He is Full of Wisdom acquainted with all things.
2 He knows all that goes into the earth and all that comes out thereof; all that comes down from the sky and all that ascends thereto: and He is the Most Merciful the Oft-Forgiving.
3 The Unbelievers say "Never to us will come the hour": say "Nay! but most surely by my Lord it will come upon you by Him Who knows the unseen from Whom is not hidden the least little atom in the Heavens or on earth: nor is there anything less than that or greater but is in the Record Perspicuous:
4 That He may reward those who believe and work deeds of righteousness: for such is Forgiveness and a Sustenance Most Generous."
5 But those who strive against Our Signs to frustrate them for such will be a Penalty a Punishment most humiliating.
6 And those to whom knowledge has come see that the (Revelation) sent down to thee from thy Lord that is the Truth and that it guides to the Path of the Exalted (in Might) Worthy of all praise.
7 The Unbelievers say (in ridicule): "Shall we point out to you a man that will tell you when ye are all scattered to pieces in disintegration that ye shall (then be raised) in a New Creation?
8 "Has he invented a falsehood against Allah or has a spirit (seized) him?" Nay it is those who believe not in the Hereafter that are in (real) Penalty and in farthest Error.
9 See they not what is before them and behind them of the sky and the earth? If We wished We could cause the earth to swallow them up or cause a piece of the sky to fall upon them. Verily in this is a Sign for every devotee that turns to Allah (in repentance).

P.S. Apparently there was one individual that declare that the earth was not a sphere according to the Quran, but it caused great embarrassment in the Muslim world and he later said that he was mistaken and the he didn't deny that the earth was round.

Directly from Wikipedia

Ibn Baz controversy

One influential modern Muslim jurist has been said to have claimed that the earth is flat, and that anyone who denies this is an unbeliever. Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz (Ibn Baz), the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, was a traditionally educated cleric who suffered from blindness. In 1993, he is said to have issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, declaring, "The Earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment."^[85] While the edict reportedly caused embarrassment for many Saudis, Ibn Baz issued a statement maintaining that the earth was spherical but expansive enough to be flat^[86] and saying that he "only" denied Earth's rotation.^[87]^[88]

Supporters of Ibn Baz said that the book in which the flat earth claim was supposed to have been laid out does not exist, and that the entire controversy was based on one interview with Egyptian journalists. They said that Ibn Baz, as he clarified later, was referring to the surface of earth that we walk on being flat although he believed the Earth to be spherical. In Arabic, the same word is commonly used for both the earth as well as the ground. The journalist, having not paid attention to this distinction, misquoted Ibn Baz and created a story; the story was picked up by a Kuwaiti magazine (Assiyasah) and from there spread around the world. Ibn Baz was an admirer and a scholar of the works of Ibn Taymiyyah (1263 - 1328), who did not support the flat earth theory.^[

Last Edited By: Bowofhak 11/18/08 23:11:53. Edited 1 time.

Argy Lacedom

Evolution Courses

#14

[-]

Posts: 2480

11/19/08 03:46:28

You're a tad mistaken, my claim was not that I did not understand, but that the findings on micro and macro evolution do not support the theory of evolution as the origin of all species.

Without trying to labour the point, I don't think anyone who really understands evolution would make that claim. There are many references on the web that can guide you through the process of discovering exactly what evolution is, what it allows us to do and how it affects our lives. Just google "evolution" and you will see excellent course material from universities like Berkeley. Here's one that you might like to start on....

http://evolution.berkeley...evolibrary/article/evo_01

Bowofhak

#15

[-]

Posts: 58

11/19/08 10:10:48

Argy Lacedom wrote:

You're a tad mistaken, my claim was not that I did not understand, but that the findings on micro and macro evolution do not support the theory of evolution as the origin of all species.
Without trying to labour the point, I don't think anyone who really understands evolution would make that claim. There are many references on the web that can guide you through the process of discovering exactly what evolution is, what it allows us to do and how it affects our lives. Just google "evolution" and you will see excellent course material from universities like Berkeley. Here's one that you might like to start on....

http://evolution.berkeley...evolibrary/article/evo_01

The problem here isn't understanding evolution, I think what you mean is understanding evolution in the way you do.

Rambo123UK

#16

[-]

Posts: 613

11/19/08 10:45:04

If you don't understand evolution the same way we do then you don't understand evolution.

The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning.
-- Voltaire

BIBLE BABBLE

Matthew Ellard.pedg

#17

[-]

Posts: 548

11/19/08 15:12:21

Bowofhak wrote:
Hmmm... I like your reply, very straightforward and penetrating, but if I may....You're a tad mistaken, my claim was not that I did not understand, but that the findings on micro and macro evolution do not support the theory of evolution as the origin of all species.

That's right. That is why I suggested that you read books on the matter and why I listed some of the fields of study that form the framework of the theory. It is your choice if you wish to read them or not.

Very true, the Arabic language does have an origin, but it wouldn't make sense to use the Akkadian meaning as the Quran was revealed in Arabic, not Akkadian. As the Quran itself states, many times, aware of this fact.

Really? So the stories passed down by Abraham for many generations in the Akkadian language do not matter and Islamic scholars should not bother to interpret the meaning of Abraham the prophet's words in his own language? I doubt scholars would agree with you on that. I guess the Quran must only be for Arabic speakers and thus not for the whole world.

You do not have to worry because you believe in burning bushes, spirit creatures, angels that float around delivering messages, a magic world that is only 6,000 years old. I doubt children really worry about Santa Claus either. Feel free to follow their example.

You don't think that bushes can burn? I can understand your criticism of spirit creatures and angels, but apparently bushes can burn. Furthermore, you seem to be seeping in Christian ideas into Islamic ones. Islam does not give a specific date to the earth, but it does denote that there has been a long time for it. We are taught that 124,000 prophets were sent to mankind. In only 6,000 years that would be more that 20 prophets per year. Whereas the Quran Denotes that prophet's were sent to individual nations.

I treat the three Abrahamic religions as one and the same, and equal: Jews, Christians and Muslims as they are the same religion in essence sharing the same god, some myths, some prophets and the odd angel. The fact that the main religion split into geographical sub-cults is not that important. "God" still does not show himself and atheists still have the highest standard of living suggesting God prefers atheists.

So as you can see, Islam supports a rather old earth. I think your problem is that you know little to nothing about the Quran and Islam.

That's right. I only try to know about evidence based science and history. I'm not an islamic religious scholar. Is it a "problem" not knowing the myths about "adam & eve" and "the flood" and "the creation"? How so?

Thank you very much. I will always remember you as the person who quoted the modern english word for "Day" as evidence that some stone age myth book has more validity than "Harry Potter" or "the Illiad". Keep up the good work!

You see, that what you wrote up there confuses me, not only because of your lack of understanding of the English words "the", "problem", "here", "is", "your" and "interpretation", but also to the fact that you seem to have a very short term memory and in such you actually, quite bizarrely, confused me for yourself. As crazy as that sounds, perhaps you'll understand better when you go to the previous pages and read your own posts where you use the modern English understanding of the word "day" as evidence that "some stone age" (interestingly changed from your previous post's use of bronze age to describe it) book has less validity.

Very funny...I can only guess you are confused because you are religious and therefore do not have to have a logical and systematic mind....but I do enjoy that you are still clinging to the modern english word "day" when considering a bronze age Akkadian myth that you believe in ( Although you seem uninterested in finding the Akkadian meaning of the word that would elucidate your religion to you). I guess you are not really concerned with Abraham's intent in his words.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, but I always thought that you couldn't have Easter Bunny decorations and Santa Claus (Christmas?) decorations up at the same time because it would be a time paradox. The two festive seasons occur on entirely different times of the year...

Exactly, that was the warning from the Quran wasn't it? Don't put up other gods before me. It was about decorations? or are you saying Allah is concerned about other actual Gods? Are the other God's more powerful than Allah? Why is is Allah so frightened? Is this why he never shows himself?

I do believe the rest of your post is aptly dealt with by the Quran.
Yes...I always check my work against a bronze age book written in another language

37 His companion said to him in the course of the argument with him: "Dost thou deny Him Who created thee out of dust then out of a sperm-drop then fashioned thee into a man?

A sperm drop? Allah has sperm? and he plays with it? We have Allah's DNA in our DNA? This must be our next discussion because gene mapping shows the genes we share with apes. How did Allah's sperm and ape DNA get into humans? Someone is not telling the truth.

Odd that the lord or all the world is so frightened that he will not show his face in public. No wonder humans have to vote in other humans into government....we'd be waiting for decades for Allah to even make a suggestion.

Allah says that his existence is self-evident.
Funny, the Christian say the same thing about God, the jews about Yaweh, the Hindus about Shiva, the Zoroastrians about Baal, and so on and so on... Luckily science requires hard evidence....I think I will stick to science thanks.

Al-Ankabut - 29
50. Yet they say [As you have, Mathew] "Why are not Signs sent down to him from his Lord?" Say: "The Signs are indeed with Allah: and I am indeed a clear Warner."
51. And is it not enough for them that We have sent down to thee the Book which is rehearsed to them? [Like I have, Mathew] Verily in it is Mercy and Reminder to those who believe.

So the Quran is the only evidence that Allah is going to send? Then how come the earliest Torah from 1200BC has some of the same stories? Is it not evidence? What about the tales of Gilgamesh from 1000 years before the Quran? Gilgamesh has "adam & eve" and "the flood". Are your saying Allah's book version of these earlier stories is the only authorised compilation edition? Do you think Abraham would approve? Why did Allah bother with Abraham?

I do not believe that Allah sends signs to us anymore...
Yes I think we agree on that

You are actually educating me in a funny way. Arabic culture is one of the most educated cultures on the planet. Mathematicians like Ali Gb'her helped drag Europe out of the dark ages through their good work. Arabic and middles eastern culture is as important as any other culture on this planet......yet us Westerners and Arabic culture still suffers from fundamentalist loonies who believe in the flat earth, the 6000 year old and magic gods that don't actually do anything... Perhaps both cultures should buy a little island and stick all our fundametalist Christians, Muslims and Jews on it...and forget about them. We did it to the "Flat Eathers". Are you also a "Flat Earther"?

I'm not sure where you get your information from, but Muslims generally don't believe in a Flat Earth.
I was using rhetoric, which is a argument technique where you pose a silly question that does not need an answer. Arabic scholars knew the world was round when dumb westerners thouggt it was flat. I was separating "fundamentalists" as flat earthers.

Besides, believing in flat earths and 6000 year old earths (although we don't believe in that at all) doesn't really do a lot of damage to humanity, sure it dampens scientific progress, but that's not something the earliest Islamic civilization was guilty of.
I agree. Early islamic culture was about education and civilisation when the rest of us were barbaric. I am very supportative of the culture but not fundamental religion.

I'm perturbed by the low level of your logic
Oh no....sob sob sob...another fundamentalist has shown me truth and I just don't get it...

and the emotional bias that swings here and there in your posts.
sob...sob...sob....but if only Allah sent me a message ( In english)...I'd be he best friend ...really..... trully...

I would make a suggestion to direct you on the path to improvement, but I honestly don't know where to begin. I can only say, try and read the Quran. It deals with most of the questions you have concerning it.
I have no questions about the Bible, The Quran or the Torah

As I like to, I'll end with a verse from it.

Saba - 34
The Unbelievers say "Never to us will come the hour":
I wonder what an "hour" was in bronze age Medina...

P.S. Apparently there was one individual that declare that the earth was not a sphere according to the Quran, but it caused great embarrassment in the Muslim world and he later said that he was mistaken and the he didn't deny that the earth was round.
Its cool, no religion can control all its members. You will note that many dicussion on this forum are about the fact that many religions have no common belief framework. I understand you are only talking about your beliefs.

Bowofhak

#18

[-]

Posts: 59

11/19/08 23:34:11

If you don't understand evolution the same way we do then you don't understand evolution.

Yes, I understand. It's the same way religious sects contend about their particular interpretation of religion.

I'm dissapointed with this reply Mathew, you could have done better. You're just being silly now...

That's right. That is why I suggested that you read books on the matter and why I listed some of the fields of study that form the framework of the th eory. It is your choice if you wish to read them or not.

I've read and studied a good deal of them already...

Really? So the stories passed down by Abraham for many generations in the Akkadian language do not matter and Islamic scholars should not bother to interpret the meaning of Abraham the prophet's words in his own language? I doubt scholars would agree with you on that. I guess the Quran must only be for Arabic speakers and thus not for the whole world.

What did Abraham claim his source of these stories to be?

I treat the three Abrahamic religions as one and the same, and equal: Jews, Christians and Muslims as they are the same religion in essence sharing the same god, some myths, some prophets and the odd angel. The fact that the main religion split into geographical sub-cults is not that important. "God" still does not show himself and atheists still have the highest standard of living suggesting God prefers atheists.

Under the assumption that the Quran deems a high standard of living good, this may have made sense.

That's right. I only try to know about evidence based science and history. I'm not an islamic religious scholar. Is it a "problem" not knowing the myths about "adam & eve" and "the flood" and "the creation"? How so?

In that case, don't debate on what you do not understand. They call this ignorance.

Very funny...I can only guess you are confused because you are religious and therefore do not have to have a logical and systematic mind....but I do enjoy that you are still clinging to the modern english word "day" when considering a bronze age Akkadian myth that you believe in ( Although you seem uninterested in finding the Akkadian meaning of the word that would elucidate your religion to you). I guess you are not really concerned with Abraham's intent in his words.

You don't understand it was you using the English word day whilst I refuted that do you?

Also, you're age declarations are all over the place... (bronze age? stone age?)

Exactly, that was the warning from the Quran wasn't it? Don't put up other gods before me. It was about decorations? or are you saying Allah is concerned about other actual Gods? Are the other God's more powerful than Allah? Why is is Allah so frightened? Is this why he never shows himself?

Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are not gods, God is pretty much impartial about what we do.

Hadith Qudsi - 17
O My servants, were the first of you and the last of you, the human of you and the jinn of you to be as pious as the most pious heart of any one man of you, that would not increase My kingdom in anything. O My servants, were the first of you and the last of you, the human of you and the jinn of you to be as wicked as the most wicked heart of any one man of you, that would not decrease My kingdom in anything. O My servants, were the first of you and the last of you, the human of you and the jinn of you to rise up in one place and make a request of Me, and were I to give everyone what he requested, that would not decrease what I have, any more that a needle decreases the sea if put into it.

Yes...I always check my work against a bronze age book written in another language

You should, seeing that all your criticism were already addressed and dismantled 1000 years ago.

A sperm drop? Allah has sperm? and he plays with it? We have Allah's DNA in our DNA? This must be our next discussion because gene mapping shows the genes we share with apes. How did Allah's sperm and ape DNA get into humans? Someone is not telling the truth.

It's Simple, Allah created both humans and apes out of sperm or "Nuftah".

Funny, the Christian say the same thing about God, the jews about Yaweh, the Hindus about Shiva, the Zoroastrians about Baal, and so on and so on... Luckily science requires hard evidence....I think I will stick to science thanks.

Islam teaches that all the gods of all the religions are the same. The names applied are just names, distorted as languages have been.

Luqman
25. If thou ask them who it is that created the heavens and the earth they will certainly say "Allah." Say: "Praise be to Allah!" But most of them understand not. (Allah literally means "The God", not "A God" or "Another God")

As-Zukhruf
87. If thou ask them Who Created them they will certainly say Allah: how then are they deluded away (from the Truth)? ("The God" is pretty much the claim all religions make)

Ta-Ha
49. (Pharaoh) said: "Who then O Moses is the Lord of you two?"
50. He said: "Our Lord is He Who gave to each (created) thing its form and nature and further gave (it) guidance." (This is one of many definitions of who Allah "The God" is)
51. (Pharaoh) said: "What then is the condition of previous generations?"
52. He replied: "The knowledge of that is with my Lord duly recorded: my Lord never errs nor forgets"

So the Quran is the only evidence that Allah is going to send? Then how come the earliest Torah from 1200BC has some of the same stories? Is it not evidence? What about the tales of Gilgamesh from 1000 years before the Quran? Gilgamesh has "adam & eve" and "the flood". Are your saying Allah's book version of these earlier stories is the only authorised compilation edition? Do you think Abraham would approve? Why did Allah bother with Abraham?

Again, where do these other books and Abraham claim their source to be from?

I was using rhetoric, which is a argument technique where you pose a silly question that does not need an answer. Arabic scholars knew the world was round when dumb westerners thouggt it was flat. I was separating "fundamentalists" as flat earthers.

And you don't think that's a little unfair considering the irrelevance?

I agree. Early islamic culture was about education and civilisation when the rest of us were barbaric. I am very supportative of the culture but not fundamental religion.

It has been the habit of man to be grossly un-supportive and intolerant to those that hold different opinions/religion/ideas from them. Atheists only seem to further exhibit this.

I have no questions about the Bible, The Quran or the Torah

Becuase, you're not trying to listen or see anything at all, nor reason rationally.

Baqarah - 7
7. Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing and on the eyes is a veil. Great is the chastisement they incur.

I wonder what an "hour" was in bronze age Medina...

In the English, Arabic or Akkadian definition?

You need to stop contradicting yourself.

Its cool, no religion can control all its members. You will note that many dicussion on this forum are about the fact that many religions have no common belief framework. I understand you are only talking about your beliefs.

Hence why I quote the Quran, it's the most irrefutable framework of Islam there is.

Rambo123UK

#19

[-]

Posts: 615

11/20/08 02:55:35

You're comparing science to interpreting scripture? no wonder you're so fucked up.

The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning.
-- Voltaire

BIBLE BABBLE

Bowofhak

#20

[-]

Posts: 62

11/20/08 05:02:09

You think that there is not interpretation to science?

If so then there are bounds of levels in knowledge you have yet to perceive exist.

Rambo123UK

#21

[-]

Posts: 617

11/20/08 06:59:35

Of course there is. But you can't equate interpreting data in science to intepreting scripture.

Religion starts with a text, and then interprets the meanings of words and passages to suit the view of the interpreter.

On the other hand, science starts with an observation, procedes to a formulation of a hypothesis, then tests via experiment in order to prove (by attempting to show it is wrong) the hypothesis. Interpreting data gathered by experiment to see if it fits the hypothesis or not has no relationship to arguing for a particular translation of a word or phrase.

If an experimental result is ambiguous - ie, a set of data can be interpreted in different ways - then further testing either by repeating the experiment or through a different one is thus required.

But in relation to evolution there is no other explanation that can interpret the vast amount of data from different fields of science. There is no other theory that explains the data. It follows then, that in the absence of other theories, there is no other interpretation possible.

The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning.
-- Voltaire

BIBLE BABBLE

Bowofhak

#22

[-]

Posts: 64

11/20/08 10:53:11

Of course there is. But you can't equate interpreting data in science to intepreting scripture.

True, but that I did not.

Religion starts with a text, and then interprets the meanings of words and passages to suit the view of the interpreter.

Mostly true...

On the other hand, science starts with an observation, procedes to a formulation of a hypothesis, then tests via experiment in order to prove (by attempting to show it is wrong) the hypothesis. Interpreting data gathered by experiment to see if it fits the hypothesis or not has no relationship to arguing for a particular translation of a word or phrase.

Too true...

If an experimental result is ambiguous - ie, a set of data can be interpreted in different ways - then further testing either by repeating the experiment or through a different one is thus required.

Ok...

But in relation to evolution there is no other explanation that can interpret the vast amount of data from different fields of science. There is no other theory that explains the data. It follows then, that in the absence of other theories, there is no other interpretation possible.

Not that you're aware of no...

Rambo123UK

#23

[-]

Posts: 618

11/20/08 14:34:21

Of course there is. But you can't equate interpreting data in science to intepreting scripture.

True, but that I did not.

Of course you did. You said that different understandings of evolution were like different sects' interpretations of scripture. Which is utter bullshit.

Not that you're aware of no...

If you are referring too creationism or so-called "intelligent design" these are neither theories or explanations of what we observe.

The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning.
-- Voltaire

BIBLE BABBLE

Matthew Ellard.pedg

#24

[-]

Posts: 551

11/20/08 14:39:01

Bowofhak wrote:
That's right. That is why I suggested that you read books on the matter and why I listed some of the fields of study that form the framework of the th eory. It is your choice if you wish to read them or not.
I've read and studied a good deal of them already...
I do not think you have otherwise you would not have queried if I thought the petri dish -experiment was evidence of the theory of evolution. Please not that all the fundamentalists who come to this site claim to have read detailed books on evolution...but have not.

Really? So the stories passed down by Abraham for many generations in the Akkadian language do not matter and Islamic scholars should not bother to interpret the meaning of Abraham the prophet's words in his own language? I doubt scholars would agree with you on that. I guess the Quran must only be for Arabic speakers and thus not for the whole world.

What did Abraham claim his source of these stories to be?
There is no real person called Abraham and thus he can not claim anything. The stories come from the tales of Gilgamesh. Please educate yourself further by comparing the dates of the flood myths from Gilgamesh and the spread of the stories by "Abraham" to the middle east. You will need to read about the religions surrounding Ur and Sumer. You will see where the original stories came from.

Under the assumption that the Quran deems a high standard of living good, this may have made sense.

Why do you assume the Quran deems a higher standard of living good? Don't you mean buddhism?

That's right. I only try to know about evidence based science and history. I'm not an islamic religious scholar. Is it a "problem" not knowing the myths about "adam & eve" and "the flood" and "the creation"? How so?
In that case, don't debate on what you do not understand. They call this ignorance.
No I study anthropological pre history. Islam is a recent last version of the Abrahamic religions. I study the evidence on the origins of religion. It would be pointless studying Islam from 400AD when I'm studying Abraham from 1800BC. You need to get your self a big wall planner and write down the dates for various religions. It must be very hard for you to study history from before 400AD if you have to use an islamic scholar's point of view. In fact it is pointless.

Very funny...I can only guess you are confused because you are religious and therefore do not have to have a logical and systematic mind....but I do enjoy that you are still clinging to the modern english word "day" when considering a bronze age Akkadian myth that you believe in ( Although you seem uninterested in finding the Akkadian meaning of the word that would elucidate your religion to you). I guess you are not really concerned with Abraham's intent in his words.
You don't understand it was you using the English word day whilst I refuted that do you?
No I showed how it was pointless for you to use a modern english word to describe the meaning of the Quran that uses another translation of an Akkadian word. I do not know why you are disinterested in the history of your Quran and its interpretation.

Also, you're age declarations are all over the place... (bronze age? stone age?)
You will see that I have also used hard dates because the period in time I am discussing crosses bronze and stone age. I thought you knew that.

Exactly, that was the warning from the Quran wasn't it? Don't put up other gods before me. It was about decorations? or are you saying Allah is concerned about other actual Gods? Are the other God's more powerful than Allah? Why is is Allah so frightened? Is this why he never shows himself?
Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are not gods, God is pretty much impartial about what we do.
This is a skeptic web site. The Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Abrahamic gods are all equal mythical characters from history that do not appear on their own and no evidence exists for them. ( Apart from Santa Claus who was a Turkish monk and whose body actually does exist.

Yes...I always check my work against a bronze age book written in another language

You should, seeing that all your criticism were already addressed and dismantled 1000 years ago.
I was not alive 1000 years ago and I doubt you and I would be dating about the english word "day" 1000 years ago. This statement is not correct.

A sperm drop? Allah has sperm? and he plays with it? We have Allah's DNA in our DNA? This must be our next discussion because gene mapping shows the genes we share with apes. How did Allah's sperm and ape DNA get into humans? Someone is not telling the truth.
It's Simple, Allah created both humans and apes out of sperm or "Nuftah".
Then why do humans also have mitochondrial DNA that is shared with all animals including possums, goats, pigs, monkeys, etc? Even stranger why do all humans share the base gene set for sexual reproduction as all sexually reproducing creatures including trees,
( You know the answer to this from your biological studies that you mention earlier?)

Funny, the Christian say the same thing about God, the jews about Yaweh, the Hindus about Shiva, the Zoroastrians about Baal, and so on and so on... Luckily science requires hard evidence....I think I will stick to science thanks.
Islam teaches that all the gods of all the religions are the same. The names applied are just names, distorted as languages have been. This will be a shock for Hindus and Buddhists. Are you aware that Hinduism is older than the Abrahamic religions. How could Shiva the female destroyer be a Quranic god?

So the Quran is the only evidence that Allah is going to send? Then how come the earliest Torah from 1200BC has some of the same stories? Is it not evidence? What about the tales of Gilgamesh from 1000 years before the Quran? Gilgamesh has "adam & eve" and "the flood". Are your saying Allah's book version of these earlier stories is the only authorised compilation edition? Do you think Abraham would approve? Why did Allah bother with Abraham?
Again, where do these other books and Abraham claim their source to be from? See answer above and read a wall map with the timings of religions.

I was using rhetoric, which is a argument technique where you pose a silly question that does not need an answer. Arabic scholars knew the world was round when dumb westerners thouggt it was flat. I was separating "fundamentalists" as flat earthers.
And you don't think that's a little unfair considering the irrelevance? No it is a standard debating technique in oratory that has been used for 2000 years and was taught by Greek and Arabic scholars and adopted by the Romans. They still teach it here at school and use it in debating contests

I agree. Early islamic culture was about education and civilisation when the rest of us were barbaric. I am very supportative of the culture but not fundamental religion.
It has been the habit of man to be grossly un-supportive and intolerant to those that hold different opinions/religion/ideas from them. Atheists only seem to further exhibit this.
Show me one newspaper headline "Fundamentalist Atheist blows up bus" It is Abrahamic people like protestants killing catholics in Ireland, or catholics killing orthodox people in the Crusades or Sunni people killing Shiite people in Iraq, or Jews killing children in Palestine that cause the problem.

I have no questions about the Bible, The Quran or the Torah

Becuase, you're not trying to listen or see anything at all, nor reason rationally.
I am actually waiting for you to present some evidence.

I wonder what an "hour" was in bronze age Medina...
In the English, Arabic or Akkadian definition? You need to stop contradicting yourself.
I was teasing you about introducing another English time word. I will keep the jokes simple from now on.

Its cool, no religion can control all its members. You will note that many dicussion on this forum are about the fact that many religions have no common belief framework. I understand you are only talking about your beliefs.
Hence why I quote the Quran, it's the most irrefutable framework of Islam there is.
Sunni or Shiite? I guess they never fight ( This is called sarcasm)

One Brow

#25

[-]

Posts: 2085

11/19/08 15:13:11

Bowofhak wrote:
Yes, I see... but I fail to understand how this demonstrates to you how the world's species evolved from creatures entirely dissimilar.

They didn't. Pretty much all life in the world is actually very similar in many aspects. Otherwise, viruses would not be able to invade out bodies, for example. The differences that do exist are very understandable, based upon small differences that grow over time.

Bowofhak wrote:
Perhaps you can use a random stroke generator to put an extra touch of paint and compliment a master piece, but that doesn't demonstrate that the entire masterpiece was generated by it...

A "masterpiece" should indicate brilliant design and clarity of purpose. Life indicates no design, much jury-rigging, and no purpose.

Bowofhak wrote:
And you're an atheist that can't comprehend eternity, so I'm not particularly worried either.

I'd wager 75% of the atheist posters on here understand eternity better than you.

With formal systems, such as mathematics, you can have certainty and demonstrability, but not reality.
With science, such as physics, you can have reality and demonstrability, but not certainty.
With belief systems, such as Christianity, you can have reality and certainty, but not demonstrability.
--HRG, on CARM (paraphrased with his approval)

"Come now, and let us reason together"
http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/

Last Edited By: One Brow 11/19/08 15:15:54. Edited 1 time.

Bowofhak

#26

[-]

Posts: 60

11/20/08 00:10:39

They didn't. Pretty much all life in the world is actually very similar in many aspects. Otherwise, viruses would not be able to invade out bodies, for example. The differences that do exist are very understandable, based upon small differences that grow over time.

Well to address the word similar is a debate on it's own, the fact remains that we have similarities with even such relatively far-end phylogenies as the fungi yeast. However, what I address is not just genetic dissimilarities, but the physical ones too such as those that remain with us and what the theoretical primordial soup would have, to be extreme.

A "masterpiece" should indicate brilliant design and clarity of purpose. Life indicates no design, much jury-rigging, and no purpose.

Well, this is an argument based on opinion, is it not? Some have considered a specific work of art as a masterpiece that I have personally perceived as the work of an over excited 3 year old. The matter is what we reference when we use these words, what I consider masterful in us is firstly the apparent symmetry of our own bodies coupled with almost invisible interior asymmetry, which is a thing consistent with created and designed concepts (e.g. vehicles etc), also our senses and abilities to process and convey them, the dexterity of our hands, the magnificence of the human eye's field of vision and symmetrical interoperability, the nano (if I may refer to it as so) defense system that recognises and protects our body from foreign invaders and so much more. I could go on forever speaking about our different functions from a somewhat mechanical level to microscopic intricacy. Not to say however that these functions can not be explained by evolution, they most certainly are "explained", but the point here is to exemplify exactly how much our bodies are befitting of the term "masterpiece".

Certainly if you or I were to create such wondrous things, it would be called so if not referred to with words of greater reverence.

I'd wager 75% of the atheist posters on here understand eternity better than you.

Certainly 75% of the atheists on here conform with the interpretation of eternity that you find personally likely, but whether it conform to the actual logic of it all is a question that would likely take an eternity to determine.

Last Edited By: Bowofhak 11/20/08 06:39:19. Edited 1 time.

One Brow

#27

[-]

Posts: 2086

11/20/08 07:46:30

Bowofhak wrote:
Well to address the word similar is a debate on it's own,

Debates about the definitions of words are boring.

Bowofhak wrote:
the fact remains that we have similarities with even such relatively far-end phylogenies as the fungi yeast. However, what I address is not just genetic dissimilarities, but the physical ones too such as those that remain with us and what the theoretical primordial soup would have, to be extreme.

After 4 billion years, you should expect some "extreme" differences.

Bowofhak wrote:
One Brow: A "masterpiece" should indicate brilliant design and clarity of purpose. Life indicates no design, much jury-rigging, and no purpose.
Well, this is an argument based on opinion, is it not? Some have considered a specific work of art as a masterpiece that I have personally perceived as the work of an over excited 3 year old.

Art contains no evidence of jury-rigging, and the human body does. The evidence of jury-rigging is not an opinion.

Bowofhak wrote:
The matter is what we reference when we use these words, what I consider masterful in us is firstly the apparent symmetry of our own bodies coupled with almost invisible interior asymmetry, which is a thing consistent with created and designed concepts (e.g. vehicles etc),

So, because many designs imitate aspects of nature, you impute design into nature. You have reversed the process.

Bowofhak wrote:
also our senses and abilities to process and convey them, the dexterity of our hands, the magnificence of the human eye's field of vision and symmetrical interoperability,

The reversed retinas, decreasing visual acutiy and creating a blind spot, and the concentration of cones in the center, limiting peripheral vision in the daytime as opposed to the night, ...

Bowofhak wrote:
the nano (if I may refer to it as so) defense system that recognises and protects our body from foreign invaders and so much more.

It even attacks the body's own tissues from time to time, as well a occasionally defending us from peanuts.

Bowofhak wrote:
I could go on forever speaking about our different functions from a somewhat mechanical level to microscopic intricacy.

Intracacy is not a hallmark of design. If anything, simpler things are more likely to bve designed than intricate things.

Bowofhak wrote:
Not to say however that these functions can not be explained by evolution, they most certainly are "explained", but the point here is to exemplify exactly how much our bodies are befitting of the term "masterpiece".

Almost none of it.

Bowofhak wrote:
Certainly if you or I were to create such wondrous things, it would be called so if not referred to with words of greater reverence.

If I designed a female body where the baby passes through a narrow pelvis, as opposed to the abdomen, the word would be "moronic".

Bowofhak wrote:
Certainly 75% of the atheists on here conform with the interpretation of eternity that you find personally likely, but whether it conform to the actual logic of it all is a question that would likely take an eternity to determine.

Not nearly that long, I should think. Of course, I have not had a religious nut try to educate me in the logic of a position in a long time. That's always good for a laugh, feel free to try.

Bowofhak

#28

[-]

Posts: 65

11/20/08 12:32:02

Debates about the definitions of words are boring.

Debates in general are often boring for me.

After 4 billion years, you should expect some "extreme" differences.

"Extreme" differences are exactly my point.

Art contains no evidence of jury-rigging, and the human body does. The evidence of jury-rigging is not an opinion.

Jury-rigging in itself has been debated in terms of the positioning of genes and vestigial organs.

IMHO all these concepts appear to me as haphazard guesses with a weak foundation as it seems to depend on the lack of knowledge of our bodies instead of strict observational data. This, however, is acceptable in some instances in the same way it would be natural for ancient humans to be ignorant of a spherical earth. (It would actually be unscientific to assume the earth was round.)

So, because many designs imitate aspects of nature, you impute design into nature. You have reversed the process.

Well... no... I doubt they design cars with exterior symmetry to imitate nature. I thought it would be due to the overbearing aspects of an asymmetrical one.
Nevertheless, I do believe there are "explanations" in science for our evolutionary symmetry.

The reversed retinas, decreasing visual acutiy and creating a blind spot, and the concentration of cones in the center, limiting peripheral vision in the daytime as opposed to the night, ...

Isn't the blind spot caused by the optic nerve passing through the optic disc? Would you prefer rod cells in the center, which due to their convergence can't distinguish colour and have far less resolution? Do we not rely more upon foveal vision in the day and not peripheral?

It even attacks the body's own tissues from time to time, as well a occasionally defending us from peanuts.

You're not going to start criticising not being immortal now are you? I've heard that argument before and it started similar to what you just said.

Intracacy is not a hallmark of design. If anything, simpler things are more likely to bve designed than intricate things.

In yours and many other like-minded people's opinion of course.

Almost none of it.

Again, opinions will get us nowhere.

If I designed a female body where the baby passes through a narrow pelvis, as opposed to the abdomen, the word would be "moronic".

Whereas if you designed a female body which possessed none of the painstaking complications of pregnancy, then motherly love would barely exist.
We'd probably also have a extra few billion in world-population too (be they rather disturbed individuals nevertheless)...

Not nearly that long, I should think. Of course, I have not had a religious nut try to educate me in the logic of a position in a long time. That's always good for a laugh, feel free to try.

What you missed (understandably) is the fact that to truly and completely know you understand something you must first observe it. Hence the period of time I previously proposed to do so.

Last Edited By: Bowofhak 11/20/08 12:40:23. Edited 1 time.

One Brow

#29

[-]

Posts: 2089

11/21/08 07:22:03

Bowofhak wrote:
"Extreme" differences are exactly my point.

Chess, shogi, and xianqi are separated by only a few hundred years, and look how different they are. French and Spanish are both descended from Latin, were never even completely separated, and are now very different. Replace a few hundred with a few billion, and the differences get extreme.

Bowofhak wrote:
Well... no... I doubt they design cars with exterior symmetry to imitate nature. I thought it would be due to the overbearing aspects of an asymmetrical one.

Asymmetry is unattractive to us for because humans love natural symmetry.

Bowofhak wrote:
Isn't the blind spot caused by the optic nerve passing through the optic disc?

Exactly. Many invertebrates have the optic nerves behind the optic disk to begin with. Our retinas are reversed.

Bowofhak wrote:
Would you prefer rod cells in the center, which due to their convergence can't distinguish colour and have far less resolution?

We do have rod cells in the center of our retinas already. We just don't have cones on the peripherals. There is no reason not to have both on the peripherals, just like we have both in the center.

Bowofhak wrote:
You're not going to start criticising not being immortal now are you? I've heard that argument before and it started similar to what you just said.

I think allergies/autoimmune diseases and immortaily are separate subjects. You could certainly a better-designed mortal body.

Bowofhak wrote:
In yours and many other like-minded people's opinion of course.

Look at Mt. Rushmore versus the Man in the Mountain. The first looks designed becasue the faces are smooth.

Bowofhak wrote:
Whereas if you designed a female body which possessed none of the painstaking complications of pregnancy, then motherly love would barely exist.

Mothers don't need a painful childbirth to love their children. No other mammal has a childbirth as painful and deadly as humans.

Bowofhak wrote:
What you missed (understandably) is the fact that to truly and completely know you understand something you must first observe it. Hence the period of time I previously proposed to do so.

That point I will happily concede. It is indeed one thing to discuss the logic of eternity, another to experience it, and we both are ignorant of the latter.

Matthew Ellard.pedg

Is life a masterpiece?

#30

[-]

Posts: 554

11/20/08 22:33:47

Bowofhak wrote:

A "masterpiece" should indicate brilliant design and clarity of purpose. Life indicates no design, much jury-rigging, and no purpose.
Well, this is an argument based on opinion, is it not? Some have considered a specific work of art as a masterpiece that I have personally perceived as the work of an over excited 3 year old. The matter is what we reference when we use these words,

What I consider masterful in us is firstly the apparent symmetry of our own bodies coupled with almost invisible interior asymmetry, which is a thing consistent with created and designed concepts (e.g. vehicles etc),
Trees, bacteria, and many other evolved DNA lifeforms are not symmetrical.

also our senses and abilities to process and convey them, the dexterity of our hands, the magnificence of the human eye's field of vision and symmetrical interoperability,
We get cancer from mutation as a side effect of evolution. I had my appendix removed because is is a legacy organ from our evolutionary past. If you reach around your back you can feel your coccyx with is the legacy of our tails which we break every now and then......we are not perfect masterpieces.

Not to say however that these functions can not be explained by evolution, they most certainly are "explained", but the point here is to exemplify exactly how much our bodies are befitting of the term "masterpiece".
90% of our DNA is redundant rubbish that doesnt do anything. I would not call that a masterpiece

Certainly if you or I were to create such wondrous things, it would be called so if not referred to with words of greater reverence.
We do we call them "homo sapiens"

Malkut

#31

[-]

Posts: 7107

11/16/08 19:29:09

Bowofhak wrote:
One of you (I'm not sure who) mentioned that a day is defined as a revolution of the earth, yet how could the revolution define a day (in reference) if the earth had not been created yet?

86,400 seconds.

Religion encysts past mythologies: guesses, hidden assumptions of trust in the universe, pronouncements made in search of personal power, all mingled with shreds of enlightenment. And always an unspoken commandment: Thou shalt not question! We break that commandment daily in the harnessing of human imagination to our deepest creativity.

-Chapterhouse: Dune

***NOTE: All references to any God, gods, or other metaphysical concepts are hypothetical in nature and do not imply belief in said deities unless specifically indicated. These statements do not represent the opinion of the poster, his family, friends, other posters, EZboard, or the dark satanic masters that possess him and are secretly pulling his strings. All information copyright 2008 Big Faceless Corp.

Malkut

This post is the absolute truth.

#32

[-]

Posts: 7109

11/19/08 17:13:36

Bowofhak wrote:
My personal opinion of evolution is as follows, it is an undoubtable and undeniable fact of life, however scientists are often over-enthusiastic and exaggerate it's powers IMHO. The problem with evolution is its terms, whilst micro and macro-evolution are observable phenomenon, the theory of evolution as the origin of species is little more than myth in my eyes.

"I believe that the power of gravity is exaggerated. If you roll a pebble down a hill, than gravity is strong enough to hold it to the earth, but I believe if you roll a bolder down a hill, then gravity will not be strong enough, and the bolder will float away."

^
THAT'S YOU. THAT'S WHAT YOU ALL SOUND LIKE TO ME.

Bowofhak

#33

[-]

Posts: 61

11/20/08 00:21:15

Malkut wrote:

Bowofhak wrote:
My personal opinion of evolution is as follows, it is an undoubtable and undeniable fact of life, however scientists are often over-enthusiastic and exaggerate it's powers IMHO. The problem with evolution is its terms, whilst micro and macro-evolution are observable phenomenon, the theory of evolution as the origin of species is little more than myth in my eyes.

"I believe that the power of gravity is exaggerated. If you roll a pebble down a hill, than gravity is strong enough to hold it to the earth, but I believe if you roll a bolder down a hill, then gravity will not be strong enough, and the bolder will float away."

^
THAT'S YOU. THAT'S WHAT YOU ALL SOUND LIKE TO ME.

"lolz evlushuns made us with dah munkies lolz like darwin said dont you know lolz we are transtionals lol the fossil gaps dont matter evidence doesnt matter it did happen talkorigins.com tells us"

That's what you sound like to a lot of people I know, I wouldn't bother explain the plausibility of evolution to others because in essence it doesn't matter.
The point is, we don't care what we sound like to you and you don't care what you sound like to us.

One Brow

#34

[-]

Posts: 2087

11/20/08 08:00:11

Bowofhak wrote:
"lolz evlushuns made us with dah munkies

No, evolution does not teach that we came from monkies.

Bowofhak wrote:
lolz like darwin said dont you know

Darwin was a brilliant scientist, but no scientist relies on what Darwin said today.

Bowofhak wrote:
lolz we are transtionals

True, in a sense.

Bowofhak wrote:
lol the fossil gaps dont matter

Fossils are only one line of evidence, and there are only very small "gaps" that remain.

Bowofhak wrote:
evidence doesnt matter it did happen

The evidence matters, and the evidence says it did happen.

Bowofhak wrote:
talkorigins.com tells us

Well, I can see where you would have trouble with a site on science run by real scientists.

Bowofhak wrote:
That's what you sound like to a lot of people I know, I wouldn't bother explain the plausibility of evolution to others because in essence it doesn't matter.

I'll be happy to explain the plausibility of evolution to you, until finally your creationist filter overwhelms and shuts down your mind.

Bowofhak wrote:
The point is, we don't care what we sound like to you and you don't care what you sound like to us.

Well, some of us care.

Bowofhak

#35

[-]

Posts: 66

11/20/08 12:36:14

One Brow wrote:

Bowofhak wrote:
"lolz evlushuns made us with dah munkies

No, evolution does not teach that we came from monkies.

Bowofhak wrote:
lolz like darwin said dont you know

Darwin was a brilliant scientist, but no scientist relies on what Darwin said today.

Bowofhak wrote:
lolz we are transtionals

True, in a sense.

Bowofhak wrote:
lol the fossil gaps dont matter

Fossils are only one line of evidence, and there are only very small "gaps" that remain.

Bowofhak wrote:
evidence doesnt matter it did happen

The evidence matters, and the evidence says it did happen.

Bowofhak wrote:
talkorigins.com tells us

Well, I can see where you would have trouble with a site on science run by real scientists.

Why.... did you even reply that?

I'll be happy to explain the plausibility of evolution to you, until finally your creationist filter overwhelms and shuts down your mind.

My mind is shutting down already. Besides, evolutionists are just as guilty of that filter as creationists are.

Well, some of us care.

Some of us do to

Matthew Ellard.pedg

#36

[-]

Posts: 552

11/20/08 14:45:56

Bowofhak wrote: My mind is shutting down already. Besides, evolutionists are just as guilty of that filter as creationists are.

Does this mean that we must present evidence for evolution and you will produce evidence for "god". This way we can actually see whose mind "closes down first" ( Generally all the fundamentalists call it quits from this forum when we start asking to exchange hard-evidence. However I think you are more interesting and will produce evidence for us to discuss)

One Brow

#37

[-]

Posts: 2088

11/21/08 07:08:31

Bowofhak wrote:
One Brow: Well, I can see where you would have trouble with a site on science run by real scientists.
Why.... did you even reply that?

It seemed that you were downplaying talkorigins as a source of information. If I misunderstood, I apologize.

Bowofhak wrote:
One Brow: I'll be happy to explain the plausibility of evolution to you, until finally your creationist filter overwhelms and shuts down your mind.
My mind is shutting down already.

Not something to brag about.

Bowofhak wrote:
Besides, evolutionists are just as guilty of that filter as creationists are.

I would agree that some people just need to have an authoritative source, and have science/evolution as the source instead of an ancient book. I agree these people are generally no more reasonable than religious people.

However, this is a skeptic board, not an evolution board. For many of us, it is a matter of pride to listen to evidence and evaluate its reliability. We don't filter out very much.

Yuku free message boards

Ibn Baz controversy

Replies

Quran vs Evolution	11/01/08 06:34:13	bardock
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/01/08 08:29:48	Argy Lacedom
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/01/08 15:40:49	Malkut
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/01/08 15:59:16	fiction
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/01/08 23:40:11	bardock
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/02/08 07:18:47	Malkut
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/02/08 14:06:16	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/02/08 19:11:02	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/03/08 16:58:28	bardock
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/03/08 17:56:19	Malkut
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/03/08 19:38:14	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/06/08 21:13:55	Chemy
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/09/08 13:42:54	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/09/08 18:41:00	Malkut
Orsen Wells / Citizen Kane / the scene of his wife at the Opera.	11/09/08 22:26:26	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/09/08 22:33:45	Argy Lacedom
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/03/08 17:02:00	bardock
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/04/08 14:51:42	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/15/08 10:01:47	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/16/08 14:10:11	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/17/08 11:22:20	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/17/08 14:03:48	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/17/08 15:05:15	Argy Lacedom
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/17/08 20:31:49	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/18/08 00:10:56	Argy Lacedom
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/18/08 09:26:44	Bowofhak
Quran / Fundamentalism / Bowofhak	11/18/08 16:20:56	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/18/08 21:43:34	Rambo123UK
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/18/08 22:00:06	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/18/08 22:46:24	Rambo123UK
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/18/08 22:59:21	Bowofhak
Evolution Courses	11/19/08 03:46:28	Argy Lacedom
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/19/08 10:10:48	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/19/08 10:45:04	Rambo123UK
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/19/08 15:12:21	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/19/08 23:34:11	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/20/08 02:55:35	Rambo123UK
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/20/08 05:02:09	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/20/08 06:59:35	Rambo123UK
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/20/08 10:53:11	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/20/08 14:34:21	Rambo123UK
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/20/08 14:39:01	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/19/08 15:13:11	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/20/08 00:10:39	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/20/08 07:46:30	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/20/08 12:32:02	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/21/08 07:22:03	One Brow
Is life a masterpiece?	11/20/08 22:33:47	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/16/08 19:29:09	Malkut
This post is the absolute truth.	11/19/08 17:13:36	Malkut
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/20/08 00:21:15	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/20/08 08:00:11	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/20/08 12:36:14	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/20/08 14:45:56	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/21/08 07:08:31	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/22/08 13:40:57	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/23/08 08:25:59	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/05/08 09:45:22	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/07/08 09:52:42	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/23/08 15:19:37	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Very very sad...	11/28/08 03:42:50	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/28/08 07:27:41	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/05/08 09:27:14	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/07/08 09:57:51	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	11/30/08 15:28:03	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Ill, take a crack at this	12/01/08 09:51:40	Chemy
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/01/08 14:07:35	Argy Lacedom
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/04/08 01:35:47	Bowofhak
How do you test?	12/04/08 13:11:46	Argy Lacedom
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/04/08 15:48:33	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/05/08 10:36:07	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/07/08 15:22:01	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/13/08 05:33:40	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/14/08 19:00:10	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/16/08 09:49:19	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/16/08 14:16:22	Argy Lacedom
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/18/08 04:36:35	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/18/08 05:27:23	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/19/08 05:34:08	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/20/08 16:10:01	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/20/08 16:26:55	Argy Lacedom
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/22/08 02:01:00	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/22/08 08:35:34	One Brow
Hadn't noticed this thread had moved... (Not including Mathew's tripe)	03/23/09 06:23:53	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	03/24/09 04:20:23	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	03/24/09 13:23:17	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	03/24/09 13:24:03	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	03/25/09 17:54:55	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	03/27/09 04:38:08	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	03/29/09 06:11:06	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	03/29/09 13:28:07	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	03/30/09 04:15:22	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	03/30/09 06:32:17	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	03/30/09 08:35:48	wickle
Re: Quran vs Evolution	03/30/09 11:53:24	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	03/30/09 12:23:36	wickle
Re: Quran vs Evolution	03/30/09 23:15:03	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	03/31/09 04:26:26	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/01/09 09:42:05	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/01/09 18:08:08	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/02/09 02:13:09	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/02/09 04:21:20	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/02/09 10:03:43	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/02/09 11:15:51	wickle
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/02/09 11:31:30	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/02/09 12:37:13	wickle
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/03/09 02:54:21	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/03/09 15:11:03	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/03/09 19:53:34	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/04/09 04:20:25	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/04/09 05:14:24	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/05/09 07:14:31	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/05/09 08:37:08	wickle
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/07/09 06:01:18	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/07/09 06:00:45	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/07/09 10:14:50	Argy Lacedom
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/08/09 00:14:35	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/08/09 00:42:41	Argy Lacedom
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/08/09 02:03:43	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/07/09 11:20:12	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/08/09 00:18:59	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/07/09 11:34:55	jeff
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/08/09 00:10:06	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/08/09 14:35:49	jeff
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/08/09 17:21:05	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/08/09 17:47:48	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/09/09 02:09:29	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/09/09 04:06:53	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/09/09 04:29:58	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/09/09 05:12:39	jeff
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/09/09 13:07:00	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/10/09 03:46:04	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/10/09 10:23:52	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/11/09 06:46:57	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/11/09 10:39:41	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/12/09 04:42:54	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/12/09 10:24:31	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/12/09 14:29:59	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/13/09 03:24:19	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/13/09 04:51:46	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/13/09 06:26:35	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/13/09 07:39:02	wickle
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/13/09 08:44:11	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/13/09 08:59:46	wickle
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/13/09 11:43:51	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/19/09 06:22:04	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/21/09 13:51:03	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/22/09 04:21:54	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/23/09 06:02:22	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/25/09 04:37:08	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/25/09 12:31:13	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/26/09 06:16:11	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/26/09 11:35:58	Bowofhak
Win?	04/27/09 16:59:10	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/29/09 16:49:12	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/30/09 04:01:02	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/30/09 14:50:12	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/30/09 23:32:11	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/01/09 19:36:06	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/02/09 02:59:01	Jenth101
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/02/09 15:29:17	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/02/09 17:24:57	Jenth101
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/02/09 18:51:07	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/03/09 05:43:15	Jenth101
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/03/09 12:30:39	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/03/09 14:23:52	Jenth101
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/03/09 20:34:31	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/03/09 20:51:09	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/04/09 21:59:46	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/04/09 17:40:18	Jenth101
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/04/09 23:41:43	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/05/09 16:27:01	Jenth101
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/05/09 22:27:56	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/06/09 15:33:17	Jenth101
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/07/09 00:16:33	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/07/09 16:29:16	Jenth101
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/07/09 23:59:12	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/08/09 18:06:49	Jenth101
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/08/09 19:38:58	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/10/09 04:22:40	Jenth101
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/10/09 15:27:59	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/11/09 03:51:27	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/11/09 15:23:17	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/24/09 07:22:38	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/24/09 07:53:53	Jenth101
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/29/09 01:47:22	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/29/09 05:57:58	wickle
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/06/09 19:58:31	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/07/09 00:31:09	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/07/09 16:56:30	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/08/09 00:39:40	Bowofhak
Allah lets you smoke yourself to death.... but don't eat Pork	05/03/09 16:43:15	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/03/09 19:26:38	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/03/09 16:31:28	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/03/09 19:52:59	Bowofhak
Quaran has a "use by date" / Agreed!	05/03/09 21:21:09	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/04/09 22:29:42	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/03/09 16:16:25	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/03/09 20:00:45	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/03/09 21:12:23	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/04/09 22:24:41	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/04/09 23:41:51	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/05/09 00:50:59	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/01/09 03:53:31	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/01/09 19:50:13	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/02/09 04:22:43	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/02/09 14:57:26	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/03/09 05:36:31	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/03/09 11:43:08	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/04/09 05:47:00	wickle
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/18/08 14:01:12	Argy Lacedom
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/18/08 19:07:59	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/18/08 20:45:10	Argy Lacedom
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/19/08 05:49:06	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/18/08 04:29:56	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/18/08 19:56:53	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/22/08 01:28:07	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	12/23/08 18:11:26	Matthew Ellard.pedg
Re: Quran vs Evolution	03/04/09 18:03:24	logicalmuslim
Re: Quran vs Evolution	03/05/09 02:34:08	Rambo123UK
Re: Quran vs Evolution	03/05/09 14:59:37	Argy Lacedom
Re: Quran vs Evolution	03/06/09 05:10:53	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	03/06/09 00:41:28	joeblow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	03/06/09 05:08:24	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/03/09 07:02:04	wickle
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/03/09 09:23:07	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/03/09 10:44:12	wickle
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/03/09 11:32:42	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/03/09 11:46:49	wickle
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/03/09 12:00:40	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/03/09 12:10:29	wickle
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/03/09 14:02:04	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/03/09 14:47:59	wickle
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/03/09 18:50:33	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	04/03/09 19:20:54	wickle
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/01/09 06:45:22	wickle
Getting too far to the right up above	05/04/09 17:47:11	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/05/09 00:03:13	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/05/09 04:00:25	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/06/09 13:00:33	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/07/09 03:58:37	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/07/09 07:54:55	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/08/09 04:17:00	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/08/09 18:31:51	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/09/09 04:36:52	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/09/09 22:02:29	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/11/09 04:10:19	One Brow
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/29/09 02:28:01	Bowofhak
Re: Quran vs Evolution	05/29/09 04:51:22	One Brow