[Oogamy]

(Original post by AWZC)
Ffs, I use the term agnostic because it is entirely illogical to insist in no God, I left religion to escape that kind of arrogant determination that one must be correct. We are huuman - we know eff all in relation to the universe, its time we acknowledge it and are happy in the knowledge that it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

I'll clear this up once and for all.

'Agnosticism' refers to the belief that knowledge of God is unknowable. NOTHING ELSE. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

Atheism and theism are mutually exclusive. From a person's stance as an atheist, it can be inferred that they simple choose not to live their lives in accordance with whatever 'knowledge' people claim to possess.

[Melancholy]

(Original post by roots)
Ask Melancholy if its worth getting an answer from me because if you do, youre all going to look very stupid and helpless especially in the eyes of those who read and reread the evolution truth or lie thread plus youll be proving me right

And if they ask me, I'd tell them honestly that I don't think you made a strong case against evolution. Your posts were a hotch-potch of elements: random verses from the Qur'an, some really strange reasoning, barely readable (and considerably long) posts, and most importantly, mere accusations from you that everyone who disagrees wih you is "stupid".

[Llamageddon]

to be fair, there isn't a strong case against evolution. Every last one is based on a misunderstanding or ignorance of the evidence. It's a bit much to expect him to make a good case when all but the people who are also ignorant will disregard it automatically.
The funniest bit was him commenting on our education, though. Yes, his is clearly great. I'm sure he's a right little bioinformatics, genomics and molecular evolution star!
The thing that most irks me here is the attempt to divide this on religious grounds. Newsflash: most religious scientists think you're nuts too!

[roots]

And if they ask me, I'd tell them honestly that I don't think you made a strong case against evolution.

If i were to respond, id direct them here and let them decide after reading 18 pages and witnessing the idiocy of evolutionists

Shall i insert here..................what you called spam and explain your deceit

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...698843&page=19

Your posts were a hotch-potch of elements:

Yes, the hotch potch got you "spooked"

random verses from the Qur'an,

Why is it that when i post something which strikes you, you react by suppressing so noone else reads it.

some really strange reasoning,

To an evolutionist everything is strange, even if what they follow is the most hilarious deception followed by man, and you try to criticise the Christian community

barely readable (and considerably long) posts,

Aaa yes, 99 problems

Theyre readable alright if you READ and stop talking about graphology

and most importantly, mere accusations from you that everyone who disagrees wih you is "stupid".


Being stupid, but its up to you to decide

I think its more than mere accusations which if you read the thread youll agree

PS, How long before you shut this one down too

[Cities]

(Original post by roots)
And if they ask me, I'd tell them honestly that I don't think you made a strong case against evolution.

If i were to respond, id direct them here and let them decide after reading 18 pages and witnessing the idiocy of evolutionists

Shall i insert here..................what you called spam and explain your deceit

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...698843&page=19

Your posts were a hotch-potch of elements:

Yes, the hotch potch got you "spooked"

random verses from the Qur'an,

Why is it that when i post something which strikes you, you react by suppressing so noone else reads it.

some really strange reasoning,

To an evolutionist everything is strange, even if what they follow is the most hilarious deception followed by man, and you try to criticise the Christian community

barely readable (and considerably long) posts,

Aaa yes, 99 problems

Theyre readable alright if you READ and stop talking about graphology

and most importantly, mere accusations from you that everyone who disagrees wih you is "stupid".


Being stupid, but its up to you to decide

I think its more than mere accusations which if you read the thread youll agree

Let's take a different approach with you o troublesome one.

If you don't mind, and if you've got the time, could you list the main reasons why you don't believe in evolution? Now remember, if you don't believe in evolution exclusively because you think the Qur'an is wholly correct, then this is not the place to discuss your thoughts, because your rudimentary belief system is diametrically opposed to that of most of the people contributing to this thread. If you only think evolution is false because the Qur'an is true, then this is not the thread for you, because we are discussing evolution and not the validity of the Qur'an.

So I think if you want to contribute to this thread, you're going to have to give reasons for not accepting evolution which are devoid of any Qur'anic citations. Also try and be as logical as you can, because I think people would unanimously say that your logic can be extremely difficult to follow.

So go on, list [logically] your reasons for not accepting evolution.

[Schott]

To those who for whatever believe evolution did not occur, what does this mean? As far as I could see it there are only two options:

a)Dinosaurs did not exist because humans were made within days of animals.

or

b) Dinosaurs and humans walked together at the same time. To put this in perspective that means a T-rex could be chasing Adam and Eve around the Garden of Eden or equivilent in other religions.

There is quite literally not a third option. If humans were created long after Dinosaurs, why then did they not evolve? I have yet to see a religious text that states that humans were made millions of years after animals. Then again, even if a text does say this, it isn't exactly reliable historical evidence anyway.

So, which is it?

[roots]

(Original post by tony_ron)
To those who for whatever believe evolution did not occur, what does this mean? As far as I could see it there are only two options:

a)Dinosaurs did not exist because humans were made within days of animals.

or

b) Dinosaurs and humans walked together at the same time. To put this in perspective that means a T-rex could be chasing Adam and Eve around the Garden of Eden or equivilent in other religions.

There is quite literally not a third option. If humans were created long after Dinosaurs, why then did they not evolve? I have yet to see a religious text that states that humans were made millions of years after animals. Then again, even if a text does say this, it isn't exactly reliable historical evidence anyway.

So, which is it?

Ill get to this in a moment - i already did this in a previous post

[Cities]

(Original post by tony_ron)
To those who for whatever believe evolution did not occur, what does this mean? As far as I could see it there are only two options:

a)Dinosaurs did not exist because humans were made within days of animals.

or

b) Dinosaurs and humans walked together at the same time. To put this in perspective that means a T-rex could be chasing Adam and Eve around the Garden of Eden or equivilent in other religions.

So, which is it?

Actually, while I definitely do not approve of this straining of interpretation, the "days" referred to in the seven days of creation don't apparently refer to Earth days, because there isn't any reference to the days relating toEarth. If you interpret it in a certain way, the "days" can actually refer to "ages" which can be of any length the interpreter pleases. It's quite annoying that people think they have the permission and credibility to strain the interpretations of the Bible to fit science, but unfortunately it happens, and a lot of religious scientists also subscribe to this interpretation.

[Schott]

Ok so if ne believes they were periods of time, and the interpretation of days does not have to be literal, why then can humans not have evolved? I don't understand why there is such a necessity that a fairy tale power had to plonk them straight into existence. Evolution is merely genetic variation and it's implications. We know genetic varition occurs because, for example, we have different hair. Why then can humans not have evolved?

[Schott]

As for the comment about the length of days, here an understanding of the original language is needed. Whereas in the Bible as a whole the word days SOMETIMES refers to periods of time, in GENESIS the word days in almost all other instances refers quite obviously to the 24 hour cycle. Scholars have studied this intensively and statistically. Therefore it's highly unlikely they meant periods of time with respect to this, unless they randomly chose it to mean periods of time whereas in all other instances in this section of the bible it literally means a day.

[Darkened Angel]

(Original post by tony_ron)
Ok so if ne believes they were periods of time, and the interpretation of days does not have to be literal, why then can humans not have evolved? I don't understand why there is such a necessity that a fairy tale power had to plonk them straight into existence. Evolution is merely genetic variation and it's implications. We know genetic varition occurs because, for example, we have different hair. Why then can humans not have evolved?

Because God said so

[Cities]

(Original post by tony_ron)
Ok so if ne believes they were periods of time, and the interpretation of days does not have to be literal, why then can humans not have evolved? I don't understand why there is such a necessity that a fairy tale power had to plonk them straight into existence. Evolution is merely genetic variation and it's implications. We know genetic varition occurs because, for example, we have different hair. Why then can humans not have evolved?

To be honest, that's actually the view that many evolutionary theists take, I was only trying to find a solution to your question, without referring it back to the evolution debate. So essentially you're right - it does allow the possibility of evolution. I read that this "solution", to some extent, conflates creationism and evolution, in that God "created" the fundamental particles, but the evolution explains how the human species came about.

[SillyFencer]

Wow... evolution is a small enough topic that it only needs one thread?

[roots]

Let's take a different approach with you o troublesome one.

If you must

If you don't mind, and if you've got the time, could you list the main reasons why you don't believe in evolution?

Havent you been following the recent threads, its all very clearly stated - print it out and give it to your evo buddies on here and the list will be quite long

Now remember, if you don't believe in evolution exclusively because you think the Qur'an is wholly correct,

That isnt the only reason, if you read the threads about evolution youll notice i talk about the lies of evolution far more than i do the Quran

Im telling you why evolution is wrong, doesnt mean you have to believe in the Quran, noones forcing you, you just know theirs two choices, once the falsehoods blown up youre wounded, so which side of the coin are you on?

then this is not the place to discuss your thoughts,

Youd love it if i stopped posting about evolution wouldnt you

because your rudimentary belief system is diametrically opposed to that of most of the people contributing to this thread.

Were talking about evolution so lets talk about it, letting belief systems get in the way is a veiled way of saying leave me alone, doesnt come into play when you yourselves spread your lies

If you only think evolution is false because the Qur'an is true,

I think you should re read what i post and then tell me if that is the single point ive been making for 18 pages in that thread and in others, if you can do that you must be seeing something diametrically opposed to what 6 billion other people would see when reading something, if thats the case - i recommend well you know

then this is not the thread for you, because we are discussing evolution and not the validity of the Qur'an.

Where in this thread is the validity of the Quran discussed in depth

So I think if you want to contribute to this thread,

Do you really think im going to back down?

you're going to have to give reasons for not accepting evolution which are devoid of any Qur'anic citations.

You know that this is exactly what ive been doing for the past 6 or 7 weeks, ive been taking all your ideas and conjecture and taking it to bits

Also try and be as logical as you can, because I think people would unanimously say that your logic can be extremely difficult to follow.

And i showed you how you dont think, anyone who isnt a blind evolutionist will see that the logical posts are coming from my end of the court, its your logic which has been shown up, mine you dont want to think about.

So go on, list [logically] your reasons for not accepting evolution.


Ive given hundreds probably more in the last few months but ill go with two evo conundrums now:

Ant

Variance in wind severity

[Cities]

(Original post by tony_ron)
As for the comment about the length of days, here an understanding of the original language is needed. Whereas in the Bible as a whole the word days SOMETIMES refers to periods of time, in GENESIS the word days in almost all other instances refers quite obviously to the 24 hour cycle. Scholars have studied this intensively and statistically. Therefore it's highly unlikely they meant periods of time with respect to this, unless they randomly chose it to mean periods of time whereas in all other instances in this section of the bible it literally means a day.

Oh I definitely agree with this - I think it's quite evident that most of the usage of the word 'day' would allude to the Earth day, and since there wasn't any qualification with regards to the 'day' referred to in creation, it's highly unlikely that it referred to a completely disparate concept.

However, that's the prerogative religion has. You can strain interpretations as much as you want, and if it somehow happens to make "sense", then it is asserted that there is a possible explanation for the religion and so it maintains credibility. Science is the exact opposite and is subject to a lot more rigour - you can strain interpretations as much as you want and if one aspect doesn't make sense, then the theory is discarded and it must be modified. So if you somehow manage to find one thing right in religion, it's maintained, and if you manage to find one thing wrong in science, it's gone. It's a harsh system, but one which inevitably leads to progress in science, and the stagnation of religion.

[roots]

(Original post by SillyFencer)
Wow... evolution is a small enough topic that it only needs one thread?

Ask Melancholy to tell you the truth

[Cities]

(Original post by roots)
Let's take a different approach with you o troublesome one.

If you must

If you don't mind, and if you've got the time, could you list the main reasons why you don't believe in evolution?

Havent you been following the recent threads, its all very clearly stated - print it out and give it to your evo buddies on here and the list will be quite long

Now remember, if you don't believe in evolution exclusively because you think the Qur'an is wholly correct,

That isnt the only reason, if you read the threads about evolution youll notice i talk about the lies of evolution far more than i do the Quran

Im telling you why evolution is wrong, doesnt mean you have to believe in the Quran, noones forcing you, you just know theirs two choices, once the falsehoods blown up youre wounded, so which side of the coin are you on?

then this is not the place to discuss your thoughts,

Youd love it if i stopped posting about evolution wouldnt you

because your rudimentary belief system is diametrically opposed to that of most of the people contributing to this thread.

Were talking about evolution so lets talk about it, letting belief systems get in the way is a veiled way of saying leave me alone, doesnt come into play when you yourselves spread your lies

If you only think evolution is false because the Qur'an is true,

I think you should re read what i post and then tell me if that is the single point ive been making for 18 pages in that thread and in others, if you can do that you must be seeing something diametrically opposed to what 6 billion other people would see when reading something, if thats the case - i recommend well you know

then this is not the thread for you, because we are discussing evolution and not the validity of the Qur'an.

Where in this thread is the validity of the Quran discussed in depth

So I think if you want to contribute to this thread,

Do you really think im going to back down?

you're going to have to give reasons for not accepting evolution which are devoid of any Qur'anic citations.

You know that this is exactly what ive been doing for the past 6 or 7 weeks, ive been taking all your ideas and conjecture and taking it to bits

Also try and be as logical as you can, because I think people would unanimously say that your logic can be extremely difficult to follow.

And i showed you how you dont think, anyone who isnt a blind evolutionist will see that the logical posts are coming from my end of the court, its your logic which has been shown up, mine you dont want to think about.

So go on, list [logically] your reasons for not accepting evolution.


Ive given hundreds probably more in the last few months but ill go with two evo conundrums now:

Ant

Variance in wind severity

Woah not even courtesy works with you

You're a joke.

[roots]

I love the side step, a very predictable trick

That wasnt real courtesy that was you trying to deceive, if you were an honest man you wouldnt have posted that because you already knew the answers youd probably get

[Melancholy]

(Original post by SillyFencer)
Wow... evolution is a small enough topic that it only needs one thread?

(Original post by roots)
Ask Melancholy to tell you the truth

The mods have heard that users are sick of 'evolution' threads appearing everywhere. Not only is evolution primarily a question for scientists (and so should technically rest in the Academic/Science forums), but users tend to post the same threads which clearly come under the same title: "Is evolution true and what implications does it have for religions?" Because posters often neglect to use the search facility to see these duplicate threads, I'm creating a floating 'official' thread as agreed by the mods, and all future threads will be redirected to here.

If you have any complaints, please post in the Ask a Mod thread and your queries will be answered.

[SillyFencer]

(Original post by Melancholy)
The mods have heard that users are sick of 'evolution' threads appearing everywhere. Not only is evolution primarily a question for scientists (and so should technically rest in the Academic/Science forums), but users tend to post the same threads which clearly come under the same title: "Is evolution true and what implications does it have for religions?" Because posters often neglect to use the search facility to see these duplicate threads, I'm creating a floating 'official' thread as agreed by the mods, and all future threads will be redirected to here.

If you have any complaints, please post in the Ask a Mod thread and your queries will be answered.

lol, no complaints, don't be so defensive. It was just a straight up question, which you answered.