Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

A New Islamic Perspective on Evolution... Watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Evangeline07)
    But where are the facts for evolution? Surely you can't actually scientifically test and prove evolution?
    I don't take your query seriously because if you really did want to find out about the facts of evolution, there are plenty of resources on the net to help you.

    So stop being disingenuous.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JavaScriptMaster)
    It all makes sense other than the first point: If Allah created all the cells, who created Allah's cells?
    Nice to know the rest makes sense.
    Your question is referring more to the cosmos than biology. Many scientists who are atheists believe the universe came from nothing (of course there are others like the multiverse). This sounds impossible at first but if time began with the beginning of the universe and the laws of physics follow "time", including "energy cannot be created nor destroyed", then outside the Big Bang there were no laws. So the universe can be created from nothing. I don't believe this by the way.
    So anyways we can apply the same to God. God created the universe. God is outside time. God is in fact, the creator of time and the laws of physics. Hence, God does not need a creator since one definition of God is that he must be eternal (he doesn't have a beginning or end).
    Spoiler:
    Show
    And Allah doesn't have cells.

    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    If only there was verifiable evidence... oh wait there is and it all points to us evolving. Evolution is not a conveyor belt, there is no next in line to be the first anything.
    Like I said. I'm not using the theory as a proof of God.
    (Original post by Flandogz)
    I'd say where we disagree is on whether evolution should be described as theory or fact. I can see what you mean when you say that it is as much a "theory" as gravity, however it is a fact that organisms have changed over time whether it be shown in the fossil record or genetically. I'd argue that evolution is technically a fact since it essentially means organisms have changed over time, however, there is "evolutionary theory" used to describe the "causes" of evolution i.e. Natural selection. Also, I don't take the view that it disproves god but more along the lines that it contradicts many ideas including the idea that "humans are special" and in particular, "do humans have souls if we evolved from bacterium so must they also have souls?".
    But we don't exactly disagree on evolution being a fact. What we do disagree is the belief that evolution was the cause of man. Considering we are the the most intelligent beings to ever live, how does it contradict how humans are special? Oh, and your question on whether bacteria have souls. I don't know about other religions but Islam (as far as I recall) believes that all living things worship Allah, including bacteria. So I guess they must have souls (not too sure though). But having a soul does not require having a conscious, which we bacteria do not have. There's not much I can add I don't think as I haven't seen any details (/haven't done my research).
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Like I said. I'm not using the theory as a proof of God.
    Not only that but you are not providing any evidence for this "theory" itself in spite of the evidence that humans have in fact evolved and aren't somehow an exception to the theory of evolution.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ascend)
    Not only that but you are not providing any evidence for this "theory" itself in spite of the evidence that humans have in fact evolved and aren't somehow an exception to the theory of evolution.
    True I haven't provided any evidence. Considering this video is a year old, I don't think there is any. But then I would be trying to prove that God had caused evolution and hence his existence. I'm just providing an alternative and countering "how evidence of evolution disproves religion".
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    True I haven't provided any evidence. Considering this video is a year old, I don't think there is any. But then I would be trying to prove that God had caused evolution and hence his existence. I'm just providing an alternative and countering "how evidence of evolution disproves religion".
    While it may not "disprove" religion (much like how can't really disprove astrology or homoeopathy) it is very strong scientific evidence against the human creation myth of certain religious beliefs (just as astronomy provides strong evidence against astrology and medical science against homoeopathy).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ascend)
    While it may not "disprove" religion (much like how can't really disprove astrology or homoeopathy) it is very strong scientific evidence against the human creation myth of certain religious beliefs (just as astronomy provides strong evidence against astrology and medical science against homoeopathy).
    Creation myth :facepalm: prove it's a myth
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hussamhussam)
    Creation myth :facepalm: prove it's a myth
    OK, sure.

    myth
    1. A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events

    The Islamic human creation myth, like the previous ones it borrowed from and many others, is:

    - a traditional story
    - especially one concerning the early history of a people
    - explaining a natural phenomenon
    - involving supernatural beings and events

    Therefore it is, by definition, a creation myth.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Nice to know the rest makes sense.
    Your question is referring more to the cosmos than biology. Many scientists who are atheists believe the universe came from nothing (of course there are others like the multiverse).
    Could you please tell me which scientists (who are atheists) genuinely wholeheartedly believe that there was nothing, and then by magic something came?
    Ofc some provide hypothesis like multiverse and oscillating (cyclic) models, but let's ignore them as they aren't the only hypothesis. There are some hypothesis that quantum fluctuations was the cause of something arriving, and theoretically (I stress that word as I'll admit that is only in principle) something can come out nothing according Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - which says you cannot measure energy to a arbitrary precision in a short amount of time (i.e. in very short time, the energy of a system [or emptiness] can incredibly large). Again I'll admit that evidence for this phenomenon is few and far-between, and nothing conclusive. All we have are mathematical proofs that QF and inflation can cause stuff out of nothing. I must stress that mathematical proofs doesn't mean scientific theories, as I'm sure you know. No "atheist scientist" genuinely believes that "something" came magically out of "nothing" (if we take your definition of nothing), they simply provide hypothesis.

    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    This sounds impossible at first but if time began with the beginning of the universe and the laws of physics follow "time", including "energy cannot be created nor destroyed"
    The forward motion of time yes, which is related to many other laws, including the laws of thermodynamics (remember Thermo is purely empirical). Again, I refer to Quantum Fluctuations and Heisenberg's uncertainty. "Nothing" in physics normally means the lowest energy state a system can have (which isn't zero).
    You could think of it this way, the net energy of the universe (system and surrounding) is never going up, and it remains zero. For example, let's say you "created" two bodies of mass. The two bodies of mass have a rest energy (and therefore positive energy), however gravity will make the two bodies be attracted to each. Now gravitational energy is always negative (starts from -infinity to zero), as it is a potential energy. Therefore you could mathematically say that the positive energy (the rest energy/mass of the "created" and the negative energy (GPE) cancel each other out. Therefore you started with zero, and you ended with zero energy... The energy of the whole system did not change, but you had matter!

    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    then outside the Big Bang there were no laws. So the universe can be created from nothing. I don't believe this by the way.
    Quantum Mechanics is incredibly complex to get your head around. My explanation is insanely simplified (because I don't know the complex explanations ). I'm no physicist and have zero days of experience in physics after A-level, but I can say with confidence classical mechanics and empirical-based thermodynamics isn't all there is.

    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    So anyways we can apply the same to God. God created the universe. God is outside time. God is in fact, the creator of time and the laws of physics. Hence, God does not need a creator since one definition of God is that he must be eternal (he doesn't have a beginning or end).
    Special pleading argument, and thus god can be erased easily by employing Occam's razor.

    How did god create the universe? what did he use? Did he also make it out of nothing?
    If god made the universe out of nothing, then surely you agree that this "nothing" had the potential to create something?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    How do you know? We could have god sperm cells and god egg cells and god pluripotent stem cells and god zygotes and you get the idea...
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Like I said. I'm not using the theory as a proof of God.
    Fair enough. I'm not using QF and inflation as proof either. But surely you understand why people reject your "hypothesis"?


    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    But we don't exactly disagree on evolution being a fact. What we do disagree is the belief that evolution was the cause of man.
    Considering there's a myriad of evidence for human evolution, and the evidence pretty much non-existent for Adam and Eve (or Adam and Steve)....

    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Considering we are the the most intelligent beings to ever live, how does it contradict how humans are special? Oh, and your question on whether bacteria have souls. I don't know about other religions but Islam (as far as I recall) believes that all living things worship Allah, including bacteria.
    Do you think animals have the cognitive ability to think about "higher powers"? I don't think fitrah works on animals - never mind humans. How can a bacteria do Salah? how can a cat do Hajj? I'd love to see a giraffe proclaim the Shahadah...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    chemting Lol. You've just shifted the thread topic to the origin of the cosmos. It's fine though. I'll reply later, I've got homework to do now.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Lol. I don't have any evidence. I have proposed my thoughts though in the last post about probability, and also the possibility of them dying out.
    You decline something in the guise of "probability" in favour of a hypothesis with a significantly lower probability of occuring...

    What caused them to die out? How do you explain the fact that we are genetically linked to these humanoids.

    More importantly, how do you explain the fact that the most recent fossil evidence for Homo erectus ( supposed "humanoids" ) was as early 70,000 as and yet the earliest evidence for Homo Sapiens ( supposed "humans" ) was found between 200,000 and 100,000 years. They clearly co-existed together, that suggests that natural selection preferred Homo Sapiens.


    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Humans may have small flaws but we can and do survive without them interfering. Why does God need to make them flawless.
    We could've survive being apes without "interfering"... why did god need to create "humans"?

    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    We're not the ultimate species physically and God's intention was that exactly. I think it makes more sense that He didn't create us with wings, impenetrable skin and the ability to run at light speed.

    We didn't evolve from birds or whale sharks... our environment didn't require us to fly or have thick skin...
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    chemting Lol. You've just shifted the thread topic to the origin of the cosmos. It's fine though. I'll reply later, I've got homework to do now.
    Lol true, sorry about that!

    tbf, you started it by suggesting atheist scientists believed the universe came out of nothing...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I apologize beforehand. You need to teach me how to break up your quotes.
    (Original post by chemting)
    Could you please tell me which scientists (who are atheists) genuinely wholeheartedly believe that there was nothing, and then by magic something came?
    Ofc some provide hypothesis like multiverse and oscillating (cyclic) models, but let's ignore them as they aren't the only hypothesis. There are some hypothesis that quantum fluctuations was the cause of something arriving, and theoretically (I stress that word as I'll admit that is only in principle) something can come out nothing according Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - which says you cannot measure energy to a arbitrary precision in a short amount of time (i.e. in very short time, the energy of a system [or emptiness] can incredibly large). Again I'll admit that evidence for this phenomenon is few and far-between, and nothing conclusive. All we have are mathematical proofs that QF and inflation can cause stuff out of nothing. I must stress that mathematical proofs doesn't mean scientific theories, as I'm sure you know. No "atheist scientist" genuinely believes that "something" came magically out of "nothing" (if we take your definition of nothing), they simply provide hypothesis.



    The forward motion of time yes, which is related to many other laws, including the laws of thermodynamics (remember Thermo is purely empirical). Again, I refer to Quantum Fluctuations and Heisenberg's uncertainty. "Nothing" in physics normally means the lowest energy state a system can have (which isn't zero).
    You could think of it this way, the net energy of the universe (system and surrounding) is never going up, and it remains zero. For example, let's say you "created" two bodies of mass. The two bodies of mass have a rest energy (and therefore positive energy), however gravity will make the two bodies be attracted to each. Now gravitational energy is always negative (starts from -infinity to zero), as it is a potential energy. Therefore you could mathematically say that the positive energy (the rest energy/mass of the "created" and the negative energy (GPE) cancel each other out. Therefore you started with zero, and you ended with zero energy... The energy of the whole system did not change, but you had matter!



    Quantum Mechanics is incredibly complex to get your head around. My explanation is insanely simplified (because I don't know the complex explanations ). I'm no physicist and have zero days of experience in physics after A-level, but I can say with confidence classical mechanics and empirical-based thermodynamics isn't all there is.



    Special pleading argument, and thus god can be erased easily by employing Occam's razor.

    How did god create the universe? what did he use? Did he also make it out of nothing?
    If god made the universe out of nothing, then surely you agree that this "nothing" had the potential to create something?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    How do you know? We could have god sperm cells and god egg cells and god pluripotent stem cells and god zygotes and you get the idea...
    Fair enough. I'm not using QF and inflation as proof either. But surely you understand why people reject your "hypothesis"?




    Considering there's a myriad of evidence for human evolution, and the evidence pretty much non-existent for Adam and Eve (or Adam and Steve)....



    Do you think animals have the cognitive ability to think about "higher powers"? I don't think fitrah works on animals - never mind humans. How can a bacteria do Salah? how can a cat do Hajj? I'd love to see a giraffe proclaim the Shahadah...
    1. Lawrence Krauss wrote a book, "A Universe from Nothing". And I think it was Stephen Hawking who said the same due to the laws of Gravity.

    2. I never referred to matter. I was just referring to how the laws of physics did not exist outside time (According to Krauss).

    3. Yes, God created the Universe out of nothing. In this case, energy could be created from nothing because God is omnipotent etc.

    4. I must emphasize how this is not my hypothesis. I mean, I did only find the video a few days before I started this thread and I wanted some responses to see what arguments/criticisms there are. People reject it because there's no proof that Adam and Eve were an exception which is true. But my point is, if it were true, then this religion and this specific ideology can accept evolution and evolution can no longer counter religion. And Islamically (and probably in other monotheistic religions too), God has no family/partners and there is nothing equivalent to Him (hence, he has no cells).

    5. Lol. I don't know much about animals and their belief in Allah. But whilst Islam says they do believe in Allah, they don't have the understanding to perform such duties prescribed for humans. Also, how do we know giraffes don't proclaim the Shahada in their own giraffe language?

    (Original post by chemting)
    You decline something in the guise of "probability" in favour of a hypothesis with a significantly lower probability of occuring...

    What caused them to die out? How do you explain the fact that we are genetically linked to these humanoids.

    More importantly, how do you explain the fact that the most recent fossil evidence for Homo erectus ( supposed "humanoids" ) was as early 70,000 as and yet the earliest evidence for Homo Sapiens ( supposed "humans" ) was found between 200,000 and 100,000 years. They clearly co-existed together, that suggests that natural selection preferred Homo Sapiens.




    We could've survive being apes without "interfering"... why did god need to create "humans"?




    We didn't evolve from birds or whale sharks... our environment didn't require us to fly or have thick skin...
    So wait, why can't humanoids and homo sapiens have lived together? The only difference is that the humanoids probably died out before they could evolve. What caused them to die out? Natural selection... or anything God willed for them. We are also share 50% DNA with Banana, doesn't exactly mean we evolved from them. Like I said, God made us very similar to these humanoids, which explains the similarity between the humanoids and ourselves.

    Your last point was out of context. I wasn't criticizing evolution. The other dude asked why humans have flaws if there is a God. I said God wanted us to have flaws and did not make us perfect ("perfect" meaining the ability to fly, breathe fire etc.).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    Lol true, sorry about that!

    tbf, you started it by suggesting atheist scientists believed the universe came out of nothing...
    Lol noooo... Don't pin that on me. Some other guy asked me who created God's "cells" so technically he started it.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    I apologize beforehand. You need to teach me how to break up your quotes.
    Well, you start with "[QUOTE=champ_mc99;63513667.]" and you end with "[/QUOTE.]" for the parts that you want quoted... then you write your response, then you do the same for next part.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    The the full stop is there to stop putting another another quote... in reality you wouldn't use the full stop. I really should take screenshots
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    1. Lawrence Krauss wrote a book, "A Universe from Nothing". And I think it was Stephen Hawking who said the same due to the laws of Gravity.
    Yes its a very good book, but it wasn't him who came up with the model. It's been flying around for quite some time - but he summarises it perfectly Regardless, very recently a Chinese physicist Dongshan He has provided a mathematical proof that the universe could be spontaneously created. It's very complex and I cannot hope to understand it. Also, mathematical proofs aren't everything but it is indication if the physics behind it matches. Yes Stephen Hawking also provided the mathematical proof of singularity. But my point was it is unfair to say atheist scientists believe "something" magically came out of "nothing".

    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    2. I never referred to matter. I was just referring to how the laws of physics did not exist outside time (According to Krauss).
    True, it was Hawking who suggested that, but he also suggested that at singularity, space-time had no boundary - so it is pointless to think about that (if I recall correctly). The laws of physics did not exist as we know it. Stephen Hawking also talks about this when talking about black whole dynamics, relating with "symmetry" (although this was first raised before his time). The laws of physics (e.g. second law of Thermo) depends on the "arrow of time" i.e. the direction that time is flowing. T-symmetry are phenomena that do not depend on the direction of time, and the some "creation" of matter is not T-symmetric. It's also inferred that at the high-energy state of the "singularity", you are right the laws break down but, it can be perfectly normal to have a different set of "laws". Anyway, I digress sorry. My point is none of this infer an inexplicable "god".
    Also strictly speaking a "law" in physics (or science in general) is something that is mathematically defined (hence evolution is not a law), therefore it can be to *mathematically* change the law depending on the state and direction of time. I admit it is all conjecture though, but again my point is that I don't see how all this gives anyone a basis to infer a "god" into a system.

    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    3. Yes, God created the Universe out of nothing. In this case, energy could be created from nothing because God is omnipotent etc.
    Again, I must insist that to me it seems like special pleading fallacy. Something cannot be created out of nothing but god created nothing out of something?
    If that's true, then as Lawrence Krauss said, "then nothing had the potential to be something".


    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    4. I must emphasize how this is not my hypothesis. I mean, I did only find the video a few days before I started this thread and I wanted some responses to see what arguments/criticisms there are.

    Sure, I understand that its not your hypothesis, I meant god is a "hypothesis" (I use the term loosely), and people reject it.

    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    People reject it because there's no proof that Adam and Eve were an exception which is true.
    No people reject it because it doesn't explain anything, it doesn't prove anything, it is not falsifiable and it does not have predictive capability.

    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    But my point is, if it were true, then this religion and this specific ideology can accept evolution and evolution can no longer counter religion.
    Scientist don't wake up everyday and think "how can I counter religion". It does not matter what religion or scholars say etc. Empirical evidence points to a conclusion, not conclusions pointing to evidence. Nothing you have said is provable or falsifiable (well... the god part, Adam and Eve has been falsified).

    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    And Islamically (and probably in other monotheistic religions too), God has no family/partners and there is nothing equivalent to Him (hence, he has no cells).
    If god can create everything, why can't god create "family members"? It seems you are putting restrictions and laws on god... which, to me, shows who created god.


    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    5. Lol. I don't know much about animals and their belief in Allah. But whilst Islam says they do believe in Allah,
    I don't think they have the cognitive ability to believe in "higher inexplicable powers"

    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    they don't have the understanding to perform such duties prescribed for humans.
    What a bunch of munafiqs (!)

    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Also, how do we know giraffes don't proclaim the Shahada in their own giraffe language?
    Ha! that's a very good question. Well, it seems that giraffe do communicate with very low frequency infrasounds. Although it would be hard, but I think it can be done. However, the bigger problem (after the concept of "higher being" as mentioned above) is the concept of "one". Whilst it is true some animals have a sense of doing "rough calculations", most don't have a firm grasp of "numbers" (i.e. "one". Again it is a good question to philosophically think about, but again I don't think they have the cognitive ability.

    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    So wait, why can't humanoids and homo sapiens have lived together? The only difference is that the humanoids probably died out before they could evolve.
    This is further evidence that humans evolved from humanoids and wasn't a different entity that came separately. Another evidence is that, if we trace our matrilineal and patrilineal ancestors, we find that that our earliest "common mother" came way before our earliest "common father" (about 50,000 years or more apart). This further shows that there wasn't a set "man" and "woman" that we descended from.

    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    What caused them to die out? Natural selection... or anything God willed for them. We are also share 50% DNA with Banana, doesn't exactly mean we evolved from them.
    We probably shared a common ancestor with a banana if one goes back far enough (about a couple of billion years back!). Those tabloid articles that go on about how we share 50% DNA with bananas are flawed. If we use such reasoning, we share 99% (ish) of our DNA with apes and 98% with pigs (ironically). Me and you share more than 99.5% of DNA (probably around 99.9%). DNA everywhere is made out of A, C, G and T bases, so it is perfectly expected to be the same. So most living things are made of the same stuff. Bananas will have bases, nucleotides, RNA etc. We could have 90% of similarity with stars if they had DNA.

    Why did God willed for them to die out?



    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Like I said, God made us very similar to these humanoids, which explains the similarity between the humanoids and ourselves.
    Clearly if humanoids were to die out, it wouldn't make sense for us to be similar to them?

    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Your last point was out of context. I wasn't criticizing evolution. The other dude asked why humans have flaws if there is a God. I said God wanted us to have flaws and did not make us perfect ("perfect" meaining the ability to fly, breathe fire etc.).
    Ah, sorry about that .
    If god didn't want us to evolve by keeping us separate. How do you (or dr Qadhi) explain the fact that we already have evolved in our short time that we are here. For example, people who migrated to northern climates (out of Africa) have lost their melanin...
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Lol noooo... Don't pin that on me. Some other guy asked me who created God's "cells" so technically he started it.
    Ah, I guess you're right.
    Oh well, it's TSR - its bound to go off topic.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    OP, if you must rehash Creationism, at least do the right thing and reference it properly, otherwise its plagarism and thats cheating.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    chemting


    Lol, nice 'essay'. I'll check it out later.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    OP, if you must rehash Creationism, at least do the right thing and reference it properly, otherwise its plagarism and thats cheating.
    Lol, plagarism? I'm not trying to make money from it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Lol, plagarism? I'm not trying to make money from it.
    Its a matter of honesty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    So... I'm aware of how accepted evolution has become in the scientific community (by theists too). Whilst it's called the 'Theory of Evolution', it's as much as a theory as is the 'Theory of Gravity'. Which is why many call it a fact.

    I watched a video by Dr Yasir Qadhi, who explains how Islam can accept the theory of evolution. I'll put it in the spoiler.

    If you're not bothered to watch it, as it's 30 minutes long, I'll just summarize the Islamic stance on evolution below (don't judge me if I got some or a lot of the science wrong ):

    1) Allah creates the world and the first cell's or the first living organisms.
    2) Evolution takes place and animals evolve from through the generations by natural selection.
    3) When it comes to the evolution of man (Homosapiens), you have apes (at one point) evolving throughout time and some of them are looking more and more like humans (humanoids etc).
    4) Finally we reach a point when the very next evolution should be the homo-sapiens. This is when Allah creates Adam and his wife Eve, without the need of them being born, hence, no evolution. Evolution in all other animals continue but man was created in one go, despite many similar organisms looking like it.

    I know a lot of guys will think Islam (and of course other religions) can/are just bending the rules and trying to keep modern science in line with the religious beliefs; in this case evolution. But, as long as there's no contradiction (so far), it's still logical and it basically works.

    Any (logical, argumentative and critical) thoughts?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    LOL Islamics.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 21, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.