Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Whenever you had to resort to ‘allahdidit’, in complete defiance of known chemistry and physics, then the argument became ridiculous. The same elements in humans are also in some of the asteroids – are we made from them too? The things riverfox, you aren’t able to evidence the claim that humans came from clay. What you are doing is constructing an unfalsifiable defence that would defend clay as human-making material – not through evidence or reasoned argument but by referring to pure freaking magic as means of circumventing reality. But you keep presenting the magic argument – it shows just how utterly unscientific, illogical and irrational the whole literalism business is. And why it deserves mockery rather than respect.
The difference between you and me is pretty clear. You rely on ‘magicmandidit’ while I provide a little thing called evidence. The following skulls show where humanity came from and how we arose. It is at this point you can close you eyes since I know your level of respect to physical evidence:
Let’s analyse this to see how much bs it is. Evolutionary theory produces new agricultural techniques, genetic homologies allow for the creation of new antibiotics, genetic algorithms are producing optimised designs far superior to human ones, evolutionary knowledge can be used to track and contain diseases, etc. etc.
I note this self-righteous and faux-indignation on no level challenged or refuted my accusation. Does this mean that you realise it was true and such blunt to-the-point truth hurt?
Was I mistaken that your argument didn’t fall back on ‘allahcouldhavedoneitthatway’? Was I mistaken that you used magic instead of an evidenced based rational argument?
It doesn’t sound familiar. I’m neither killing you nor threatening to kill you. What I am doing is exposing your claim for the utter garbage it is, and refusing to allow you to hide behind the ‘magicmandidit’ façade or the persecution complex. If your claim can’t stand up to even the merest scrutiny, and you have to start erecting a siege mentality and magic-man-non-logic in order to preserve it to yourself, then what makes you think you can guilt me into a retraction?
Because, as you koranic scientists know, reality is simply the result of ‘Satan’s whispers’. You make comments like this and you really don’t understand why I think this whole thread is a complete joke???
An open mind is the willingness to consider new ideas before deciding whether or not they have merit. This isn’t what you meant to say. What you meant to say was ‘just accept our claims because we have nothing whatsoever to back them up’.
I don’t care who you are. You are a human being putting forth claims – and I am treating you as such. The more ridiculous the claims and the more ridiculous the non-logic, the more pointed and honest I become.
But that belief does have to make sense, have some evidentiary support, has to conform to know reality, etc. etc.
This is the first time I have debated either you or TashaN. I treat Fatihah the way I do because of Fatihah’s absolute insistence on being ridiculous and on being an absolute farce to logic, science, research and rationality. So far you and TashaN have been doing similar so it makes sense to have equal treatment.
I don’t think you know what an open mind is. Adhering to the side of a debate that has the wealth of evidence, that conforms to reality and that has demonstrable knowledge supporting it is being open minded. But that isn’t what you mean is it?
This isn’t true and no-one is claiming this. What is being claimed is that humans and chimps both derived from a common ancestor. I linked above to an image of skulls showing this that have been found by palaeontologists.
Again, this is untrue and no one bar you is claiming this. What is being claimed is that birds share a common ancestor that was either a dinosaur (this is still being researched) or a reptile very closely related to dinosaurs. When you consider that the earliest fossilised birds found have no bills, have unfused trunk vertebrae, skull and neck are attached from the rear, have true teeth and have three claw digits (all features found in dinosaurs but not in any modern birds) it is pretty clear that the ancestry is reptilian. And this is before you get into the gentics.
This doesn’t even make sense. We know from the oldest rocks that there was once a time on earth when no life existed. The earliest fossilised life we do find is microscopic in nature (in Precambrian rocks for example) and gradually gets more and more complex as you survey younger and younger rocks. The history of life on earth is recorded in the rocks, and geologists/palaeontologists/biologists have been cataloguing that record for over a century at this stage.
Please do. More evidence as to the scientific illiteracy of the Muslims in this thread is always good.
True. It is the evidence and scientific research that does that.
Here is one of those early birds, this one called Archaeopteryx:
.
Would that make it easier for you to hold onto your delusion?
Confuciusornis date to around 120mya (source – Food remains in Confuciusornis sanctus suggest a fish diet - Dalsätt et al 2006) while Archaeopteryx dates to around 149 mya (source – The quality of the fossil record of Mesozoic birds, Fountaine et al 2004).
I note you are still ignoring those skulls. Closing your eyes and ignoring doesn’t make them go away, and it doesn’t make them any less proof of hominid evolution.
Still ignoring those skulls. You would rather base your beliefs on a book full of 7th century misconceptions rather than what we actually find in reality. Like skulls showing the history of hominid evolution.
Of course I was. I am neither suffering from indoctrination nor harbouring some egocentric delusion that humans are somehow special. Without these I can clearly see from the physical evidence the rich heritage of us and our fellow hominids.
Hardly showing a nerve when I posted the skulls I used to base my claim on. I know that the idea of presenting supporting evidence for a claim is strange for you koranic scientists, but do realise that not all of us are burdened with such debating deficiencies.
Do all koranic scientists have this reaction to claims backed with physical evidence or are you unique?
I guess it was because pictures don't talk that the old saying, "A picture is worth a thousand words" came into being.
themadhair said:
