Fan's Generic Anti-Western, Religion and Politics Thread

[PleaseNotPoll]

I wont go point by point as usual

I was trying to show the fella the error of posting random links rather than making points himself

You specifically stated that you agreed with Naik, though.
Is that the case or not?

 

[SUPERNORWICH 23]

He may also be referring to those that aren't in a position to believe.
If you're mentally incapable or if Islam hasn't reached some far flung region of the world, then presumably you wouldn't expect Allah to damn you to hell.

I`m writing this down PNP just in case fan turns out to be right about the old heaven and hell thing..."mentally incapable"you say?

 

[thefanwithnoname]

He may also be referring to those that aren't in a position to believe.
If you're mentally incapable or if Islam hasn't reached some far flung region of the world, then presumably you wouldn't expect Allah to damn you to hell.

That is true also

I have mentioned this earlier in response to Jip

see now I agreee with a point you made, does that mean I agree with ALL you say?

if no then please explain to BIK

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

I`m writing this down PNP just in case fan turns out to be right about the old heaven and hell thing..."mentally incapable"you say?

Not sure that you qualify, SN23.
Not sure that you don't, either, to be honest!

 

[Bik]

Is this an admission that you cant?

you are the one who asked me to go read a book etc. I am quite content with the knowledge I have

I already quoted you wikki. Now either man up and put something down or let the the rest of us talk

This is/was no game. I made a comment you came back with 'read a book' on evolution. either refute using whatever 'proof' you have or accept its that simple

I know that this is the go to response for you, but why are you so desperate for me to copy and paste something from the internet that you are simply going to deny without either understanding it or even reading it? I'm not wasting my time doing that because in the age of the internet, you can do it yourself. That is common sense. But you've just stated that you don't want your knowledge corrected. That you are happy wallowing in your ignorance. Fine, but stop posting crap about evolution when you've admitted you've got nothing of any substance to say on the subject. It's that simple.

And oh, by the way, it's difficult to refute someone's points on evolution when they are so unwilling to expand upon them. Or are you talking about your half monkey, half man comment? Do you really want someone to explain what is wrong with that again?

 

[SUPERNORWICH 23]

Not sure that you qualify, SN23.
Not sure that you don't, either, to be honest!

Fingers crossed, it will be like one flew over the cuckoos nest with me as the Jack Nicholson character, but instead of electric shock therapy i will be locked in a room with Fan...

 

[Bik]

In general there are parts i do and parts I dont

So it no longer shares your views?

 

[thefanwithnoname]

You specifically stated that you agreed with Naik, though.
Is that the case or not?

generally it is not

In this specific case and context there are bits yes

The fella posted links and saidwhen I asked for HIS views

'That is my point of view you ****ing ******!!!!! '

I said I would play his game gave him some names and a youtube videoand commented 'Its an hour long but shares my views '

If anything I was playing a game

 

[thefanwithnoname]

You drew a parallel between those 3 things and fornication. They are not remotely equivalent.

In the context of the conversation they all have and continue to happenand in religion you will see that they often are in the same category
unless you misunderstood fornication, we are talking religious context

the point is just because something continues to happen does not make it right

 

[SUPERNORWICH 23]

Bloody hell the pennies just dropped PNP is a HotSpurtz fan,that`s why he`s been mean to me today? Mind games.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

generally it is not

In this specific case and context there are bits yes

Despite him clearly not having a clue what he's talking about?

Perhaps it would be easier if you just stated roughly what you do and don't agree with about the current scientific model of evolution?
Is it the macro-evolution, as most creationists like to call it, that you don't believe can happen?

 

[SUPERNORWICH 23]

Will there be sex, drugs, booze ,porn and popular music?

Needs an answer Fan..

 

[thefanwithnoname]

From here:

We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that's a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance.

some good points there, especially the one highlighted

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Bloody hell the pennies just dropped PNP is a HotSpurtz fan,that`s why he`s been mean to me today? Mind games.

No, I just thought that your other thread was pretty racist and I don't like racists.
Coincidence, I assure you.

I have no problem with Norwich, Norwich City FC or Norwich supporters.

 

[Bik]

generally it is not

In this specific case and context there are bits yes

The fella posted links and saidwhen I asked for HIS views

'That is my point of view you ****ing ******!!!!! '

I said I would play his game gave him some names and a youtube videoand commented 'Its an hour long but shares my views '

If anything I was playing a game

Saying something is representative of your views isn't playing a game. What you are doing now is playing a game.

 

[thefanwithnoname]

So it no longer shares your views?

on that particular topic i think it does

 

[Bik]

some good points there, especially the one highlighted

Your point being?

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

some good points there, especially the one highlighted

You seem to have taken that to mean that abiogenesis is unscientific.
That's not what it means at all, though I don't believe that there's sufficient evidence to back the theory completely yet.

It actually suggests that there's no evidence for the spontaneous creation of animals, like humans.

 

[thefanwithnoname]

No, you just randomly picked a moron who, like yourself, knows nothing about evolution as a refutation to two links that provide a **** load of evidence supporting evolution. But you didn't bother reading them or watching them.
The fact your link is factually nonsensical tells us that you know absolutely nothing on the subject.

how is it factually nonsensical?

Thats not the bit PNP has posted. We were talking about embroyology and william campbell. What I posted is a debate with william campbell

 

[SUPERNORWICH 23]

No, I just thought that your other thread was pretty racist and I don't like racists.
Coincidence, I assure you.

I have no problem with Norwich, Norwich City FC or Norwich supporters.

I don`t like stabbers, if most stabbers in London were Chinese i would be pointing the finger towards Soho... If i`m walking around in Forest Gate at 3am i want to know who is most likely to try and end my life for a few hits of crack..... Profiling maybe?, Racist? not intentionally...