I have already quoted the verse to you. your sounding like edward t buttercups now (who was ST it was revealed)
quran answers that too but that will take away from the discussion start another thread if you like this one had gone all over the shop, which detracts from the debate imo
not particularly true either, but you know how it is apparently th eglazers are ruining utd, they won nothing since their ownership
So you're saying that man was formed from clay extract now? I hope that you didn't post that with a straight face. Dust + water does not = clay. Don't be ridiculous. The website bit is not me trying to get my own back for anything. I don't even know what you're referring to. I didn't claim that the Quran had been changed, though I've no idea if it has or not. It's not common sense, as the equipment was not needed. As you pointed out yourself, divers could taste the difference. If the Quran passages weren't vague, then they wouldn't have to be interpreted. They would just tell us what they're supposedly hiding in metaphor.
Two of the crucial components for the origin of life - genetic material and cell membranes - could have been introduced to one another by a lump of clay, new experiments have shown. The study of montmorillonite clay, by Martin Hanczyc, Shelly Fujikawa and Jack Szostak at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, revealed it can sharply accelerate the formation of membranous fluid-filled sacs. These vesicles also grow and undergo a simple form of division, giving them the properties of primitive cells. Previous work has shown that the same simple mineral can help assemble the genetic material RNA from simpler chemicals. "Interestingly, the clay also gets internalised in the vesicles," says Leslie Orgel, an origin of life expert at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences in San Diego, California. "So this work is quite nice in that it finds a connection between the mechanism that creates RNA and encloses it in a membrane." Inherit, mutate, evolve The genesis of genetic material and the emergence of cell structure are hot areas of research, but until now the two had not connected. The birth of genetic material was clearly crucial for life to take on its unique abilities to inherit, mutate and evolve. And membranes were key to the physiology of cells because they protect their contents, concentrate chemicals to promote reactions and isolate successful genes from unsuccessful ones. "It's clear you really need both these elements to get evolution off the ground and running," says Szostak.
well he had a habit of ignoring points, bringing allegations into it, etc just bought back memories is all
I think the problem here is i am discussing my belief/viewpoint/religion whatever you want to call it whereas your approach is to 'prove' me wrong you tend to keep going over old ground, it is clear you havent read the quran, yet you are claiming it to be x y and z this is the problem, you are arguing against something you dont know/have no intention of knowing
I don't care about the qu'ran, i care about doing the washing, after playing football on a muddy field. That what the ask anyones parents thing was about
Absolute rubbish. Standard theistic claim that those that disagree with them simply don't and can't understand, as they're not one of them. The problem here is that you're claiming things that are disputed and it's impossible for you to accept that you could be wrong, as it would damage your faith. Your knowledge of the Quran clearly doesn't come from reading it, but from other people's interpretation of it.
funnily enough if you read back (and i dont expect you to) I was actually agreeing with the fella I believe in evolution, and agree with his take that it doesnt 'prove' creationism he uses science, I used the quran. conclusion - the same he believes athiesm is 'no god', if you read my early posts I said the same. however i asserted (and still believe) that a lot of todays athiests are anti god types.
these are not 'standard theist claims' though. I have used science to collaborate what i know, as well as those you bought up, aristotle etc My faith is not easily damaged i assure you, and there is little dispute about embryology etc. It has just taken science a lot longer to catch up. and basically prove the quran correct I read the quran regularly FYI, i also am a student of theology. It is purely as a result of personal interest. There is a challenge in the quran, which has not been met in over 1400 years. Meet it and i will follow whatever you want me to and you wont find the answer to it on answeringislam.net. Your arguments are classic arguments, that have been destroyed by better people than me tbh i think you need to leave the 'textbook' arguments and expand your mind
opening of fast is approaching will check in later despite constantly going over old ground, and your ignoring certain points to push on with your objective (which i assume was to ridicule, could be wrong obviously) I can honestly say i am enjoying the discussion
Your faith is impossible to damage, because you'll change your interpretation of the text to fit the facts. My arguments aren't classic arguments, as far as I know, as I've been replying to claims that you've been making about the Quran. If they are classic arguments, then it's obvious that the claims you're making are problematic, as there wouldn't be classic counters to them otherwise. What's the challenge in the Quran that you refer to?
I was hoping you would be bothered to look it up tbh. hopefully you will These are classic arguments, and they would be problematic if they hadnt been addressed. as i say by better people than me, and i dare say yourself I dont chnge the interpretation of my faith. My faith explains the process tio me I do believe this is your disadvantage tbf. I will explain The quran specifically explains in a clear and concise way how to read/interpret etc the quran itself. In a nutshell its quran, sunnah, sahabah. These in themselves are explained. some of what gets cited is interpretaion/understanding by other than what the quran reveals. It is this that i argue against and which you are citing By the way i am currently reading 'the battle for god' by Karen armstrong. hardly a classic theist book i think you will agree and also i argue more with muslims about islam than non muslims It suprises some but islam doesnt stop its followers from learning about other things, it specifically tells you to otherwise how can one truly belive the shahadah? how do you know there is 'no god' (as the first bit and very important bit) says if you havent explored the notion question all knowledge, including the quran is the mesage
