Compared to you, no Still telling lies about how you're the ROI League's "uber agent" Seriously, you're a ****ing ******. One who lives in a mythical world where you are rich; unfortunately, however, you live in a ****ty, bedsit in Londonderry where you spend your ENTIRE life on here peddling piss You are to be pitied
Because a God knows the past, present and future, and thus knows how we will live our entire lives before we are even born.
Why is it always the Oirish on here all day and night? No jobs to goto, perhaps? No lives beyond this site, perhaps? A conglomerate of spud-sooking, social-misfits me thinks
I'm on here a few times a week and you are on everytime. That post of yours belongs to BBC606 anyway. Grow up and engage your 'HND'.
i 'm sorry but youre doing that semantics/avoidance/diversion thing again You were fixated with Moore's peers and their belief/consensus. I provided you with a few. Sorry they dont share your viewpoint I suggest you look at the sanaa manuscripts and the story behind/around them. The only time the manuscripts were not 'allowed' to be studied was when the danish wanted to take them to denmark for initial analysis. They were invited to yemen as were Puin and his crew. The current microfilm copies are in germany. nothing is stopping them from being studied Puin himself never asserted some of what you think. It was others who came to conclusions Puin disagrees with. Of course you are welcome tell me the 'differences'. but then you dont do that. you just assert without basis/evidence. But i will help you. the following is in a letter Puin wrote ''The important thing, thank God, is that these Yemeni Qur'anic fragments do not differ from those found in museums and libraries elsewhere, with the exception of details that do not touch the Qur'an itself, but are rather differences in the way words are spelled. This phenomenon is well-known, even in the Qur'an published in Cairo in which is written: Ibrhim next to Ibrhm Quran next to Qrn Simahum next to Simhum In the oldest Yemeni Qur'anic fragments, for example, the phenomenon of not writing the vowel alif is rather common." and there are photos of the manuscripts available online. so hardly hidden. who do you think is preventing them from being hidden? tbh this is misdirection from abiogenesis. You claim this is the best we have? would you care to explain? just so i know which bit you adhere to. thanks
I can try Jip however, after our last (i must say amicable discussion) your response was what prevented me going further. Its back here somewhere, but was along the lines of you admitting you didnt really know about islam etc Now i can try and give you an answer from an islamic perspective if you like (if so write the question again please, save me looking). Of course it doesnt mean you have to accept/believe it but i will try
wrong I didnt watch the clip, as i thought we were agreed on the evolution bit and tbh as we went on i forgot about it I have answered your second point, in great detail If you look back to what i initially posted re what athiesm is, imo you fit the anti god category.
so now your whole basis is going to be 'he didnt watch the clip'? post it again i will watch it. happy? or even better summarise it into your own words. posting clips is futile really imo. I could have just posted (wait for it) zakir naik or someone doesnt mean anything as for alternative views, you didnt really present any really, and when you have done they have been false, or there is no basis to them apart from because you say so. I am still waiting for you to prove abiogenesis Its all fine and well saying something, i could say i was the king of france. doesnt mean it true to summarise you were wrong that moores peers didnt acknowledge the quran being accurate you were wrong about the 'dimming' of the stars you were wrong about Puin and the sanaa manuscripts you are wrong about abiogenesis I could go on but you get the point you could of course provide evidence. thanks
Just to be clear my views on abiogenesis are that any particular non-frivolous abiogenesis explanation would be a hypothesis. We just don't have enough testable evidence to call it a theory, and we don't have the observations to call it a fact. In simple terms at this stage we cant even call it a theory. It is that incomplete if you will. No one has yet accomplished abiogenesis in the lab. If and when they do, rest assured that the whole world will know about it. Athiests, as i said before, who use this as an explanation are hypocrites of the highest order. They belittle religion then try to say that it makes MORE sense that life just appeared suddenly out of nowhere rather than something creating it. does that even sound logical? there is no 'real' definition of abiogenesis, but one that is sometimes used is: “In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how life arises from inanimate matter through natural processes” which translated could mean the study of how life arises out of random lifeless ****, or as the car sticker says **** HAPPENS
