Church of England Synod member’s call to ban building of any new mosques. Is it ok ?

Um, quite simple really, because if he was talking about animals he would of said animals. lol

 

gworld , can I send you money by paypal or moneybookers ? lol

---------------
The term dinosaur was first coined by Sir Richard Owen back in 1841/1842. The name, literally translated, means "Terrible Lizard." This probably seems like redundant information right now, but it does get better.

Due to the name "terrible lizards" and the fact that they were looked at as huge reptiles, dinosaurs were seen as these huge, lumbering, slow and sluggish beasts. The fact that they no longer existed stood as proof that their "cold-blooded" and inferior bodies couldn't adapt and therefore were evolutionary throwbacks. Loose ends that made good examples of what not to be.
Well actually there is more to this. Owen, Huxley and other early dinosaur workers originally saw them as being highly active animals, equivalent to today's birds and mammals, yet they didn't consider them to be warm-blooded. More on this intriguing view of dinosaurs later; for now though, back to the story.

source : http://reptilis.net/dinosauria/overview.html

 

Are you sure you are from England?

Main Entry: beast
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: animal


http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/beast

 

Yet he used a generic word that means "animals" when describing something as spectacular as dinosaurs.

If dinosaur means "terrible lizard" why wasn't the equivalent to that used? Surely he knew about lizards and surely arabic has a word that means "terrible" or "large". So given that he was supposed to be describing dinosaurs to people who had no concept of these creatures he used a very vague term.

The only people who can get a description of dinosaurs from that verse are people who were asked why the quran doesn't mention them and then went looking for a verse that can be used.

 

Well, either way, a dinosour is an animal, isn't it?

Stox, it wasn't used because 1400 years ago the word didn't exist, i'm pretty sure the word dinosour dosen't exist in the arabic language either, so it would be impossible.

 

So are many other things.

The word dinosaur doesn't need to exist at the time for it to be used in a translation now. most of the words used in that translation didn't exist 1400 years ago. Translations find words with similar meanings, What part of that don't you understand? If the quran described "enormous cold blooded reptiles which became extinct 60 million years ago" then the word "dinosaur" would be used in the translation because that is obviously what it means. if we only used words that existed at the time in translations then translations wouldn't work.

 

Because the verse is not describing any animal in particular, it is repeating the same idea as all other religions that God made all the animals and the human race which is a total nonsense in light of scientific discoveries.

 

It is only terrible in eyes of Sir Richard Owen.

Due to the name "terrible lizards" and the fact that they were looked at as huge reptiles, dinosaurs were seen as these huge, lumbering, slow and sluggish beasts

The term dinosaur was created like Kangaroo

 

So why not use the equivalent to "large lizards"? The word beast (or equivalent) can be describing any animal of any size.

 

Independent if dinosaurs were terrible or not, the fact still remains that Koran claims God made a pair of each animal including humans (male and female) which is a total nonsense.

 

No, what part don't you understand, why would he put a word in a translation that wasn't in the original? Different translations are for the different meanings of arabic words, the word dinosour didn't exist, so it is not going to be included in the translation DERRR.

Negative.

 

Large , terrible or that kind of descriptions are comprasion....do you agree ? and if we will compare mountains, earth then dinosaurs will not be large , big..

 

Most of the English words used in the translation didn't exist 1400 years ago. They didn't have to. If they have the same meaning they can be used to translate the text. I could invent a word right now and if it has the same meaning as the text in the quran it can be used in a translation. That's what a translation is. It's the conversion of text from one language to another.

If the quran is describing what we now call dinosaurs then the word dinosaur can be used in the translation. It isn't describing them though, it is describing "animals", which is obvious to anyone with;
1) a passing acquaintance with English
2) a shred of integrity.

 

Even if we "accept" that the word animals should also include dinasours; do you really believe that a God one day sat down and said, let's make some animals today, so he started with making a pair of dogs then cats then cows then horses and dinasours,.... and when he was bored with making all these animals then he decided to make a pair of talking animals with the name of Adam and Eve?

 

Can you name any animal which have not pairs in sex (male and female) ?

 

Do a google search on asexual organisms. There are many kinds both in animals and plants.

 

Actual several species such as "New Mexico Whiptail" lizard
http://www.zo.utexas.edu/research/txherps/lizards/cnemidophorus.neomexicanus.html
reproduces parthenogenesis (asexually)

same goes for the largest lizard in the world, the komodo dragon has the ability to reproduce asexually:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23058689/

There are also jellyfish, starfish,..I could go on, but I don't have the time

 

Yes i agree.

 

komodo dragon :
Reproduction from wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komodo_dragon
********
Mating occurs between May and August, with the eggs laid in September.[7] During this period, males fight over females and territory by grappling with one another upon their hind legs with the loser eventually being pinned to the ground.
**********

Please dont make me go and research all the creatures you will find

 

komodo dragon :
Reproduction from wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komodo_dragon
**********
They are capable of parthenogenesis, in which viable eggs are laid without fertilization by a male.
**********