http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2014...-anti-islamic/
Any of you dicks defending Islam can read this and see if it changes your opinion.
I'm back.
Pakistan today?
I'm back.
reading stuff like that, you realise while in some countries the world is progressing in some places, and in others it is rapidly deteriorating back to uncivilized dark ages. This radical islam, then also in africa where farms are taken without compensation from people cause they white, infants are raped cause a witch doctor told them it cures diseases, homo sexuals are persecuted all over africa. Definitly going backwards in some of these countries
It does appear to be Satire, but it is hard to tell because the CII has come out with plenty of similar stuff. They are a joke, but unfortunately a real political joke with some standing. The only positive in their existence is they seem to be causing a build up of a fairly significant push back to radical fundamentalism in Pakistan.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...s/1092492.html
Have said that, we see some pretty silly fundamentalism escued by the Vatican and other western religion HOs from time to time.
Another outstanding contribution from Peter.
I claim nuthing! Anyone that needs to claim they win an argument, is because they haven't.
Why? Using those dimensions the Ark has the same capacity as over 500 railway cars that carry over 200 sheep each, thats over 100,000 animals capacity, and most animals are much smaller than that.
The number of animals quoted there are grossly overexaggerated and no insect storage required.
How did they walk up the ramp?
Last time I looked in the National Geographic (for the articles) i read that Whales were pretty good swimmers.
You is well crazy Blake if you believe in the ark myth.....
Thank you Stephen J Gould
“Facts do not ‘speak for themselves’; they are read in the light of theory"However it is the only theory to account for the history of life on the planet supported by plausible evidence and there is nothing currently to supplant it.
Stephen J Gould again.
The "General Theory of Evolution(GTE)" is presupposed by the scientist and he interprets those facts according to his theory... that is Science. Of course there is nothing to supplant it, if you maintain your presuppositions about the unknown and unobserved past over anyones else different presuppositional view.
There isn't proof of any step yet, only assumptions, despite Darwin claiming that innumerable interim forms would be discovered in the fossil record (and he remained puzzled why they were not evident during his own life time)Finding absolute proof tracing every step of a several billion year process is incredibly complicated and isn't possible (yet).
A fossil only tells us that it was a creature that once lived and is now dead, nothing else.Fossils tell us about numerous small changes over time.
Steven Stanley, paleontologist "the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another'"
Stephen J Gould "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology"
Yes, but they are still the same animal, ie dogs/dogs,. cats/cats, horses/horses.Genetic testing of different species points to common ancestry.
Clearly when I say dogs & dogs its a generalisation. Canines are still Canines.Actually dog ancestors are wolves and before that a long line of other carnivorous mammals stretching back millions of years.
Todays dogs are not evolved from Wolves in the sense of your argument for the GTE, they are just the result of many generations of artificial inbreeding. Dogs are also a great example of GTE in reverse. For example one feature of a Rotweiller is very short fur coat. All that means he has lost the genetic capability of growing longer fur which was a trait of his ancestor. You might like to call that a beneficial mutation but its still a genetic loss not a gain.
For evolution to work they way you want it, beneficial mutations have to be a genetic gain.
oh but in your story of how life began they must have had a common ancestor.It doesn't try to. Dinosaurs were not mammals.
I don't believe natural selection, I already told you that. It is observed, it is repeated, it is tested, it just "is", its not something to be believed, it's science.Semantics aside, believing natural selection but not evolution isn't an argument I've encountered before.
Examples of this are Darwins finches, which are still finches. They are not examples that prove pond scum evolved into people.
.Logically it means that all life currently present on the planet has always existed in its present form and must have always been here
Logically yes as kinds, but now we see many different variations of kinds, all the different dogs and cats for example have a common ancestor each, which would be immediately recognisable to anybody as a dog or a cat.
No, in any case there are already some researchers claiming that Darwins tree of life is upside down, in other words devolution.Given the number of species which have become extinct over the last few billion years, the planet must have been pretty crowded in the early days.
Evolutions absolutely does claim monkeys evolved into men. There is nothing wrong with using the word monkey to describe this simian common ancestor despite the fact that doing so makes most evolutionists choke on their soup.Evolution doesn't claim monkeys evolved into humans, they just share a common ancestry.
‘In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.’
evolutionary paleontologist George G. Simpson
As SJ Gould says, evidence is the result of interpreting the facts according to the theory. Unless the evolutionist plays devils advocate and looks at the facts through someone elses glasses he is not going to see anything different.It's encouraging that you're not claiming evolution is false. The lack of evidence to contradict evolutionary theory is one of its greatest strengths.
I never said thats why its not scientific.Again, it's a theory, not a fact. That doesn't make it unscientific though.
You still haven't provided a single piece of 'evidence' proving pond scum to people evolution that has been scientifically tested and proven. The General Theory of Evolution still belongs in the religion class.Anyway, as entertaining as this has been, my head is now sore from banging on this particular brick wall, so I'm done.
If a muslim women had to go to a private course, in the traditional muslim clothes they wear, could they get turned away for not wearing proper golfing attire, and then hold a club for discriminating against a religion?
If they can't wear pants and a shirt, they're not playing golf
And a hat
bio cell+ big stick - fly z+ 3W - b'bertha 4h - srickson 545/74546-50 RTX, 56-60 md2 - tank cruiser 38" count balancedelilah smiley driver and MAGNETIC putter coversun mountain bag C130S - clicgear & knob
Self Appointed Matchplay Nazi. Elite Endurance Athlete. Proud Blue Arseclown. Vocal Minority.
In the bag ...
Driver - Ping I15 9.5 Stiff Shaft.
3W - RBZ
Hybrids - Titleist 913 17 and 22 deg.
Irons - Ping I5's
Wedges - Titleist Oilcan
Putter - Rife Deep Blue
http://www.golflink.com.au/handicap-history/?golflink_No=4010200385
http://www.gamegolf.com/player/Marto65
This is my only post here.
Im Roman Catholic, straight from the Vatican.
Thats all i have to say.
Carry on.
Umm. The Pope can't have, ummm, you know, relations?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)