^^ Ibtisam, Ahura is like Coke ( she goes fine with eveything) *whispering to Ibtisam* Ahura knows about us, denying will only make her more nosy. :cool: Xalimoparta , it is not going that good walashis. Ahura is in the mood of playing soccer with my volatile shokansi. Legend bro, Ain´t giving up that easy, she sure got freinds foes and what not, help a fellow west-rotten xamarawi out man.

Something tells me that i should be feeling really s-t-u-p-i-d "xamarawi" right now !!

^^ Just discovered that i´ve a horn in the middle of my forehead. but i heard that man shitain has TWO. :cool: enough about me , now let us help Legend and his love.

^^ You´re right on the bucks that am suffering of some sort of whispering , but that Man shitain is not aquainted to me. Heard so much about him, but never met !! Have you? :cool: A family Invasion you say , even our grandpa is into the "ayeyo Shun" u know the one who smokes "badecad".

^^ My idol would go " Oh yeah , she wants me " by now. :cool: I´ve advised the Legend to call me if she has a sister! or would you like me to be specific and spill the beans? You always get it your way , don´t you? aight.. Call me if she has an older sister !!

^^ In an ideal world , egoism would be punishable! That was below the belt and uncalled for ,but then i´d be another egoist to deny the hotness and irresistibility of Edo " Shun". :cool:

^^ Edo "Shun" who runs "Kat" firm is just as funny as Edo "Batulo" who runs a "doro" farm in Merca. It ain´t a secret anymore , we love Qaldan ppl,including those from Gabiley with six fingers on their hands.

I don´t know why we "Xamarawi" guys fall for a girl named "shun" from the North, likewise a Borama guy falling for a Merca girl named [fill me in ]. I guess the Somali look / charecter is one and the same. My advice for the legend, go for it and call me if she has a cute sister.

^^ Don´t you dare me list all the range of produts in Stockholm!! Some are even as cute and fermented as you.

I live in Stockholm n i´d like to help the Pakistani guy , if he ONLY gets more specific in his demand, we´ve diffrent Somali girls.

As usual some Nomads are out of the scope and with deliberateness, to take cheap Ad hominen shots,instead of contributing to ( according to me) the only subject matter of debate , namely (ThePoint´s ) William Paley´s WatchMaker analogy. I won´t be distracted from the subject matter, i´ll stick to that. from what i could tell ThePoint has sulked off by stating that her/his earlier post was the last one, becouse this was going to be a tit for tat kind of debate. I think it is the contrary, i Think the Point failed to defend William Paley´s watchmaker anology, The WatchMaker anology is too frail , it diden´t stand the test back in 1800,nor will it do in 2006 . And it´s not a proof for the existance of ThePoint´s or anybody´s Creator, therefore let me share with you another finding, i seem to like 'the finding things' anology so let us find a vegetable this time and let us wrap it with Hume´s famous words on the WatchMaker anology . "We have as much reason to believe that the universe grew like a vegetable as we have to believe that the universe was designed by God " I decided to shed that stronger light on it before i go ahead with some other points raised by Cano Geel and Paragon becouse i´ve noticed the unwillingness of thePoint to defend his stance and free from himself/herself the burden of the proof and correctness of the anology. It´d be unfair to leave the WatchMaker anology without presenting the words of David brooks "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." that about that . When i see such arguments starting i cant help but have the phrase 'the god of the unkown' come to mind CG, I owe ya that one , man you picked the God of the unknown at the known time It´s really an intresting point you make there, given that the ' in between ' is not gonna be redefined and presented as 'no between'. Paragon , you raise a better argument for reasoning as to WHY one would beleive in a diety through Pascal´s wager than the Watchmaker anology presented by Thepoint, At first Pascal´s wager better known as "God is a safe bet " looks appealing and smart choice, but if you look at it deeply you´ll see that it has several flaws. It´s like signing a life insurance before going to war, worse , we´ve too many religions , too many Gods on earth that we´d difficulties avoiding the wrong hel. the statement that "If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing" is not true. As Homer said , " Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder " . The boldest flaw in Pascal´s Wager argument is it´s assumption of both possibilities (there is that God and there is no that God) beeing equally likely, why? becouse the "There is no that God" stance is the correct stance as long as the "There is that God" stance is unproven. to make it more sorbile let me take an example. If you claim "I know where Castro lives " the notion " you don´t know where Castro lives " is the correct one untill you SHOW where Castro lives. and to wrap it Pragon, One has to be intellectually honest, we don´t have to beleive what we like to beleive , "belief is based on evidence, with some amount of intuition. It is not a matter of will or cost-benefit analysis". I´m more into Stephen Roberts stance . "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." ... enjoying the hilodays, can´t and won´t post till JAN , happy holidays all.

Delayed gratifications are nothing for me dear ThePoint, so let me go ahead n collide with myself. before i lay my eggs i´d like ask u some sincere questions. ThePoint can you find out the contradiction in the WatchMaker anology? will you accept it if i demostrate it and abandon your beleif? Is this your very last resort regarding the existance of an Intelligent designer? If one of your answers to these questions is YES, here comes the contradiction, the ex nihilo and lastly the falsehood of the analogy: First: The argument is contraditory becouse it gives the universe two incompitable definations. You can´t assume that the watch is not as complex and complicated as nature in one hand( heey look what i found! a complicated complex thing, very unlike humble simplne nature ) and at the same time assume that the universe is so complicated complex but ordered just like the watch in the other hand , thus you can´t come to bedrock that way. Second: You can´t make the watchs out of nothing, the things that the watchmaker used are available naturally, but you claim your Creator created things including you and the universe ex nihilo from nothing. SB´s refutation of your BB theory assumption might have given u a " wake up " dos by now. And lastly the argument is false becouse it is based on WRONG assumptions, I need you to hang on here becouse it is here where it usually takes few more brain cells to burn. If two objects share the same quality they must not have another one in common. Your basic assumption dictates the contrary. Take a great look at this deductive reasoning. 1: A watch is a complex thing to construct. 2: A watch has a clever WatchMaker. 3: The Universe is also a complex thing to construct. 4: Therefore the Universe also has a clever WatchMaker. You see dear ThePoint, the last statement is WRONG. why? you might wonder , becouse what it concludes is not supported by the creteria. There is another funnier( dummier ) deductive reasoning i´d like to share with you , not that i´m implying it´ll be easier to grasb or something in that direction, but just becouse it is funnier. 1: flowers are beautifully designed beauty. 2: flowers grow on trees. 3: Dollar bills are also beautifully designed beauty. 4: therefore Dollar bills grow on trees. And that is FALSE according to the idiom. On a serious note, you don´t need to abandon your beleif, i don´t frankly care, but atleast try to rethink and make a better Wathcmaker argument. P.s happy holidays !!

^^ For the sake of healthy debating i´ll accept your subject matter though totaly diffrent from the unfilled template. For those of you who are not familiar with Thepoint´s formulations, it is nothing less than the famous William Paley's formulation of the teleological argument in the field of Natural Theology, published in 1800. Please, don´t put a forced smile in my face and tell me that you´re here to defend Paley´s position. before i disappoint you , i´d like to tell you ever since Darwin constructed the evoloution theory,Paley´s theroy was used and reused by the church and each and everytime it was defeated. here i´m assuming that you´re kicking it from a Muslim´s point of view, i could be wrong though. that is why it ended up in the arguments creationists shoulden´t use list. just take a good look again at your conclision, doesen´t it say that since this thing ( the watch, the universe) is so complex for me(human beeings) to understand how it was made or came into beeing therefore it must have been constructed by a beeing that it intellectually smarter? Now bear with me , becouse this is where it usually gets hot to most theists, If what you can´t know how they came into the state they are is the comclusion of the existance of GOD. what you´re saying is i can´t know GOD becouse you coulden´t know or understand the watch or the universe Now this is a foreplay of the real refutation of Paley´s, but lemme stop there for the moment.

Castro, couple of factors as to why the hysterical media reaction both in the States and Europe. 1: The results in stem cell research that had been published raised hopes of new cures for hard-to-treat diseases all over the globe. 2:Earlier under the assumption of the correctness o the claimed reaserch results, heavy criticism was directed towards it becouse of the donations made by some of the FEMALE researchers, to which he appologized in November. Nonetheless, i think it is worth the media reaction. I must admit , personally i´d high hopes on it.

^^ In that case why don´t you make it more spicy and take a stand , affirm a claim or tow, reason and conclude the correctness of the template(even a filled one ). As it stands , i don´t feel motvitaed enough to react to an unfilled template except the way i already did.

Originally posted by ThePoint: This is where you state the inaccuracies and falsehoods my friend. The ball is in your court. Not exactly my freind !! The issue of the subject matter can and has been presented before in a much better phrased argumentations than this unfilled template. I personally have seen it, debated it, etc etc. It´d be too trivial to refute such elemntry claims. I´d be intrested though if it atleast contained some personal views, argumentations and stand points than these empty claims.

Originally posted by ThePoint: I understand. Whatever the template, if it is an accurate and truthful presentation - then it really doesn't matter. Yet worse , it is not !! that is why i´d like her/him to have gone through the argumentations and have them examined.

This was really sad moment !! A discovery that could have served humanity into the future turned into a fabrication. Yet worse is the effect it is gonna have on the hard-working scientists in this feild around the globe. I personally hope a quick recovery for him and those who worked with him, obviously this was a work that costed alot of effort and dedication.

ThePoint, If u read again you´ll understand that i´m not against the article beeing copied and pasted per se, if u again read the article you´ll see that it is a prepared template that has the words "The Qur'an on the Origin of the Universe ", "The Qur'an on Clouds ","The Qur'an on Mountains " etc etc. It´s using this kind of template with a preset format that i´m against. And worse it gives the false impression that it is coined for the defence of creationism. Even worse , Proud_Muslimah forgot to fill the blank with the intended verses of the Quran. And yes i beleive TRUTH should be straight forward and self explanatory than beeing served as template with preset format and fallacious argumentation.

THERE IS NO REASON TO PLAGIARISE IN DEFENCE OF A WELL DOCUMENTED HISTORY AND I DON´T USE THE "WE" FORM IN A POST WHERE I STARTED WITH THE "I" FORM. NONETHELESS, MY APPOLOGIES FOR USING CAPITAL LETTERS AND NOT USING THE QUOTAUION MARKS. (MY KEYBAORD CAN ONLY TYPE IN CAPTITAL) I´VE BEEN TO AUSCHWITZ ON A SCHOOL JOURNEY AND I´VE SEEN IT WITH MY OWN EYES.

I don´t support the Israeli accupation of the west bank , but Holocaust denial is nothing more than pseudohistory. The Holocaust fact data is based on many things that all reinforce each other independently . We prove the Holocaust through a convergence of data that include: Written documents-letters, memos, blueprints of the camps, orders, bills, speeches, articles, memoirs and confessions. Eyewitness testimony accounts from survivors, members of the Jewish sonderkomandos who took bodies out of the gas chambers, SS guards, commandants, local townspeople and high-ranking nazi officials. We have many letters from German soldiers stationed on the Russian front to their families in, which they describe the mass shooting of Jews. Photographs-including official military and press photographs, civilian photographs, secret photographs taken by survivors, aerial photographs, German and allied film footage and photographs taken by the German military. The camps themselves; And inferential evidence-population demographic, reconstructed from pre-World War II. The Question should be, if six million were not killed, what happened to all these people?

As you´ve realized there were more probable outcomes than reality showed , so here is the answer: 1. Ngonge – Yoghurt and Shaah 2. Callypso – Sambuusa and Tufax Juice 3. Foxy – Donut and Coffee 4. Castro – Anjera and Caano Geel 5. Ahura – Sabaayad and Balbeelmo The winner and SOL´s most logical person is the one and ONLY Legend of Zu.

People like Proud_Muslimah apparently can only copy from others, being unable to construct their own arguments and attempted proofs. Perhaps if they had to sit down and work through the issues themselves, they might begin to see some of the flaws in the arguments they use. By simply copying and pasting the flawed work of others, though, they can avoid all the hard thinking and reasoning that might cause them to question their assumptions. Can’t have that, now can we? A person that goes to such an extent to defend a supposedly pure ,self-explanatory and compationate faith needs HELP.

With that answer i think i´ve proved that even I have problem abandoning my wrong position. Sheh , i accept your view, you´re right. i should have declared LZO´s answer the correct one and releifed you and everybody. will you accept my appology?

Sheh , that is unfair !! If men were held accountable for whatever they start , No couple would share a bedroom. ps.. I´d like not to ruin LZO´s celeberation , he was worth it, and he actually challenged you to take a LOOK at his answer:P