^ I'm a little confused. Do you want to talk about the notion of God? Creationism carries Christian connotations, so lets strip this discussion of religious connotations, and simply discuss the notion of God, mhmm?

Originally posted by NGONGE: quote:Originally posted by Norfsky: ^It's 50% of whatever is over 35k. Say you earn 70k. You will be taxed 22% of 35k and 50% of 35k. At least thsts what I think it is. You're both wrong. The first £37,400 of your income is taxed at 20% (not 22, that's the old rate). anything over £37,400 is taxed at 40%. From 2010 those on £150,000 or more are taxed at 50% (only the amount over £150,000 is taxed at 50% and not the entire income). So if you make £38 000 a year and pay 40% income tax, council tax, car tax, TV licence... then I'm never leaving university.

^ lol

Here is a picture of a mosque minaret Clearly very different to the one the Swiss used in their campaign:

In the marketplace of modern success the only currencies accepted are values and principles.

Life is a lake in which trees grow.

Originally posted by Norfsky: quote:Originally posted by grasshopper: One movie I really recommend: Apocalypto ! I could watch this movie over and over and never get tired of it. Same here. Brilliant film. Will watch the others. I hope now one spoils it for me by stating what happens in these movies (yes I'm talking to you Dabshid). It's so good that you forget they are half-naked.

Originally posted by *Salma*: I hate Dance Flick fery fery much.. :mad: 2+2=4: R u referring to the same "Dance Flick" with the same movie poster you've posted?? strange ...Nothing broke my heart but the 30 Dirhams I wasted on that silly movie....a big tear was on my cheek while leaving the theatre LOL I am speechless when it comes to "Children of Heaven" Atfaal Al Jannah was double amazing, indeed... luved it... Heheh I got you there for a minute, didn't I? I actually haven't even seen Dance Flick but just the poster is enough to make me cringe I will feel suspicious about you from now on though, since you actually paid money to see that horrible excuse to waste film. By the way, I'm 2+2=5! Not 4. 5. For those of you who liked 'Children of Heaven', you'll probably enjoy watching 'Osama' (2003) too. I somewhat struggled with it. I did not want to like this film, because it's an unadulterated propaganda movie, but a very moving one at that! The director Siddiq Barmak studied in Moscow and was quite clearly influenced by the likes of Andrei Tarkovsky. For every film lover, that last bit should mean something. For the rest of us, it means that this message is getting boring.

Originally posted by Norfsky: I would have to say 2+2=5's responses have been clear, concise and to the point. Good job :cool: Thank you At least someone appreciates them.

Peacenow = loser ?

Someone on this board once asked me what I thought about the climate change. Scandalous It is a matter of time when a similar thing will happen to evolutionary theory.

Originally posted by Geel_jire: ... we've made piracy a community activity." hahahha

LOL @ Teenage dirtbag! I only recognized 4 of those songs.

I am not spamming. This is a gem of a film. If you can look past the exploitative poster, this film offers one of the most emotional scenes in film history. You thought Casablanca had a sad ending? Forget it! This is guaranteed to break your heart.

Originally posted by Jacaylbaro: ,,, erotic novel ,,, The Empress' New Lingerie and other erotic Fairy Tales: Bed-time Stories for Grown-ups. Is that what you meant? I'll start reading Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco very soon. I can't remember the last non-academic book I read for enjoyment. A relative of mine reads those simplified novels for learners of English and I've read quite a few out of boredom. But they don't count. I think the last book I read was Bartleby & Co. by Enrique Vila-Matas. A very sophisticated book about the impossibility of writing, full of anecdotes of famous and other lesser known writers (the title comes from Herman Melville's [Moby Dick] short story Bartleby). I even managed to discover a few great writers because of that sleek book.

Originally posted by Dabshid: If he is not a virgin, why would he expect a virgin? Excellent question. Who cares about what culture places a high value upon. We should only care about what Islam places high value on. And that is virginity - both men and women's. So men, do not be tempted by women in high heels and short skirts, guard your virginity. And women, do not be deceived by the lies of immoral men, guard your purity.

La Roux -In for the Kill

To be young it means to listen to others endlessly to walk around to hop on and hop off to hitchhike maybe even grab a bike planes and trains and stations winks and smiles and stares in the path of life you'll have some loose change the love of your parents but when the night falls and the distant stars dimly shine with no one else around 'cept the grasshoppers you'll feel alone, you'll feel the cold it's as if the warmth of life had disappeared and something else... replaced it you'll make a hut out of grass you'll always have that loose change the wisdom of your parents - c. c. beddinfieldcohenbergheim

Originally posted by hodman: These are pretty good! I luv this one quote: Originally posted by 2+2=5: A Dream Tell me, if I caught you today how would you feel in my fingers would I feel tiny crumbs or would my hands feel sticky Tell me, how does illusion feel? - Hitaki Nokumaro Thanks! I actually made it up. I doubt Hitaki Nokumaro is even a legitimate name!

Falls from grace because of domestic violence (in which he was the victim) or the suspected infidelity? Check your morals.

Raamsade wrote: Is there anything that I can tell you that will change your mind? Your objective is to change my mind? I am not interested in what you say. I am interested in the Truth, and the truth is that Allah Almighty created us, everything around us, everything that existed prior to our existence and everything that will exists after us. We did not evolve from an organism, or an ape, nor will we ever evolve into another species. But since you believe in this unbelievable nonsense, I think you can shed some light as to why evolutionists don't teach school kids that their offsprings may not be be same species as them. Surely it cannot be lack of faith? Here is a select list of empirical evidences from various fields demonstrating descent of humans from ape-like ancestor some 6-7 millions years ago (when Chimps and Humans separated): You're driving the discussion into humans and chimps. It seems the only way you can provide proof for the first assumption is by drawing some "evidence" from another assumption. I don't know how many people are actually reading this, but you bet your bananas ape kid, that they can see right through it. Biochemistry: Humans and other great apes can't synthesize their own vitamin c. A lot of other animals can't synthesize C vitamin, so what? What you are trying to say here is that the mutation that makes vitamin C gene inactive is almost the same to the mutation seen in chimps. Ever heard of pseudogenes? Genetics: Humans and Chimps share 98% of their DNA Half-truths, half-truths. The 98% is derived from protein-coding regions that only compromise about 1.5% of the two genomes. Plus, all the great apes have 48 chromosomes. Humans have 46. So where did the extra pair go? We know that sometimes chromosomes fuse and become one. Thus, if humans descended from ape-like ancestor like other great apes, those extra chromosomes found in other primates MUST be found in our genome. Otherwise evolution theory is in big trouble? Did we find? I'll let Dr. Ken Miller answer it. Chromosome 2 looks like two ape chromosomes stuck together. Now read that again before proceeding. What do you think the consequence of having a Robertsonian translocation is? Comparative anatomy: Humans and Chimps have uncanny ***anatomical similarities*** showcasing their close evolutionary relationship and descent from a common ancestor. Have you looked at your knee lately? How is it similar to a Chimps? I'd like to hear your insight into the evolution of the knee, as "little changes adding up" clearly isn't how it came to be. Biostratigraphy: The placement of fossils is exactly as required by evolution theory. For instance, you will not find Australopithecus coexisting with Homo Sapiens. So? How does this prove A evolved into Homo S, as opposed to them being separate species that existed at different times? Or more generally, humans coexisting with Dinosaurs as the theory of Special Creation would have you believe. Oh FFS. What exactly is "variation within a kind?" [b/] We know different population within species exhibit variations (genetic diversity) thus enabling evolution to take place in the first place. But I'm talking about speciation -- the birth of new species different from its parent species. It happens all the time and I can provide more examples from academic sources. Again back to my question, if it happens all the time, why are kids not told in advance about the possibility of having an offspring that is a wholly another species? This is classic creationist canard and demonstrably false. Genetic information is constantly being added via mutations. Mutation is the source of genetic diversity. Even Richard Dawkins says in his short article Information Challenge (http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/): "Mutation is not an increase in true information content, rather the reverse" But he continues: "for mutation, in the Shannon analogy, contributes to increasing the prior uncertainty. But now we come to natural selection, which reduces the ‘prior uncertainty’ and therefore, in Shannon’s sense, contributes information to the gene pool. In every generation, natural selection removes the less successful genes from the gene pool, so the remaining gene pool is a narrower subset." Claude Shannon was an American engineer who developed information theory. Richard Dawkins, in an attempt to answer the question why there are no beneficial mutations (ones which add information) responded by twisting the whole meaning and giving an answer that roughly goes "mutations do add information but in a way that it makes it seem like it loses information". They're not part of scientific community. Scientists DO science. You are a proper close-minded evo-fundamentalist, acuudubillaah. Creationists DON'T. Instead of science, they try to force their false believes into science classes via school boards, courts and state legislatures. I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not. Evolutionists lie through their teeth. But there will be a day when we all will know the truth. Until then, feel free to think of yourself as a soulless creature; a random result of billions of years of mere chance - in a body that is so complex and effective, and in a universe that is so logical and precise. Consensus doesn't necessarily mean unanimity By consensus, I meant what the overwhelming majority of scientists accept today. So consensus = majority. Lets see what Thesaurus says: Agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole. Synonyms: accord, concord, concurrence, consent, harmony, unanimity, unison, unity You did not mean what the "overwhelming majority" of scientists accepted, because if you had, you would have said so. Plain & simple. There will always be dissenting voices. That's given. The facts remain though. Eating up your words? I believe your first reaction was "rubbish". Look it up, it's still there. There you go again. Misconstruing what others say and practicing "name dropping." I asked you a simple question [whether there were EVO scientists who rejected the view birds evolved from dinos], which you rejected very firmly ("rubbish") and claimed that the "consensus in scientific community" agreed on it. And to prove you wrong, I gave you 2 examples of scientists who support the evolutionary theory BUT REJECT the birds-evolved-from-dinos view, but NOW you say I misinterpret others, and accuse me of "name-dropping"? You're an effin' retard. Sorry, you really are. As if that will change the FACT of evolution It will definitely make you seem like a total 1diot, because that is beside the point. If he disagrees with that then he's wrong. So this long time professor of biology at Harvard is wrong, and you're right? Lets read more about him in his obituary in the Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article511343.ece "Mayr’s many honours include the Japan Prize, the Balzan Prize and the Crafoord Prize, one of the most prestigious international awards open to biologists" Anyway, this was only to cement my original claim: "The evolutionary theory isn't even in accordance with itself." Now that is has done it purpose, we can move on. We're talking about evolution, >>>more specifically inheritance of traits<<<, and you're asking me why I'm mentioning genetics? Do you even know the meaning of genetics? The >>>bit : Show me where. I had asked you for a definition of the evolutionary theory. We were not talking about "more specifically inheritance traits" here. At least I wasn't, in fact this is what I said: "I'll give you another chance. Explain_to_me_what_e volutionary_theory_i s." So where in that was I "more specifically" talking about inheritance traits? It's called Straw-man fallacy. No, it's called you not knowing what the hell I was talking about. How It Could Have Gone Had You Known What I was Talking About: 5: You gotta give it to some evolutionary geneticist though, since without their awesome imagination we wouldn't have my favourite comic X-Men! Raamsade: Yes, X-men is the best known example in pop culture about saltation. However saltation was long discredited, and it is not a widely held belief today. Instead, you wrote: I'm not gonna respond to this but let it hang there. It will come in handy later in showing us GG's entire understanding of genetics and mutations is cartoon-ish as it is gleaned from cartoons. Which means you didn't know what I was talking about. As simple as that. You attacked phony positions that modern Evolution Theory doesn't espouse because you can't debunk the REAL ideas of modern Evolution Theory. I am only commenting on this because it is interesting to see how evolutionary theory changed into 'modern evolution theory' in this sentence. What makes you so sure this version of Windows evolutionary theory, is the last one? You're wrong again. Here is ANOTHER place where the list "comes up in that exact same order:" Talk Origins... this is a site maintained by a real scientists who is actually doing real science. Any other site on the internet that may have the same list comes from Talk Origins. Actually there are 6 of them now. In any case, when I first searched, only that one thread came up. It also begs the question; why not mention it any sooner? I also gave a list fossils for human evolution that I compiled. Did you reject that list either along similar lines? Nope. You completely ignored it just like you ignored the evidence of bird evolution from dinosaurs. Pay attention to this: "I ALSO gave a list... Did you reject that list either ALONG SIMILAR LINES?". So if you know the reason why I rejected the evidence for bird evolution, then why do you continue: You don't want to address the evidence for bird evolution because you can't. Are you doing this on purpose? Go back to my previous post and re-read what I wrote. Now, lets recap: I asked for conclusive and irrefutable evidence that Australopithecus (afarensis) is a human ancestor. You replied: "This species was clearly an intermediate between apes and humans. For instance, its brain was about the size of chimpanzee but it was bipedal and had anatomical features resembling more closely humans as opposed to apes. Furthermore, its teeth looked more human than apes. And the date of the fossils predate fossils for modern humans." The fact that its brain was the size of a chimp and it had anatomical features that resembled more closely humans, makes it - according to you - a human ancestor. Now I know there are some evofanatics who can perhaps explain this better than you can, given your appalling lack of knowledge on the subject, and skills as a debater (you cannot even keep up with what is being said). In any case, if we applied this same "scientific" method with neanderthals & the floresiensis, we would come to the conclusion that the floresiensis came before the neanderthals. Therefore your method of is flawed; therefore you have not been able to explain why Australopithecus Afarensis is a human ancestor; and therefore you haven't given me a reason to believe it. There you have it. Are you serious? You're submitting drawings and cartoons as evidence against evolution? What a confused and ignorant child you are. Those drawings are evolutionist illustrations based on the skeletons found. It's interesting to see you belittling them, though. No body gives a damn about someone's drawings; we're talking about fossils. You asked my personal thought as to who I think resembled humans more; ****I gave my answer based on the fossil evidence****. If you disagree, bring the contradictory fossil evidence. ***That is an interesting lie. OK. Below is a neanderthal skeleton. And here is a floresiensis: Here is a flores skull with a human skull: And here is a neander skull with a human skull: And you claim that based on the fossil evidence, you have come to the conclusion that the floresiensis resemble more human? I don't have time for this kind of blatant lying and trolling. I should've asked you, what do you consider "irrefutable evidence?" Until and unless you define what you're seeking, you're just waffling as usual. Ah, hindsight. So "irrefutable" and "conclusive" are now words with no fixed meaning. Lets quote Thesaurus: Irrefutable: impossible to deny or disprove. Conclusive: forming an end or termination; especially putting an end to doubt or question; "conclusive proof"; "the evidence is conclusive" You do not use words and then ask the opponent for the meaning of the words. If you do not know or have doubts about the meaning of words, simply don't use them. Third, Homo floresiensis, since it is found on an Island, could be dwarf human And why do you feel it's important for you to say this? You already said that based on the fossil evidence you had come to the conclusion that the floresiensis resembled more the modern human. Unless you feel that modern humans look like dwarfs. Yes and no. One person can make procedural error and can overestimate. But not hundreds and thousands of people. It's like using ATM. If one person forgets his pin number and can't get out cash, it doesn't mean ATMs don't work for everybody else. So essentially, overestimation is to due with the person forgetting how to use their equipment? Explain "procedural error", please. Who said natural selection created these "protections?" Did the first cell have them? This is a blatant lie. But I'll give a chance to redeem yourself by providing evidence. You keep repeating this lie and I keep correcting you. It's getting tiring but since you're the claimant, the onus is on you to back it up. Remember we're talking about germ line or reproductive cells, not somatic cells. http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/NIH/gene07.php "Gene mutations can be either inherited from a parent or acquired. A heredity mutation is a mistake that is present in the DNA of virtually all body cells. Hereditary mutations are also called germ-line mutations because the gene change exists in the reproductive cells and can be passed from generation to generation" http://www.medicinenet.com/genetic_disease/article.htm "Most genetic diseases are the direct result of a mutation in one gene". What do you study; Spanish Language and Literature? Any loss in genetic diversity is replenished by mutations - the source of the diversity in the FIRST place. Wow. I just realized I've spent a significant amount of time for the past couple of months with someone who is either too arrogant or too ignorant. Evolution theory already assumes the existence of living things and proceeds from that point forward to explain how every living thing today and the past descended from original one or few living things. This is the Fallacy of Straw-man again. You demand is akin to asking physics to explain mathematics. Physics takes mathematics as given and uses it. Same with Evolution Theory. The existence of living things is a GIVEN in Evolution Theory You always yell Straw man when you can't think of anything to say. It's pathetic. You made a stup1d comment, which you're now effectively trying to run away from. There are still single celled organisms. That alone demonstrates Evolution doesn't proceed ahead from less complex to more complex. The only thing I "demanded" was for you to explain what you said, but it seems you have a habit of saying things you haven't got a clue about.

Completely agree with you, ThePoint. I think Queen Arawello should only be concerned about what kind of person she wants to be, and not pigeon-hole people. I'm Somali, I am female and I can be a busy NASA astrophysicist if that's what I want. Isn't it time we stopped thinking about what we should be doing and who we should be according to others (especially Somalis)? So, don't worry your pretty head about what the role of Somali women is - because there isn't a fixed one. You do whatyagottado.

^^ Well said!

You know what, my cousins and sister have hindi hair. So I think this "trying to look white" argument doesn't always hold true for Somalis. For some jilaac hair is just natural hair. :mad:

Originally posted by Norfsky: 2+2=5 Nice! When and where? Thanks! Hargeisa 2009.