the clever ppl (men) are the ones that set up weird religious cults that allow 'free love'

Lord Shrek....waco was not so wacko after all

 

have you changed your name to adbul and bought your backpack yet

look at your crap above, if i or anyone else had said any of that about muslims you'd have a claim in for compensation to the council, saying some ****e about your human rights

if its so great to be a muslim then go to one country and all live there in your peace, we'll all see how long that last

 

All right, but apart from subway bombers, bus bombers, ranting Immans, intellectually substandard Muslim youth, Ban on wine, Muslim only Alton towers days, Muslim only swimming pools, Ghettos, Huge costs of security measures and public health issues, what have the Ba5tards ever done for us?

 

we built this country from scratch when your dole scrounging **** and ancestors didnt wanna work and strikes and strikes and more strikes and we brought this country up from the gutter, not just muslims, ethnics as a whole

http://www.1001inventions.com/index....tSectionID=309


above is what we did for u

and what did u give us, pillage and rape the muslim lands and of other ethnic origins and colonise lands and even the queen where;s the crown diamond of our ancestors the kohi noor

thats what we have fecking done

we gave u 24 hr stores and late shops and 7 days a week shops when the white britons didnt wanna work but rather have half days and rely on the nanny state

our ancestors fought for this country in world war 2, u must be fecking kidding , they were in the front line getting massacred and checking mines

u must be kidding, we gave u the toothbrush and how to bathe and have a shower coz u guys surely hated baths, 2 times in a lifetime woz a good bath according to your ancestors

 

lol thanks for your kind words and walaykum asalam

thats affy nice of u dude and thanks , i appreciate it , God willing i will take u for a run if we ever meet

 

lol peace bud and plz be oor brother were not all fanatics lol

u have a nice weekend mate

 

I thought you were supposed to be a scientist.

A theory is a consistent explanation of a set of facts, which CAN IN PRINCIPLE be disproved. eg, by finding facts that refute it.

This is what sets science apart from blind faith.

 

cheers mate willdo, off drag racing on the tiny 1/8th mile strip at north weald on sunday lol

 

Didn't learn how to shave though did you ?

 

Yeah, must admit the pommies have reputation for being soap dodgers.

You know, it's pointless arguing about who invented what because virtually the whole of humanity got us to the stage the world is in today. Not single group can take credit. More often than not when a group of people are in a dominant phase of their history they invent a lot.

Roman Empire, British Empire, the Muslim Golden Age, **** Germany, the Greeks etc

 

thats what i was getting at, that it cannot be disproven with the facts available to us at any given time.

You are right, if facts are found experimentally or through observation it would obviously cause the theory to change, but until something is found that disproves the original theory it cannot be disproved in principle or not.

 

Darwinism is a made up term used by the creationist believers, there is no "Darwinism theory" on the the theory of evolution.

There is no proof that we evolved from apes, because we didn't, no scientist claims we do, however, the primates do all have a common ancestor, that's a different issue. That we evolved from modern apes is another straw man put forward by the creationists who don't actually bother to find out what Evolution is.

Abiogenisis is to do with the emergence of life from base chemicals, evolution is to do with small mutations in the DNA and if those mutations are beneficial how to the species how they are retained (highly simplified explanation). They are not the same, in any way shape or form.

Please list the science professors that do not agree with evolution. You may then like to look at http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._2_16_2003.asp which list only scientists called Steve that DO believe the theory of evolution to be correct and which alone counts for many times more than those that do disagree.

I've already suggested that you have a look at talk origins, you'll find it clarifies matters and shows the errors in your understanding and thinking, if after you've read that, you can come up with something new then I'll be happy to discuss it.

 

im suprised u didnt notice the smoothness of the muslims, their smooth as a supermodels waxed ***, i thought u would have noticed that when u give the muslim men a *******, didnt u notice we shave oor pubes and underarms lol

maybe u had your eyes closed with so much enjoyment u just didnt notice that

 

yeah i had to remind u that, coz u forget when u r spewing garbage and bull****

your so called civilization have been up to the moon and back and still use dry toilet paper to clean your *****, thats very civilized


not


u believe in evolution, thats cool with me, u can believe your a monkey or a son of a monkey, but i dont wanna, im a son of adam so why the **** does that bother u , i dont have a problem with u being a darwin monkey, live and let live

 

Hi Moses

Good to see you back. You need to stop being so bitter though as it was your own choice to support Celtic


Peace to you and your family
Alasdair


PS.........Up the Gers

 

lol God bless u bud and thank u very much and so glad to see u mate, celtic through and through lol mate proud to be a hoop


always will be

even my lil girl is she says hi to uncle alas

the wee elvish mujahida








and lol mate i aint bitter, just teaching these narrow minded poofters a wee lesson of history

 

even matching irish and islamic colours haha check her hair band


i taught her never to betray her celtic colours, see my wee brother who is a fecking billyboy hun , rangers scumbag tries to brainwash her and tries to make her follow the blues, i make sure it doesnt work on her

 

here is the mujahideen scots brigade leader





she will show them a thing about sharia


sorry im aff topic

hail scotland

 

great pics m8.....................apart from that bloody awful, hideous shirt.


The Celtic one I mean

 

mate...

Seriously - you are much more f*cked up than you think you are.

Indeed, than I thought you were...

 

**** me - Has Prince Charles ever popped round for a cuppa tea ?

 

Ok Olly abiogenesis, interesting theory, below are some problems i have encountered with it after researching and looking into it for the whole of 20 Minutes......


1) There is nothing (and I do mean nothing) that scientists have encountered that is both simple enough to be our first "ancestor," yet complicated enough to replicate itself (at which point natural selection would prevail).
2) What proponents of abiogenesis lack is an "intermediate form/organism." This supposed organism must be in between inorganic molecules--which generally have no tendency to replicate themselves (even when they do "replicate," such as in a crystal, there is no variation in that process, hence no natural selection)--and complex organisms like ourselves. Even the "simplest" organisms of today are incredibily complex, and cannot be accounted for at the "beginning." This professor said that he and his colleagues have _faith_ that such an organism can be found, but, as of yet, have no evidence to that end.
3) The probability of such an event occuring is astronomical. I can safely say that with the estimates I have seen thus far, you couldn't even imagine the number of lives you'd have to live to count to such an enormous number. More than a few scientists (who obviously reject abiogenesis) have speculated that there is not enough matter in the universe for abiogenesis to occur (anywhere). The usual retort to this is: "Well, we are here, so that's the proof!" Well, I find such an argument hokey at best. We are here, but that does nothing in the way of supporting abiogenesis. If you really believe we are that 1 in 1x10^40 chance, then go ahead.
4) With the RNA model (as I recall), there is a problem of needing two molecules/organisms/processes to get things "rolling." As I remember, the literature said that there used to be a problem with needing three molecules (or whatever) but that has since been reduced. In any event, as I gathered, they have the "Chicken and the Egg" problem on their hands (with this particular model and at this point in time, at least).
5) The conditions of the earth that they (biologists et al) propose is not conducive to any form of life (or the beginnings thereof) as we know them. Of course, we don't even know what the earth was like back then. RNA is fragile, and it is difficult to imagine how such a molecule could survive to "reproduce." In fine, the proposed conditions of the primordial earth present a big problem for all the models (i.e., you need the right "stuff" in the atmosphere to promote "life", but you also need some heavy-duty protection for that life to keep it that way).

If one believes that a living cell can come into existence by coincidence, then there is nothing to prevent one from believing a similar story that we will relate below. It is the story of a town:
When the number of bricks is adequate, they erect a building by being arranged sideways and on top of each other, having been randomly dragged along by the effects of natural conditions such as winds, storms, or tornadoes. Meanwhile, materials such as cement or soil mixtures form under "natural conditions", with perfect timing, and creep between the bricks to clamp them to each other. While all this is happening, iron ore under the ground is shaped under "natural conditions" and lays the foundations of a building that is to be formed with these bricks. At the end of this process, a complete building rises with all its materials, carpentry, and installations intact.
Of course, a building does not only consist of foundations, bricks, and cement. How, then, are the other missing materials to be obtained? The answer is simple: all kinds of materials that are needed for the construction of the building exist in the earth on which it is erected. Silicon for the glass, copper for the electric cables, iron for the columns, beams, water pipes, etc. all exist under the ground in abundant quantities. It takes only the skill of "natural conditions" to shape and place these materials inside the building. All the installations, carpentry, and accessories are placed among the bricks with the help of the blowing wind, rain, and earthquakes. Everything has gone so well that the bricks are arranged so as to leave the necessary window spaces as if they knew that something called glass would be formed later on by natural conditions. Moreover, they have not forgotten to leave some space to allow the installation of water, electricity and heating systems, which are also later to be formed by coincidence. Everything has gone so well that "coincidences" and "natural conditions" produce a perfect design.



If you have managed to sustain your belief in this story so far, then you should have no trouble surmising how the town's other buildings, plants, highways, sidewalks, substructures, communications, and transportation systems came about. If you possess technical knowledge and are fairly conversant with the subject, you can even write an extremely "scientific" book of a few volumes stating your theories about "the evolutionary process of a sewage system and its uniformity with the present structures". You may well be honoured with academic awards for your clever studies, and may consider yourself a genius, shedding light on the nature of humanity.



The theory of abiogenesis, which claims that life came into existence by chance, is no less absurd than our story, for, with all its operational systems, and systems of communication, transportation and management, a cell is no less complex than a city.

 

Below are some cut and pastes about Evolutionists conceding the flaws in their ideals;

The theory of evolution faces no greater crisis than on the point of explaining the emergence of life. The reason is that organic molecules are so complex that their formation cannot possibly be explained as being coincidental and it is manifestly impossible for an organic cell to have been formed by chance.

Jeffrey Bada


Evolutionists confronted the question of the origin of life in the second quarter of the 20th century. One of the leading authorities of the theory of molecular evolution, the Russian evolutionist Alexander I. Oparin, said this in his book The Origin of Life, which was published in 1936:

Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question which is actually the darkest point of the complete evolution theory.1

Since Oparin, evolutionists have performed countless experiments, conducted research, and made observations to prove that a cell could have been formed by chance. However, every such attempt only made clearer the complex design of the cell and thus refuted the evolutionists' hypotheses even more. Professor Klaus Dose, the president of the Institute of Biochemistry at the University of Johannes Gutenberg, states:

More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.2

The following statement by the geochemist Jeffrey Bada from San Diego Scripps Institute makes clear the helplessness of evolutionists concerning this impasse:

Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth?3




1 Alexander I. Oparin, Origin of Life, (1936) NewYork: Dover Publications, 1953 (Reprint), p.196.

2 Klaus Dose, "The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers", Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol 13, No. 4, 1988, p. 348
3 Jeffrey Bada, Earth, February 1998, p. 40
4 Nicholas Wade, "Life's Origins Get Murkier and Messier", The New York Times, June 13, 2000, pp. D1-D2



Probabilistic calculations make it clear that complex molecules such as proteins and nucleic acids (RNA and DNA) could not ever have been formed by chance independently of each other. Yet evolutionists have to face the even greater problem that all these complex molecules have to coexist simultaneously in order for life to exist at all. Evolutionary theory is utterly confounded by this requirement. This is a point on which some leading evolutionists have been forced to confession. For instance, Stanley Miller's and Francis Crick's close associate from the University of San Diego California, reputable evolutionist Dr. Leslie Orgel says:


It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.1


DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins.2


How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules), originate? For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer.3


The New York Times science correspondent, Nicholas Wade made this comment in an article dated 2000:


Everything about the origin of life on Earth is a mystery, and it seems the more that is known, the more acute the puzzle get.4

 

I'll bet the long winter nights fly by in your house

 

'I'll bet the long winter nights fly by in your house'

LOL i didn't even read what rally put. It was too much effort

 

Self hatred-is not a healthy state of mind fella. Get some help with all this hate of yours before something goes pop (or boom of course)

 

i would have to agree - or mybe hes a bit of a keyboard warrior

 

And why would this be a surprise. Only a very small percentage of the life that has been on this planet actually produced fossils or exist today.

There are self replicating polymers that have been developed in the lab which are canidates for the transition between inorganic and organic - this is not new science BTW.

Yes the creationists put forward the "big numbers argument" in the Penn Dover trial in the USA. It was shown in that trial that the numbers involved could be shown in 1 suare meter of soil for 1 type of bacteria in a 5 year period. When you consider that the planet has been around for several billion years it actually would be amazing if spotaneous life hadn't occured.

Errr - would you like to explain the actual problem in clear English rather than recounting vague recollections I may then be able to respond.

What conditions? Who says RNA was the first step? What point are you actually trying to make here?

I don't know anybody who does believe this. Viruses are much more simple organism than a cell. The pre-curors to life were more likely even more simple - what's your point? I smell a straw man again.

Your assuming cells are the most simple form of life, I have already pointed out that they aren't.

 

Again straw man. You keep trying to lump abiogenesis and evolution in together, they are very separate things.

Nobody claims that Evolution snaswers all the questions, however, all the evidence we have to date fits it very nicely, the evidence we have fits evolution better than any other theory out there. Also consider that religion does not even have a hypothesis for the creation of life, it makes a claim, but it isn't testable.