Richard Dawkins - God is evil, pedophilesa not so bad

Sep 14, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Examiner.com

"The God of the Qur'an is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Comments
2,561 - 2,580 of 3,031 Comments Last updated May 21, 2014

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2665
Mar 14, 2014
 
Mahmood wrote:
<quoted text>
In order to mask the contradiction, what you and your fellows muslims are doing, is claiming that 2:62 is referring to those Jews/Xtians/Sabians who have passed away before the advent of Mohammad. However, the verse itself does not say that. The verse does not say "those Jews, Xtians, and Sabians who have died before the coming of Allah's final apostle".
What is the point of Mohammad's message? You tell me. Because from what I can see, there is a contradiction which you haven't solved. It says in two places in the Koran that people of the book have nothing to fear, and none of those two verses has conditions attached to them.
you misunderstood my questions Mahmoud, my point is that if one isn't obligated to believe in Mohammed then a pagan also would survive in the hereafter, what you are suggesting is completely illogical, and that's why you have to understand the message of Islam instead of interpreting Quranic verses the way you like it.

Believing in Mohammed is a must in order to be a Muslim, hence all the true followers of the previous prophets were Muslims, so if you were at the time of Moses and believed in his message you are a Muslim, and if you were at the time of Jesus and believed him you would also be a Muslim, so if you were alive at the time of Mohammed the last messenger it would also be a must to believe in him, otherwise you would be a disbeliever.

Islam came as the final message and the complement as it works perfectly at anytime and in anyplace, Moses (Judaism) message was a perfect message at his time and so was Christianity, but as we both know the world changes and such religions would be no longer useful and/or applicable.

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2666
Mar 14, 2014
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps not but it has everything to do with your comment “besides you cannot observe something happened millions of years ago.” The stars prove you can
The theory of evolution is now irrefutable fact. There are simply too many independent lines of evidence that confirm evolution.
Macro, Micro both the same thing, one is simply a lot of the other. Only godbots attempt to obfuscate them.
so are you a 100% sure that evolution did happen ??
and how does that in anyway disprove the existence of a creator ??!
I still don't see any link between the two.

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2667
Mar 14, 2014
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Good guess but you have no clue whether they will remain pigs or not, you simply hope.
And again adaptation is evolution, micro evolution is evolution
Why are you insisting in a change in kind? Is a change in form or intelligence or ability not also evolution? Is it because you don’t understand or because you don’t want to understand? Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of the word before continuing.
you still don't get my point, I don't have any problem with evolution (adaptation for survival), like giraffes evolving their physical Capabilities to reach food, but I have a big problem with Darwinian's theory which suggests a change in kind, so if pigs evolved into much smarter Creatures, that's fine but if they remained pigs and didn't evolve into jigs for instance then your theory fail and such an example would be completely irrelevant.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey, you brought it up, you insinuated, you tried to belittle me so don’t get all incredulous when the reply is more than you can handle.
Again, Darwinian theory is old hat, a good starting point, actually not even that but a good intermediate point. The ancient Greeks started the discussion on evolution
And FYI, Who was mocking, I was stating fact. Mud huts were mentioned to highlight you ignorance in you abuse of who I am and what I do.
As for inconsiderateness you ignorant fool, how the fook can you, who knows nothing about me and what I do to the extent of claiming lies even condescend to make suck an accusation? Ahh I get it , it’s because you have nothing substantial and real to go on so you need to make BS up. Perhaps I should call you buck crick, he also thinks he is good at vomiting BS and lies.
no one tried to belittle you in anyway, and I still don't understand how your C.V will help you to prove your point, and its still you who mentioned mud huts in a mockery way, in our real world that's inconsiderateness.

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2668
Mar 14, 2014
 
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
If a new gene is macro evolution then a bacteria evolving a new gene to let it eat nylon is macro evolution.
How do you know such changes only occur in single sex bacteria? Please explain this barrier you think exists that prevents new genes in twin sex yeast (yes sex began in single celled eukaryotes).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis#Origin_a...
single sex cells doesn't need males and females, and as far as I know it would be impossible for bisexuals to breed (embryonic rules), so how could mammals make it happen ??
and I think the nylon bacteria is an irrelevant example, because bacteria you cannot compare mammals with bacteria, hence bacteria spread faster.
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
It shows common decent and that dinos can evolve into birds without evolving entirely new functions but just by modifying what already exists.
we don't know that much about Dinus, fossils may only show us some skeletal similarities, how could we know if some Dinus had feathers or not ??
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
We're almost exactly the same.
We just have a bigger brain and walk upright.

we're almost exactly the same like Bananas as well (40%), So what ???!

[QUOTE who="Igor Trip"]<quoted text>
This is because the Y chromosome is subject to far more mutations than X chromosomes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome#Deg...
There are mammals that have actually lost their Y chromosomes!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome#Fut...
“The Transcaucasian mole vole, Ellobius lutescens, the Zaisan mole vole, Ellobius tancrei, and the Japanese spinous country rats Tokudaia osimensis and Tokudaia muenninki, have lost the Y chromosome and SRY entirely.[12][26][27] Tokudaia spp. have relocated some other genes ancestrally present on the Y chromosome to the X chromosome.[27] Both genders of Tokudaia spp. and Ellobius lutescens have an XO genotype,[27] whereas all Ellobius tancrei possess an XX genotype.[12] The new sex-determining system for these rodents remains unclear.”
<quoted text>
There are no laws of embryology.
There's nothing stopping a new gene having just a small effect on embryonic development, and if it's beneficial it will help the embryo survive and thus be passed on the next generation.
<quoted text>
That it's a mystery.
Thank you for the valuable information, I really appreciate it.
so Just briefly are you saying that Darwinian's theory is an irrefutable fact ??
if not how much would you give it out of 10 ??

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2669
Mar 14, 2014
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
What two things? You seem to be confused about old and outdated observation compared to scientifically evidence and peer reviewed reality
So you are denying that Björn Kurtén stated that man evolved from an ape like creature over 12 million years ago? Who said he was the only one? I was countering your lies about this one mans belief. I an sure that some small percentage of scientist are at odds with evolution, I believe you will find that they are not well respected and have great difficulty getting tenure unless it’s with the discovery institute goddunit with magic brigade or the Muslim godduit with magic brigade . If they are willing to put their faith before there science then they are welcome to p|ss off into the back rooms of science denial where they belong
yes I am denying that Björn Kurtén stated that man evolved from an ape like creature, I read the book 2 years ago and pretty sure that he made it obvious to the reader that humans didnt evolve from apes, did you read the book ?? that is a question you should answer by yes or no...!!

I also recommend Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, you don't have the right to make it look like everybody agrees on Darwin's theory, and again such scientists have nothing to do with religions, they disprove evolution theory by science.
Atheist Silurist

Swansea, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2670
Mar 14, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
yes I am denying that Björn Kurtén stated that man evolved from an ape like creature, I read the book 2 years ago and pretty sure that he made it obvious to the reader that humans didnt evolve from apes, did you read the book ?? that is a question you should answer by yes or no...!!
I also recommend Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, you don't have the right to make it look like everybody agrees on Darwin's theory, and again such scientists have nothing to do with religions, they disprove evolution theory by science.
"scientists have nothing to do with religions, they disprove evolution theory by science."

Lets see some evidence for your claim?

In his writings supporting intelligent design, Michael Behe, a Lehigh University biochemistry professor and author of “Darwin’s Black Box,” said that “intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on proposed mechanisms of how complex biological structures arose.”

But during cross examination, when plaintiffs’ attorney Eric Rothschild asked Behe to identify those mechanisms, he couldn’t.

Behe had a chance to present evidence for irreducible complexity and he blew it.It was always going to be that way because he had no evidence for his claim in the first place. His religious conviction got in the way. He failed,miserably.

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2671
Mar 14, 2014
 
Atheist Silurist wrote:
<quoted text>
"scientists have nothing to do with religions, they disprove evolution theory by science."
Lets see some evidence for your claim?
In his writings supporting intelligent design, Michael Behe, a Lehigh University biochemistry professor and author of “Darwin’s Black Box,” said that “intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on proposed mechanisms of how complex biological structures arose.”
But during cross examination, when plaintiffs’ attorney Eric Rothschild asked Behe to identify those mechanisms, he couldn’t.
Behe had a chance to present evidence for irreducible complexity and he blew it.It was always going to be that way because he had no evidence for his claim in the first place. His religious conviction got in the way. He failed,miserably.
don't you think that the evolution theory somehow contradicts with the Cambrian Explosion ??

you should take in consideration that Charles Darwin discussed the cambrian explosion as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.
Atheist Silurist

Swansea, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2672
Mar 15, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
don't you think that the evolution theory somehow contradicts with the Cambrian Explosion ??
you should take in consideration that Charles Darwin discussed the cambrian explosion as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.
How does the Cambrian Explosion contradict evolution?

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2673
Mar 15, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
single sex cells doesn't need males and females, and as far as I know it would be impossible for bisexuals to breed (embryonic rules), so how could mammals make it happen ??
But just what is sex?
Sex is when two cells (each with just one copy of DNA) fuse into one with now two copies of DNA.

Eukaryote cells have two copies of DNA.
They have two ways of dividing.
They can either make two more copies of DNA and then split in two (Diploid cells. This is how we grow) or they can make two more copies and split into four each with one copy of the DNA (Haploid cells. Sex cells).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis
When two haploid cells meet they can fuse into one.
In single celled animals there is no sexual differences between cells.

In multicellular plants and animals there are distinct male and female cells.
The difference between egg and sperm cells is that eggs are large, full of food and static whilst sperm start as a normal cell but then everything it doesn't need is removed leaving a tiny cell with just the DNA and a tail so it can swim.
The reason for there being two sexes isn't really understood but as the sperm is only adding DNA to the egg there are probably less biological problems then if a whole cell was added.
In an embryo the same cells can either form into egg or sperm producing cells. Because of this many species can actually change sex, including some fish that start as male and grow into females and others that start as female and grow into males.
hazem selawi wrote:
and I think the nylon bacteria is an irrelevant example, because bacteria you cannot compare mammals with bacteria, hence bacteria spread faster.
Size doesn't matter. We all have DNA.
hazem selawi wrote:
we don't know that much about Dinus, fossils may only show us some skeletal similarities, how could we know if some Dinus had feathers or not ??
Feathers can be seen in some small dinosaur fossils.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosa...
hazem selawi wrote:
we're almost exactly the same like Bananas as well (40%), So what ???!
So all life is related. Nothing is entirely new so the distinction between species is far less than you think.
hazem selawi wrote:
Thank you for the valuable information, I really appreciate it.
so Just briefly are you saying that Darwinian's theory is an irrefutable fact ??
if not how much would you give it out of 10 ??
9.9 but only because nothing can ever be truly proven.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2674
Mar 15, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
don't you think that the evolution theory somehow contradicts with the Cambrian Explosion ??
you should take in consideration that Charles Darwin discussed the cambrian explosion as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.
Unknown to Charles Darwin there was simple precambrian multicellular life.
So the explosion wasn't as much of an explosion as previously thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosi...

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2675
Mar 15, 2014
 
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Unknown to Charles Darwin there was simple precambrian multicellular life.
So the explosion wasn't as much of an explosion as previously thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosi...
but Wasn't the geologically fast diversification during the Cambrian too fast to be explained by normal evolutionary processes?

some people called the the Cambrian explosion; Biology's Big Bang and others called it Charles Darwin's dilemma.

you are saying that there was simple precambrian multicellular life, and that is exactly the problem, because now we know that the cambrian explosion was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record, This was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms.

so the numbers won't match because evolution is all about natural selection and evolving very slowly and Charles Darwin himself discussed it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection in 1859.

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2676
Mar 15, 2014
 
Atheist Silurist wrote:
<quoted text>
How does the Cambrian Explosion contradict evolution?
simply because the geologically fast diversification during the Cambrian was too fast to be explained by normal evolutionary processes.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2677
Mar 15, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
but Wasn't the geologically fast diversification during the Cambrian too fast to be explained by normal evolutionary processes?
some people called the the Cambrian explosion; Biology's Big Bang and others called it Charles Darwin's dilemma.
you are saying that there was simple precambrian multicellular life, and that is exactly the problem, because now we know that the cambrian explosion was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record, This was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms.
so the numbers won't match because evolution is all about natural selection and evolving very slowly and Charles Darwin himself discussed it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection in 1859.
I'm saying we have more information now than Darwin had which means that there was precambrian multicellular life so there was enough time to explain the diversity of life over its 56 million years.

"The Ediacara (/&#716;i&#720;di& #712;æk&#601;r&#601;/; formerly Vendian) biota consisted of enigmatic tubular and frond-shaped, mostly sessile organisms which lived during the Ediacaran Period (ca. 635–542 Ma). Trace fossils of these organisms have been found worldwide, and represent the earliest known complex multicellular organisms.[note 1] The Ediacara biota radiated in an event called the Avalon Explosion, 575 million years ago,[1][2] after the Earth had thawed from the Cryogenian period's extensive glaciation. The biota largely disappeared contemporaneously with the rapid appearance of biodiversity known as the Cambrian explosion. Most of the currently existing body plans of animals first appeared only in the fossil record of the Cambrian rather than the Ediacaran. For macroorganisms, the Cambrian biota completely replaced the organisms that populated the Ediacaran fossil record."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacara_biota
Mahmood

Mississauga, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2678
Mar 15, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
you misunderstood my questions Mahmoud, my point is that if one isn't obligated to believe in Mohammed then a pagan also would survive in the hereafter, what you are suggesting is completely illogical, and that's why you have to understand the message of Islam instead of interpreting Quranic verses the way you like it.
Believing in Mohammed is a must in order to be a Muslim, hence all the true followers of the previous prophets were Muslims, so if you were at the time of Moses and believed in his message you are a Muslim, and if you were at the time of Jesus and believed him you would also be a Muslim, so if you were alive at the time of Mohammed the last messenger it would also be a must to believe in him, otherwise you would be a disbeliever.
Islam came as the final message and the complement as it works perfectly at anytime and in anyplace, Moses (Judaism) message was a perfect message at his time and so was Christianity, but as we both know the world changes and such religions would be no longer useful and/or applicable.
I have taken this matter up with a few scholars and they all say the same thing....."2:62 refers to those before Mohammad" just what you are telling me. However, I do not believe them because what they are trying to do is mask the contradiction. I have pointed out that nowhere in the verse does it say "pre-Mohammad" . Here is Suyuti's tafsir on 2:62, so read it carefully:

"Surely those who believe,[who believed] before, in the prophets, and those of Jewry, the Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabaeans, a Christian or Jewish sect, whoever, from among them, believes in God and the Last Day, in the time of our Prophet, and performs righteous deeds, according to the Law given to him — their wage, that is, the reward for their deeds, is with their Lord, and no fear shall befall them, neither shall they grieve (the [singular] person of the verbs &#257;mana,‘believes’, and ‘amila,‘performs’, takes account of the [singular] form of man,‘whoever’, but in what comes afterwards [of the plural pronouns] its [plural] meaning [is taken into account])."

Notice that he does not agree with you. He makes it clear that "in the time of our prophet...."

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2679
Mar 16, 2014
 
Mahmood wrote:
<quoted text>
I have taken this matter up with a few scholars and they all say the same thing....."2:62 refers to those before Mohammad" just what you are telling me. However, I do not believe them because what they are trying to do is mask the contradiction. I have pointed out that nowhere in the verse does it say "pre-Mohammad" . Here is Suyuti's tafsir on 2:62, so read it carefully:
"Surely those who believe,[who believed] before, in the prophets, and those of Jewry, the Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabaeans, a Christian or Jewish sect, whoever, from among them, believes in God and the Last Day, in the time of our Prophet, and performs righteous deeds, according to the Law given to him — their wage, that is, the reward for their
Mahmoud When you read the Qur'an you must understand the basic Islam beliefs, gathered from the Qur'an, the most basic being the Pillars of Faith and the Pillars of Practice

I think we can both agree that these are the 6 pillars of faith
1.One True God
2.Angels
3.The Books Allah has revealed, not the man made lies.
4.Prophets
5.The Afterlife
6.Devine Decree and Destiny

now lets see Yusuf Ali translation to verse 2:62

"Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."

anyways you have the right to ignore the "in the Quran" because that is Yusuf ali's opinion and his interpretation, the actual questions should be ( Is god talking of the True Christians that existed in the time of Jesus(PBUH) and the True Jews who existed in the time of Moses(PBUH))?(or Christians and Jews at our present days)??

The only way to answer the above questions is to know what the Quran says about today's scriptures; read verses 2:77-80 and 5:13

"Know they not Allah Knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:'This is from Allah,' to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby." (2:77-79)

"But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent to them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for God loveth those who are kind. " (5:13)

allow me to add that the vast majority of Today's Christians believe in the trinity and the divinity of Issa (PBUH)

lets see what the Quran says about the trinity

"O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not "Trinity”: desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him:(far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs." 4:171

And to warn those who say, " Allah has taken a son."
They have no knowledge of it, nor had their fathers. Grave is the word that comes out of their mouths; they speak not except a lie. read verses 18:4-7

don't waste your time because its obvious that Allah does not consider today’s Trinitarian Christians to be the real followers of Jesus.
Thinking

Stockbridge, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2680
Mar 17, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Haram Salami won't like any tale where women come out on top.
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right. That is why religion should be taught as fairy tales, alongside with Cinderella and Snow White.
Thinking

Stockbridge, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2681
Mar 17, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Explain how sticking your bum up in the air five times a day helped find the Higgs Boson.
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
hahaha so you are not just a professor, you are also a theologian...!!

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2682
Mar 17, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
so are you a 100% sure that evolution did happen ??
and how does that in anyway disprove the existence of a creator ??!
I still don't see any link between the two.
Yes 100% sure

Why do deliberately ignorant creatards always choose to confuse biogenesis and/or the big bang with evolution?

You don’t see any link because the only link is coincidence, both the BB and abiogenesis happened. Without them then there would be nothing to evolve and that the link.

However no creator is required for the BB, absolutely none of the theories (and I know of 27) of what caused the BB have a requirement for a creator. In fact quantum physics does not even require a cause. As for abiogenesis, synthetic living organisms have been created in the laboratory and work is progressing on natural orgasms. Again, no creator is required, just the right environment with the right properties and vast swathes of time. Then we get evolution.

Evolution is proven beyond doubt in several different yet complimentary irrefutable ways. If as much evidence existed for the existence of a creator then this world would be a completely different place, but it doesn’t.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2683
Mar 17, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
you still don't get my point, I don't have any problem with evolution (adaptation for survival), like giraffes evolving their physical Capabilities to reach food, but I have a big problem with Darwinian's theory which suggests a change in kind, so if pigs evolved into much smarter Creatures, that's fine but if they remained pigs and didn't evolve into jigs for instance then your theory fail and such an example would be completely irrelevant.
<quoted text>
no one tried to belittle you in anyway, and I still don't understand how your C.V will help you to prove your point, and its still you who mentioned mud huts in a mockery way, in our real world that's inconsiderateness.
And you don’t get my point that that Darwinian theory is a good starting point but not the be all and end all of evolutionary theory. You interpret it as suggesting a chance in kind while forgetting what all creatards forget – time.

You are quite happy for a giraffe to evolve a longer neck to obtain food but you do not ask what there were before they evolved long necks. Do you not consider that they have changed in ‘kind’ from a short necked creature to a log necked creature? Or do we see any short necked giraffes?

Actually you tried to compare active field archaeology with sitting at home doing a crossword. And why should my story need to prove anything? You lied and I provided opposition to your lie. You don’t like it then that’s just tough, get used to it.

As for mentioning mud huts, I said words along the lines of,‘unless you live in a mud hut with no access to utilities then the chances are …’ What us mocking about that as an example. I could just as easily have said yurt or cave or favela. And been just as accurate. You may interpret my example in whatever belittling way you choose, I don’t really care how the fook you interpret, just so long as you don’t lie.

And if you do lie, I’ll be here to highlight that fact in glaring lights for all to see.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2685
Mar 17, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
simply because the geologically fast diversification during the Cambrian was too fast to be explained by normal evolutionary processes.
Say what?

The Cambrian explosion lasted over 50 million years. In our terms, if it ended today then the dinosaurs had only recently become extinct when it started

Typical creatard ignorance of that little thing called time.

You are also ignoring the vast increase in oxygen levels leading up to the period.

You ignore so much in order to make you goddunit with magic dream to actually make any sense.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••