I think my question does not even comes under the catagory of science because evolution is not yet proved and the irony is that these Zionists, Freemasons and certain politicians (Honorary Freemasons) are still spending our hard earned money on this rubbish for the last 200 years.
Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans, monkeys, and apes evolved from an earlier common ancestor. If someone told you that humans evolved from monkeys, they obviously don't understand the theory of evolution.
Ok ( I remember my university son debating this now) so what is this animal we evolved from ? and what animal did the monkey evolve from? the same animal? so in order to believe this we first must believe humans are animals right? My choices therefore would be Am I animal ,or human?
If you're asking for the specific name of the (presumably long-extinct) animal that humans, apes, and monkeys all branched off from, I don't know the answer to that. Maybe an evolutionary biologist could tell you.
Yes, if you go back far enough presumably monkeys, apes, and humans shared a common ancestor species. But again, I couldn't tell you specifically what it was called.
Or perhaps we are both animal AND human, since humans are a type of animal? Or, if you want to insist that humans aren't a type of animal, perhaps you could argue that once we evolved into humans we stopped being animals. But that all really just comes down to the semantics of how you define the words.
ha ha ha ha ..I know....I said sorry. I have never been all that logical. I think its fun to hijack evolution theroys in the politcal forum and racist crap in the...religion forum I think... it is just funny to me how mad people get when you dont agree with them..
because we didn't evolve from monkeys per say but we do share common traits... I like to refer to them as dominate genes which derived themselves from a common ancestor which I don't believe anyone could or does say is a monkey or a human or even a primate... something more along the lines of a species which was in possession of these same dominate genes that have allowed for other species that carry certain dominate traits to be utilized for their survival.
I don't like to call it survival of the fittest because even what seems the fittest to adapt can also die out yet the most dominate features survive making what was a recessive gene by natural selection alone, a dominate feature.
Which (in my opinion) is how the "chain" breaks and one species becomes two.
I sure did answer the question. The answer was because we didn't evolve from monkeys.
Seems to me you already have the answer you will accept so asking these questions is just your way of trying to prove to other people that they are wrong. Right?
You don't want an answer other than what you already believe. However you want to believe it one thing is true... All life came from the same thing.
Even if you believe it was god that did it, the fact still remains that the origins of life all came from the same source so in this way you did not only evolve from primate like species but also reptilian, fish, vertebrate creatures under the water all the way down to one single unchangeable "element, cell, organism" called life.
As far as I understand from Islam, god does not interact nor need to interact with people, the teaching from your prophet and those before are "inspired" by spirit...
how could this be if god does not interact with us?
You know, I think I didn't explain well enough here what I am trying to tell you so let me look for some reading material for you so that you can understand the properties of life's arrival on the planet and also explain to you the complexities of elements interacting to form other elements and also other planets such as Uranus (other water like planets) that do actually have other life organism present on them...dead yes, but nonetheless they are life organisms.
Yes, you are right that you did not explained it clearly. Regarding everybody came from a source which is God, is un true. Because we are not an extract from God rather God created us via clay, sperm and water and all these sources are also created by God. I think you forgot the recent BIG BANG FACT of science which states that the whole universe was initially one big mass (Primary Nebula). Then there was a BIG BANG (Secondary Separation) which resulted in the formation of Galaxies. These then divided to form stars, planets, the sun, the moon, etc. The origin of the universe was unique and the probability of it happening by “chance” is nill.
This scientific fact which has recently been established was mentioned in Qur'an 1400 years ago.
Qur’an Ch 21-The Prophets,V 30:“Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of Creation), before We clove them asunder?”
Further, the teachings of the Prophets are not inspirations rather revelations from God. God choose them, taught them and then they conveyed the truth to us.
Qur'an, Ch 21-The Prophets, V 26, 27: 26. And they say: "((Allah)) Most Gracious has begotten offspring." Glory to Him! they are (but) servants raised to honour. 27. They speak not before He speaks, and they act (in all things) by His Command.
Salman Rushdie got the award of SIR from Britain just for abusing and making slang statements against Islam and Christianity. This proves that the governments are under full control of Zionists and Freemasons. Imagine how ridiculous it is, the so called responsible elders and caretakers of the world giving awards on RUBBISH.
Because humans and apes are descended from a common ancestor and have followed 2 distinctly different evolutionary paths. Modern man and modern ape are not related other than through this common ancestor.
The existence of one does not negate the evolutionary possibility of the other... in fact it bolsters the idea.
Monkeys weren't "left behind". It's just different. Diversity of species, etc. That's like asking why are some marine life predators and why are some food. One is not more evolved than the other. They both swim in the ocean but each has it's own place in the ecology.
It wasn't just me, by the way... it was all humans, including you!
And yes, you left your peers behind in the zoo. My question was related to the evolution. I am not talking about the difference and diversity. Evolutionists claim you were evolved from monkeys, your ancestors were monkeys then why the current monkeys are still monkeys ??? why you evolved and your monkey brother left behind as a monkey ???
I think it has to do with success. Monkeys found a way to successfully exist as they were, while man chose alternate ways of succeeding, including the development of higher levels of communication. Had their methods failed, perhaps our evolution, as we know it, would have stopped. There are plenty of examples of species that have remained relatively unchanged for the last 500,000 years, due to successful strategies.
According to evolution, man is evolved from monkey, when the process was happening, was their a conflict between the 2 groups of monkeys, one who wanted to remain as monkeys and the other who wanted to become a man ???
I'm sure that there were many conflicts between closely related species as evolution took place; that's the whole premise behind the theory "survival of the fittest." But this took place gradually, over time. It's not as though one monkey jumped out of a tree and started passing out flyers looking for converts.
If you're a creationist, more power to you; but I am going to bet that there isn't a single argument I can make that will change your mind. This debate has been going on for a long time, and I'm sure it will continue. In my opinion, the debate has more to do with ego than science.
Dude just go through Usmanali81 profile history....he has massive delusions about Freesmasons and Zionists....believes them to be the cause of all misery and wars in the world....And Islam the only saving grace....Earnestshub started that satire and I just added my bit...we were just having fun.
Facts can be insulting. Actually, I'd think that facts are more insulting than theories, in general. If somebody says to me, "You are stupid," I find that much more insulting than, "You might be stupid." But maybe that's just because I'm stupid.
No one is stupid unless they allow themselves to believe they are stupid. Even then, they still aren't stupid, they only think they are stupid. Please explain how the facts we know can be more insulting than theory of coming from apes.
You're missing my point. I was just using that as an amusing illustration.
I did explain, but I will try, try again. You said that adults coming from gametes is not insulting because it is fact. That is a logical fallacy. Something is not automatically inoffensive simply because it's true. That's all I'm saying.
I think the most compelling evidence, to date, points to evolution. But I think people get too caught up in how we got here. Who cares? It doesn't change my morals, values, or how I live.
I certainly don't find any one theory more offensive than another. I am secure in myself, and I find humanity miraculous and beautiful, no matter what.
I feel no need to be militant on this issue, or even argue it at all. It doesn't hurt me for someone else to believe something contrary to what I do... as long as they don't use it for justification for some other agenda (such as religious intolerance or censorship of free speech).
Of course, it's interesting to think about, but my point is that it doesn't actually inform any other decisions in the way I live my life, so I don't feel a need to get all up in arms about it and militantly defend one position or another. I'd rather save my energy, pick battles that matter, in a more immediate sense.
you are DAMN WRONG about it. It's not a light issue. It gave us the fruits of WWI and WWII. It gave us the fruits of French and Italian Revolutions in which innocents suffered.
Would you like to join the naked world of Spencer Tunick??? He use to decieve innocents under hollow slogans of art, love and humanity.
Finally, the concept of where you are from does affect the morals, values and way of living. Imagine when a human thinks, i am from monkey and monkey is an animal and animals share their wives, rape each others wives even if they dont find a female they indulge in same sex marriage, SO LET'S DO IT.
You draw a very long bow in connecting your pre-beliefs. The way you seem to think is that if you fart, the world will explode. Your stereotyping of all western nations is crazy talk, and you have all the ills of the world conveniently located in the west. Your rants about Zionists and Freemasons offer the same old stuff that others saw through years ago, but I suppose if you think that any of your crap is new you are pretty lost to reality anyway.
Big Brother has spoken..lol I understand the purpose of HB Forum is for people to express themselves in a non-threatening ,inoffensive manner,sharing their opinions enlightened or otherwise with whomever may choose to read them )
The question as posed is incorrect. According to evolution we did not descend from monkeys, but they and we have a common ancestor. When we diverged we developed in different ways. Our ancestors left the trees and began to inhabit the plains. This required different skills than living in trees, which is why we don't have fur, tails and feet that can grasp like hands.
What we developed was less hair (why I'm not sure, any biologists out there?), speech, an upright posture that allowed us to walk and run long distances. All of these developments helped us survive in our new home. We were able to take on the great megafauna and have since learned to tame both flora and fauna and bend them to our will. That is secret to the great success of humanity, our adaptability and ability to control our surroundings that no other creature on this world can match.
Here, my question becomes even more clear. If you and a monkey have a common ancestor then why your peer/brother in the zoo remained far behind and left as a monkey??? Why the evolution converted you and not your monkey brother???
Or better yet, why is it now our responsibility to make sure the monkey brother doesn't die?? It could have went both ways folks, but here we are the ones taking care of it all, now why in the world would somebody give us that responsibility? We're screwing it all up!!
I believed I answered some of that in my post. Can you read? Our ancestors left the trees and started living out on the plains. That required a different set of skills than we would have needed had we kept living in the trees. Something else you fail to consider is that fact that at the time we were leaving the trees, forests in that part of the world were shrinking. So it was evolve or die. Our ancestors had the right mix of changes that allowed us to convert from tree dwellers to plains dwellers. Evolution did not "convert" us, we just developed the necessary skills to survive in a new home.
You said your ancestors left the trees and started living out on the plains then why today's monkeys around you in the zoo remained as monkeys??? provided that you have got common ancestors and they left the trees. Further today, almost every year there are sever water droughts in different deserts and animals use to travel for that not that they evolve
Well yeah, most people think that you evolve from one thing to another, but natural selection can be a bit messy. Some people are shocked to learn, for example, that there are people who are immune to the AIDS virus. For whatever reason their genetic code doesn't make their immune system susceptible to HIV. Even more shocking are the indications that there are ways to pass that immunity along to other people through genetic engineering. It's early days yet, but we may soon be able to strip out bad DNA and substitute good DNA for it.
In a controlled economy like fascism, you're correct there is no incentive to cure disease. It's perverse but in a controlled economy like socialism, there might be one, but only if the cost can be lowered, otherwise it's deemed too expensive and people are allowed to die. But since new treatments are expensive by nature, those treatments will take much longer to trickle down to everyone.
Free economies function under the law of natural selection. As you do things that people like or find useful, they buy from you and your profit increases. But because you have a world of competitors out there, you can't rest on your laurels. You have to adapt your business or you die. This puts great pressure on the development of new and improved ideas, that once they get into production, will ensure your survival. At least for a time. Free markets are always innovating. They have to in order to survive. This benefits all people. It lowers costs over time and makes things more affordable. That, more than anything else, determines your standard of living. How "rich" people are, in other words. Their quality of life.
Actually, apes like apples too. There is a chimpanzee in Japan, I believe (I read the news story at least a year ago), who paints. Her work has been displayed in modern art museums, and sells at hefty prices. She tends to paint in red and yellow, because, it is theorized, her favorite foods are apples and bananas.
The foundational belief of the Stonecutters Society (an offshoot of the freemasons founded by Sir Montgomery Burns) that enlightenment can only be obtained by repeatedly violating the rectums of sheep. Doh!
Well you were close but not close enough Australia since it recieved not only convicts from England( the naughty ones, like squires and gentleman who performed ungentlemanly acts) but LOTs of sheeps and they have been bleeting ever since bahhhh rammm youuuu
Lol - that made me laugh. You should be in threads opened by usmanali more often, you'd wish more often that you were a monkey instead. The guy can drive you nuts with his pre-fixed beliefs and assumptions!!!
This is my logical opinion of why we didn't evolve from monkey's. If we came from monkeys, how would our minds continue to progress and evolve? Animal minds do not progress, they follow natures path. Example: We have a Jack Russell Terrior. He is always in good spirits, yet his mind isn't all there. Why hasn't dog minds progressed over time and evolved? They still cannot speak words or explain things. If we were simply from apes, I do not believe our minds would ever progress. I believe they would follow natures path within "boundaries".
There is a story that I read in a book years ago that explains evolution of lower lifeforms into more advanced ones. It's a mixture of spirit entities that consciously evolve animal bodies from the primitive to the more advanced ones stictly on the mental activity or thoughts of these spirit beings we call Angels who were at one time inhabitants of animal bodies that were evolved in the same way,and the purpose is the expansion of the energy of what we call God.This is just a small part of the story.
I jumped to the tail on this one, so I'm not sure if I'm too late with my answer. If I am, forgive me.
I watched a show on TV the other night that explained it. As much as monkeys are like us, they differ in major ways. For one, they can imitate each other, but they have no capacity to teach one another. By that, I mean that they do not elect to teach another monkey how to do something - the others can only learn be imitation. As such, there is no methodology for passing on knowledge.
Also, monkeys are fiercely competitive among their own kind, though they show the capacity to help humans - odd, eh?
What many of us might not know is that monkeys are capable of making crude tools - and have been seen doing this in the wild. They use sticks for spears and rocks to break things, but nothing more advanced than that.
So, summing it all up, monkeys don't share what they learn nor are they willing to work together towards a goal - that's why monkeys are still monkeys.
Actually, they did find the missing link, though it wasn't what they expected. I saw it the other night on Discovery. It was a link between the protosimians (the lemurs) and the great apes.
The new find contains characteristics of humans, apes, and lemurs, linking all three together. However, having a common ancestor does not make us direct descendants of apes anymore than it makes lemurs descendants of apes.
The finding of 'Lucy' shows we had much in common with apes in primitive times, but it is now theorized we are more of an offshoot than a direct descendant. We took an early walk off the path, allowing the monkeys to stand still in time and us to evolve forward.
The thing I find odd is that we can easily be offended by the premise we might have derived from apes, but no one gets upset when we're told every living thing came from one-celled organisms. Face it folks - we were all bacteria or protozoa at one point in time. lol!
That I will agree! Course I like to think we came by a sprinkling of meteor dust (star dust if you fill) and we are alien by nature in that the arrival of life on this planet was not from the planet itself.
Like the theory suggest that water formation on the Earth was not present at the Earths formation but carried here from possibly something like the Keiper belt (sp?) and the heat of the earth made this water in solid form evaporate creating our atmosphere which by and large gave way to the arrival of a living organism... cooked if you will in water.
You might want to look at "Before the Dinosaurs: Walking with Monsters". It talks about Earth after it formed and how it was around 1/3 bigger than it is today. Then the planetoid Tethys slammed into the Earth and spun off the moon. Without this event, the planet would have been a larger primordial soup of single celled organisms, with no surface land at all.
You know one of my science classes had a saying posted up on a bulletin board. It said "Either we are alone in the universe or we are not, either situation is profound". Given that we owe our existence to a "lucky" strike, we may be more unique than we realize.
if you believe in aliens,you may have heard of a website called zeta talk the site was started by a woman by the name of would you believe "Nancy Leader" I don'tknow if that's her real last name but if it is I think it's quite a coinsidence or quite interesting in any case.Anyway she is supposed to be a contactee from an Alien race called the zetas from zeta reticuli in the reticulian star system and according to her most planets are inhabited.Most are water planets with amphibious lifeforms many of which we have on earth such as whales dolphins,octpi,jellyfish,etc.. and they are highly intelligent lifeforms as well or even more so than humans.Try to imagine being one of them?What abilities you would need to survive ,whales and dolphins both have sonar like abilities as most people know.Who is to say they don't have thought capabilities more advanced than ours just because they don't have two arms and legs like us? They could have intersteller cousins on other worlds who can communicate telepathicly if they don't already do that.We humans are limited in some ways ,for example our eyesight and hearing are both limited,but we make up for those disabilities with our our physical advantages,don't we?
One problem with underwater or undersea intelligence is the lack of fire. Think about it. How much do we use fire for food preparation, much less how we use it in our industry. Plus, they'd have to have some way of manipulating tools and such. Arguably that's what got us where we are developmentally. Our minds' ability to solve problems and our ability to create and use tools.
Sorry, perhaps I should have said fire being used as a tool. Now that doesn't rule out some other analog to recreating our tech. Perhaps the use of certain chemicals or something, but such a thing is so far out from what and how we understand things that I'm not sure we'd be able to theorize how it might be done. The only way we could understand such a thing, I think, is if we had some examples of it in front of us, to show us the way.
Could be they didn't need fire for cooking,but there are underwater volcanic riffs ,so they probably knew about fire.As far as the lack of limbs if they developed sonar,it might be possible to use sound waves to manipulate objects,maybe even make them weightless.I wouldn't know that for sure of course,maybe they developed telekenisis ,I'm just putting my thoughts out there for your scrutiny.
Sorry, had to rile you up a bit. I have always wondered though. If dolphins are so smart why do they keep running into the nets. You'd think after the first few times at least one of them would get the word out. Seriously though, if we want to restore fishing stocks and stop catching dolphins in nets, we need to put more time and effort into things like this: http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2 … r-goes-sea
It's like talking to a five year old. We obviously left the trees and the monkeys did not. You know, that's why they still have tails and fur and feet that work like hands. All of that stuff would have worked against our ancestors who left the trees. That was the split off point. When we diverged from the branch of primates that would become monkeys.
So now your theory turns and say that some monkeys remained on trees while other monkeys (you) were kicked out of trees, WHY ??? why this oppression took place with you people ??? why they did'nt want you to remain on trees ???
Your statements are conflicting. At one point, you said there was a drought and monkeys could not live any more on trees and now you say some of them remained on trees that's why they are still monkeys. Here, how come monkeys survived in the drought ??? If they could, why can't you ???
I believe many develop the logic that we could have only came from a God while others logic do not agree with creation by a God. I myself do not see a logical explanation of being created by science yet still open to the debate of being created by a God or evolution.
I think that the "problem" with the discussion about creationist is not "god" per say, but more in the defining of what god is.
The creationist believe it was a giant man in the sky with a magic wand of sorts and poof there was life, while others might make a considerable jump to say "god" but to use the term "god" in the context is not the same as the "god" implied by regions.
So "we" pick another term, I prefer "it is" or "whatever it is" maybe you can pick your name. I would suggest "woodchuck". LOL
The big problem with God is that most people don't change their beliefs to take into account new information. That's why some people can't get over the God of Battles you see in the Old Testament. Others can't imagine why Creation had to have been started using natural selection principles rather than having been created in seven days.
Still for the skeptic there is a danger that you're passing up wisdom that has been accumulated through blood and tears over the centuries. While the Bible doesn't tell us much about how the world started, it has a wealth of information about people, societies and how they dealt with one another over the centuries. So the Bible is useful, just not as a book that tells us about everything.
It would have to be a pretty sadistic god, given some of the horrific stuff that has evolved. It's hard to imagine why god would create, say, worms that can only live by burrowing through people's eyes.
Although man is the one with superior intelligence. We run to and fro trying to make a buck...then we politely hand it off to someone else...and get back to making another buck. The monkey kicks back on one tree branch hanging out with friends...and commutes over to the banana tree whenever he/she feels like it for food. HMMMM? Not sure about who evolved from who? Maybe... at some point the monkey species said...that's enough of this...I'm going to lay around in the shade and eat bananas...
Evolution is defined on dictionary.com as: Biology. Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
According to some Islamic tradition, Iblis (Satan), inspired some of the verses of the Koran. It's just another reason for people to kill one another. It really pisses the fundie Islamists off because they claim, unlike Christianity, that their version of events was true because they either wrote it down from the Prophet's lips or had three or four close friends of the Prophet swear that what was written into the Koran was true. It poses a bit of a problem. If some of the verses were inspired by Iblis, then that calls into question the entirely of the Koran. Rushdie pointed this out and got a death threat as thanks. It's hard to believe now, but once Islam was the center of learning and scholarship. Then they embraced fundamentalism.
When did Bill Clinton say that... when will ya stop this BS.... It's lame to talk about illegitimate and illicit relationships from a polygamist.... Whenever you talk about us like that I will start talking about Muhammed.... Even your so called prophet didn't stick to that rule of 4 wives... He had 11-13 official wives... God knows how many more slaves to satisfy his lust.. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.... he was a pedophile having sex with a 9 year old Ayesha and incest lover who made his adopted son divorce his wife to fulfill his lust... enjoy the cartoons.. http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/01/26/ … nd-zainab/
Let's discuss the age of Aisha being 9 when she married our Prophet in Islam!
First of all, it is important to know:
Aisha's parents were the ones who married her to our Prophet, and that no Muslim or even pagan objected to the marriage because it was widely practiced. And even until today in 3rd world countries (Muslims and non-Muslims), little girls as young as 9 or 10 do get married. Anyway, the reason no one objected was to the Prophet's marriage was:
1. People used to have very short life-spans in Arabia. They used to live between 40 to 60 years maximum. So it was only normal and natural for girls to be married off at ages 9 or 10 or similar.
2. Marriage for young girls was widely practiced among Arabs back then, and even today in many third-world non-Muslim and Muslim countries. See the following examples:
Example 1: Activists condemn Gypsy girl's arranged wedding in Romania
Tuesday, September 30, 2003 Posted: 3:58 PM EDT (1958 GMT) BUCHAREST, Romania (AP) -- Human rights activists and Romanians on Tuesday condemned the arranged marriage of a 12-year-old Gypsy girl, saying it was illegal and a violation of human rights.
Example 2: A 9-year old Thai girl gave birth:
The news item is from the New Straits Times, 10/3/2001.
In our world today, we still have people especially in the third world countries, marry very young girls. Why should we call someone who married a 9-year old girl 1400 years ago a child molester, when we still practice it today? The girl above even gave birth at the age of 9!
And should we also call Aisha's (our Prophet's wife) parents child molesters too, since they agreed by their own will and choice to marry their daughter to our Prophet, and they were proud of it too?
Child brides as young as 8 (eight) were common among the Byzantine emperors and nobility! - (The article specifically says they were common and not exceptions!)
It is important to know that girls during the Biblical and Islamic days used to be married off at young ages when they either had their first periods, or their breasts start showing off. In other words, when they turn into "women", then they get married off. It was quite different for men on the other hand, because physical power and the ability of living an independent life had always been and will always be a mandatory requirement for men to have in life. So men waited much longer than women in terms of getting married. The guy had to develop both his body and mind before he was ready for marriage.
That is why you see girls as young as 9 or 10 were married to men as old as 30 or even older. The culture back then and in many third world countries today (NON-MUSLIM ONES TOO) is quite different than what you live in today.
Prophet Muhammad's marriage with Aisha was 100% legal and acceptable by all laws and Divine Religions!
So to call Prophet Muhammad a pedophile for marrying a girl that was OFFERED TO HIM by her parents and was accepted by all of the people back then including the enemies of Islam, the pagans, is quite ABSURD.
OK, let's see WWII where we were attacked by the Japanese first. You can decide to start a war, but you can't decide how it ends.
2. We had a treaty with South Vietnam, actually with a whole raft of Southeast Asian countries, it was the Communists, again, who started that one. Oh, by the way you forgot Korea. I know it's the forgotten war, but again Communist aggression.
3. Let's see, Sadam who used poison gas on the Kurds. Nope nothing barbaric there. Oh yeah, he was also a guy who started two wars over oil. I'm not sorry we went in there and punched his lights out. I am sorry so many innocents, Iraqi and American have had to suffer, but that's the horror of war.
4. There's plenty of evidence supporting evolution. Just because you're an illiterate savage calling it rubbish, doesn't invalidate those supporting facts.
5. Denigrating blacks? They now have all rights that everyone else in this country has. At least we don't denigrate our women and stone them for the offense of being raped. Because according to you savage doctrine they must have been asking for it. IIRC, the Arabs enslaved far more blacks than Europeans ever did. The African slave trade originated to provide Arabs with slaves. Why not, they're only infidels after all. Plus you made many of them eunuchs. At least we never gelded slaves in the US. Barbaric.
6. Let's see. Just because someone is accused, doesn't mean they did it. Now we have this think called DNA evidence, I know you savages might not understand it or it might seem like magic or something, but our scientists, you know the same guys that put forth the theory of evolution, developed it to determine if someone committed a crime. Unlike many Westerners, I advocate the killing of rapists and murderers, but quite a few among us believe that such people can be rehabilitated. I'd rather line them up against a wall, but what can you do?
7. I'd take anything attributed to Billy Clinton with a boulder of salt. And if we have so many so-called "illegitimate" children? I've worked with many of those kids and they differ little from the ones born in wedlock. I know that's hard for a savage like you to understand, with your society that treats women like objects and chattel, but there really are enlightened places where women are viewed as people and respected for their views.
And don't think that I am some weak-kneed liberal idiot. I am the farthest thing from it. My ancestors explored the world and brought forth the greatest empire the world has ever seen. Others of my ancestors braved the cold dark Atlantic in voyages of plunder and discovery. So don't think your shrill womanish cries have any effect whatsoever on me. Yet I am also descended from great thinkers and humanists like Locke, Voltaire, Spinoza and many others. Through them we understand that we are all brothers and sisters. That, often times, is the only think that stays our hand against barbarians. For we, too, were once barbaric and could have easily been swept aside. So now we must offer the same chance we were given, to moderate our baser instincts and accept the light of civilization. For only by that can you hope to survive.
According to you, your ancestors were just MONKEYS. Through them, you just learned to remove the fear of God, you removed the concept of life after death, you dont fear you have to answer against your deeds on judgement day which encourages you give birth to bastards, rape each other and dont impose death penalty, propagate sex culture and share your wives as monkeys do.
At last, i would like to apologize if i hurt your feelings, may be you are a decent legal child of your good parents but i was talking about the whole culture situation which Freemasons promoted and even want Muslims to follow it. Hope you will first look at yourself before daring to lablel others as barbaric.
Wow, I mean wow, I simply cannot add anything to that superlative paranoid rant. Normally I don't believe in the use of psychotropic medication, but in your case I'll make an exception. Really. You need to seek serious psychiatric help and get put on some meds pronto.
This is a great case for environment causing belief. I bet there are thousands of people like usmanali in Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Israel that hold these same savage beliefs. Living in Iran No free press, and a leader who spews hate statements and threatens Israels annihilation.
No way, this is a great study of schizophrenia, the paranoid type. I worked with kids, so they didn't get the schizophrenia diagnosis, they only got the schizoid diagnosis, but that's semantics. He's got the secret society syndrome, ignores historical facts when arguing, but most importantly he has a Them. Them in his case seem to be the Jews. Sad.
So is Da Vinci Code. I guess fiction(based on some facts) about religious topics tend to bring out the most controversy. In India both Satanic verses and Da Vinci code had raised huge cries for the books/movies to be banned.
Ask five historians and you'll probably get five different answers. My belief is that people crave the easy simple answers and it doesn't get as easy as fundamentalism. Plus the Islamic world has been in decline for well over a century. I'm not sure I can understand it, being from the US, but these guys were the center of civilization for centuries. Now, at best, they're on the fringes of civilization, if not crossed over into barbarism. Civilizations can crumble back into barbarism, if we're not careful.
Not that we in the West are immune. If anything I think we're in the midst of the passing of the glory of the world. All over the world. People are much less civil than they used to be and even the best people are full of passionate intensity, rather than cool reason. I'm sure there will be places that weather the storm just fine, but overall I think we're in a fading age. Religious fundamentalism is just a symptom of that.
Come on man, you know the best way to double your money is to fold it and put it in your pocket. But if you really want to give money away I hereby announce the LDT charitable campaign contribution. If you're that keen to throw away your money at least give it to me, that way you can be sure it will be used for something useful, rather than just wasted.
"But if you really want to give money away I hereby announce the LDT charitable campaign contribution. If you're that keen to throw away your money at least give it to me, that way you can be sure it will be used for something useful, rather than just wasted"
This sounds like you are running a political campaign! Good stuff
If only you said you would invest it in green energy! lmao
Not to sound anti-government or anything, wouldn't wanna do that, but I think the politicians act like drunks throwing darts hoping one will hit the logic bullseye. So one could say that we have evolved back to monkeys. Or would it be devolved?
The computer system which you are using right now is not the product of mere chance or it is not built up automatically or it is not the work of evolution which took place in a heap of silicon or any other semi...