|
Post by peterh on Jun 8, 2005 22:52:32 GMT
Yeah, but that was what I was saying, if Bush was really so hellbent on institututing a democracy in Iraq free of radicals, why does he allow Saudi Arabia's ruling monarchy (with the Q'uran as their constitution) to go on? The Saudi regime are on friendly terms with the US, also on the important oil buisness. That's probably why. Oil is important, probably the main reason for invading Iraq...just not the only imo.
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Jun 8, 2005 22:53:50 GMT
Out of topic warning.. Hec join the chat...el, silva, drath and i are in there
|
|
|
Post by ss on Jun 9, 2005 4:33:52 GMT
It took me two hours to read this thread from the beginning and I sensed some hostility (good though) until it changed (it seems to me) to the typical European hatred of Bush but what the hey- everyone can bash him if they like, he'll still be prez and we will be on a chat line....but I digress...to the original topic, it seems to me that a lot of opinions are being expressed but I challenge the statements that are being made; such as time and saying the bible dosen't address it. I suggest that some people are stating what the bible states when it fact it does not. It does say "God told Moses - write this in a book" clearing up how the creation story was recorded (dosent address whether or not anyone believes it to be true, just what it says). Reputable scholars say Cain and Abel were probable about 110 years old when Cain killed his brother. His going to the land of Nod is stated and yes, he married one of his relatives (110 years of expotentual multiplying) The bible also states that Adam and Eve had children for about 700 years or so (he lived to be 930) He was 130 when Seth was born (the Godly line from which Noah decended). The reason for the names of Cain, Abel and Seth being mentioned personnally was to get the point God wanted to show, rebellion from man and redemption from God. The Bible mentions people and nations by personal names as they touch on Israel and His plans. The Bible also says "God SPOKE and it was so " in the creation story. The hebrew word for day in the book of Exodus can only be interpreted to mean 24 hours; lo and behold it is the same word for day in the Genesis creation story. Which came first, the chicken or the egg Evolution would have to have two chickens to evolve at the same time, one male and one female and all the organs would have to evolve in each and they would have to live long enough to evolve to where they could copulate and the male fertilize the female egg..and etc...but...creation says (when understood as it really teaches) that God created the chicken originally fully grown capable of laying an egg, male and female. Then we don't have creation any more of chickens, we have procreation, everything "after its own kind". and what of the Time Magazine July 29, 2002 which states that microbes can live in extreme terperatures "they thrive on boiling heat, freezing cold, radiation and toxic chemicals -- and they have triggered a revolution in biology" --"It's hard to imagine a more inhospitable place on earth than the hydrothermal vents that pepper the ocean floor. These cracks in the sea bottom spew water superheated by rising magma to as high as 750 degrees F.,and contaminated with toxic substances such as hydrogen sulfide, cadmium, arsenic and lead. Yet despite these lethal conditions, life not only survives but thrives in the form of colonies of microbes that feed on poison and multiply in temperatures that could hard-boil and egg" ---"Hundreds of " hitherto unknown species, ranging from bright red tube worms to ghost-white crabs" were found thriving on nothing more than "heat and poison" ----enuff of it...but might stimulate some more debate and make some people re-evaluate their point?? As I said, you don't have to believe the Bible, but you should accurately state what it says....
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Jun 9, 2005 5:21:05 GMT
Actually, Evolution would probably be a different way with the chicken and the egg. Micro organisms evolve into asexual macro organisms, and then the many offspring of one of these offspring, end up being of 2 genders instead of 1. So there would have been a lot of chickens born at once, from one "parent", and they would have interbred with one another to create said species of chicken
|
|
|
Post by hector on Jun 9, 2005 5:27:42 GMT
to the typical European hatred of Bush but what the hey Now, that isn't exactly accurate. Terrordar and me are Americans (from Mexico and Canada, that the US appropiated the word is another topic) and so far Elliot is the only European against Bush, Pete was actually defending him. A more accurate sentence would be 'typical worldwide hatred of Bush' And welcome, BTW:
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Jun 9, 2005 10:45:35 GMT
to the typical European hatred of Bush but what the hey Now, that isn't exactly accurate. Terrordar and me are Americans (from Mexico and Canada, that the US appropiated the word is another topic) and so far Elliot is the only European against Bush, Pete was actually defending him. A more accurate sentence would be 'typical worldwide hatred of Bush' And welcome, BTW: I'm European too and don't hate America. I was playing Devils advocate, arguing that Bush' intentions were more that just oil, I'm not defending his reasons or the man himself at all. In fact, I hope he's kicked out of office asap. But as Hec says, even though I have a strong dislike for Bush doesn't mean I hate America. I love the place, even though it has it faults, like every other country does. So my American dream is fine, thank you Oh, and welcome to the boards
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jun 9, 2005 11:14:54 GMT
Doesn't half of America hate Bush too, though? I certainly don't mind admitting I loathe the man - along with Blair (My own Prime Minister), and any other leader who willfully sets out to destroy large numbers of people and wreck their countries in order to steal their national resources. Every country has the right to defend itself if attacked, but that isn't what has been happening. *** Back on topic: if we can create micro-evolution ourselves, which we can, I'd say it was pretty much a proven fact. Every time we breed new strains of animals, we prove micro-evoltion is a fact. In the wild, as it were, in order to get chickens, you would not need two fully adult chickens right from the off, but rather two birds who, when they mated, would produce offspring that takes us one step closer to chickens. Take this through many generations, and create the right environmental conditions for chickens to thrive, and sooner or later, there is your chicken. You would have a flock of birds all developing roughly the same characteristics as they interbred through the generations too (Possibly several flocks), which would give us many proto-chickens in the same area at the same time - and also explain the minor genetic differences between individual chickens. So as you can see, micro-evolution is not only feasible, but also probable
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jun 9, 2005 11:15:38 GMT
Oh and Hec? I'm not European. I'm British
|
|
|
Post by hector on Jun 10, 2005 1:25:07 GMT
We're all citizens of this beautifully evolved planet, dear friend. I'm European too and don't hate America. I believe that's an important distinction to make. Hating Bush (like me or Elliot do) is in no way, shape or form the same as hating the United States. Bush isn't the USA. In fact, one of the reasons of my hatred towards Bush is precisely because I like the USA. Besides the superficial reasons (i.e. 99.99% of my entertainment coming from there) I like the US because I believe its Constitution and the Bill of Rights are two of the most enlightened documents ever put to paper.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jun 10, 2005 2:21:28 GMT
I don't think that can ever be stressed enough, so I'm gonna quote it here to say how much I agree with it
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Jun 10, 2005 21:18:38 GMT
We're all citizens of this beautifully evolved planet, dear friend. I'm European too and don't hate America. I believe that's an important distinction to make. Hating Bush (like me or Elliot do) is in no way, shape or form the same as hating the United States. Bush isn't the USA. In fact, one of the reasons of my hatred towards Bush is precisely because I like the USA. Besides the superficial reasons (i.e. 99.99% of my entertainment coming from there) I like the US because I believe its Constitution and the Bill of Rights are two of the most enlightened documents ever put to paper. ' In agreement. Unfortunatly some people I know equate Bush with US. I've heard people saying we should bomb US as a retaliation. and that US is the worst thing to happen to the world. the should suffer a slow and painful death. After polite discussions about the US, people actually agree with me that Bush is the one they hate. The problem is, that the left wing press in Denmark does equate Bush with US and thereby promoting the hate campaing at the US uncritically. (as an aside I have to say that in the 70ies Denmark was VERY sympathetic to the russian communists and a whole generation of Danes, including acclaimed filmmaker Lars Von Trier, is raised to hate capitalism. That shines through in new generations and unfortunatly probably will continue to do) Fortunatly a lot of people are able to make the dsitinction but the left wing press in Denmark is still trying to paint everything US as the Devil itself.
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Jun 11, 2005 5:22:11 GMT
The current US administration in general, not just Bush, is terrible, and is not respresented by the populace at all.
I tend to hate the US government as a whole, not just Bush. The Republican Party are just as bad as W, and the Democratic party deserves blame for incompetence, and NOW they seem to be becoming even more like the Republicans.
Their whole politican group in Washington sucks. Badly.
|
|