The hot girl in the bar (dressed like a whore as you would say) might even be married, not willing to fuck around, and just enjoy dressing up!

Where are the photos/videos of her dressing like a whore?

If you find them send me the link! Coz I can't find any.

If she really were a whore I'd be saving up my money for sure :)

But don't think she actually is one... :(

Some whores really enjoy their work and the money. Sex is fun!

If you were a whore what kind of whore would you be Michelle?

Starfish whore?

Of cause we judge people by appearances, there isn't enough time in the day to learn the inner depths of every person we ever meet. For example, you see a group of girls in a bar and decide to approach the hottest looking one; but for all you know it might be her shy looking friend who's the squirter!

You know the difference between a country like New Zealand and a country like Saudi Arabia?

In New Zealand a girl can dress however she likes, she can wear the shortest possible skirt, while it still being a skirt, and have her cleavage bursting out of her top. People will still take her seriously, she can still have a career, she'll be relatively safe, and people will still talk to her and get to know her. It's her CHOICE! She can also CHOOSE to wear loose clothing and that is fine too. Sex is fun, dating is fun, some girls like to chase guys and settle down later in life (if at all). Other girls prefer steady relationships and look for a suitable marriage early on; seeing this as a happier course to follow.

In Saudi Arabia; oh fuck you'll be beaten if you dress outside of a black sac. You can't even talk to men so you can almost forget about having a career. Can't even drive a bloody car! Probably not even a camel either! If your husband rapes you and beats you that's fine; it's not rape if it's your husband and he can beat you coz Mohammad said he could 1400 years ago. No CHOICE, and for many women, no HOPE.

We're not a monogamous species. It's not easy to stop people fucking around. Make a profession where men choose never to marry and have access to children. Guess what? Some fuck little boys!

Great fucking family values, fan-fucking-tastic. Put them in a sac, beat them if they try and get out, beat them anyway (maybe, depending on husband), control them sexually, and I'm sure the children, who have to put up with the same shit, will be very bloody happy! Especially when they see on TV all the fun we're getting up to in countries like NZ.

Allah said? Get the fuck out of here! No matter how rich Islamic history and culture are people were never a clot of blood, they never were 20 meters tall or live a thousand years. It just aint so. There's no hell full mainly of women (coz women are the majority of those being TORTURED FOREVER), coz that stuff aint literally true.

But guess what? You want to wear a black sac? Want to only ride one dick your entire life? Want to avoid talking to strange men? You can do that in New Zealand too! All power to you! Ahlan wasahlan! I support you all the way and hope you have a happy life. You'll be respected here (in the most part, at least I have never heard of anyone being attacked or anything) and guess what, if you want to do something like drive a car or call the cops if your husband rapes you, you can do that to :)

Hi Terry

Yup, I thought that the Islamic science stuff was true and I think that it was an impotant factor in my experiences converting to Islam and staying remaining a Muslim.

Have you seen that book 'An Illustrated Guide to Islam'?

It explains all these so called scientific miracles. Like that mountains as pegs stuff. I've seen it all over the place.

I plan to do a series of posts going through each of these 'miracles'.

I'm glad that you seem to have found a peaceful way in life, and that you seem able to understand reality without religious bias :)

Charles

Hi Terry

1. You mean the pic in the sidebar, right? I use to be a Muslim and that pic is from that time.

2. Check out verse 13: http://www.ummah.net/what-is-islam/quran/noble/no...

The noble Quran is a translation done by scholars ftom the Islamic University in Medina, Saudi Arabia: http://kitaabun.com/shopping3/product_info.php?cP...

I wouldn't worry about it too much, though. It's sometimes hard to figure out what its really talking about. Especially as many people seem to be able to derive almost any meaning they like from the texts.

Something wrong with the above wiki link for list of human evolution history fossils:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolut...

Yeah, I can see a comment saying you forgot an important site and another asking why your posts aren't appearing.

Both of those comments were approved automatically and I don't know why they are not showing...

Got an exam tomorrow so no time to try and figure it out now.

Also, to say that there are no fossils showing primitive (in an evolutionary sense) characteristics is not true either. Textbooks on Biology are full of references to them.
Here’s a list of fossils which help us understand our own evolution:

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolut..." target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolut...

Here is some info from wikipedia on someone from your video that I chose at random:

"John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells (born 1942) is an American author and a prominent advocate of intelligent design.[1] A member of the Unification Church, Wells wrote that the teachings of church founder Sun Myung Moon, his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers convinced him to devote his life to "destroying Darwinism",[2][3] a term which intelligent design proponents often use to refer to the scientific consensus on evolution[4] and which he describes as the theory that various species developed as a wholly natural process "without G"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_(inte...

Here's a quote from Britannica Online Encyclopaedia:" in biology, similarity of the structure, physiology, or development of different species of organisms based upon their descent from a common evolutionary ancestor. Homology is contrasted with analogy, which is a functional similarity of structure based not upon common evolutionary origins but upon mere similarity of use. Thus the forelimbs of such widely differing mammals as humans, bats, and deer are homologous; the form of construction and the number of bones in these varying limbs are practically identical, and represent adaptive modifications of the forelimb structure of their common early mammalian ancestors. Analogous structures, on the other hand, can be represented by the wings of birds and of insects; the structures are used for flight in both types of organisms, but they have no common ancestral origin at the beginning of their evolutionary development. A 19th-century British biologist, Sir Richard Owen, was the first to define both homology and analogy in precise terms."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/270557/...

I included a link for a site by Berkley University where you can actually learn about homologies.

The video, which is American Christian creationist propaganda, is trying to confuse people with talking about analogies, and past mistakes, without explaining them.

Analogies occur when traits have evolved separately through parallel evolution and do not indicate shared ancestry. For example the flippers of whales and sharks are analogous, however they evolved separately. The whale is descended from land based animals related more closely to birds than to fish. However, even though the forelimb of a mammal can be adapted through evolution to be used as a flipper, because of the common oceanic environment that whales share with sharks, it is far less likely that the underlying bone structure common to all mammals evolved independently in the whale lineage.

Whales in fact have hind legs and pelvises within their marine bodies. Why do you think Allah would have put hind legs and pelvises in organisms he intended to live in the water? http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/... (picture at bottom of page)

Well a quick look at an example of a tautological argument in wikipedia gives this quote by Bush:

"It's no exaggeration to say the undecideds could go one way or another."

Above we see the same idea given in different words.

Now I argued that "Similarities between creatures can be evidence for their having shared a common ancestor".

"Similarities between creatures" and "evidence for their having a common ancestor" are not the same thing. This is a statement which can be investigated, whereas it would be pointless to investigate whether undecideds could go one way or another as they could do so by definition.

Your claim that no homologous traits have been identified is totally false.

Creationists constantly fabricate arguments against evolution which rely solely on the ignorance of people to be believable.

My major reference for this post was Biology (Campbell & Reece, 2008) which is a mainstream introductory text used for Biology (including for medical students) at Universities around the world including the University of Auckland.