I don't know which game to watch. What poor scheduling my CAF. 90% of international viewers will be watching the Prem game.

^Another aweful dire performance. Aquilani is getting better with each game though.

What was he supposed to have said?

^Waaba la i waayey

In that case he should do smoke signals from his Villa when he is having a BBQ

ps good stuff!

^I am in Villa Somali and can't say a word

Originally posted by Jacaylbaro: Adigana "mee" bay kaaga dhegtay ........ madfaca shabaab buu ka dhuumanayaa deee Madfacu dadka miyuu amusiiyaa? Waar hadal baa laga rabaa ee aragtid (is that the correct word/term?) looma jeedo.

Shiekh 'Aamusane' mee?

Will he be doing a 'State of the Union' speech ya Juje?

Cicero, You have a point there. One which I will not challenge. The two paragraphs do look very similar but what we mustn’t forget is that the piece by Hamza is quite lengthy (i.e. more than two paragraphs). When I want to read the strongest case for theism, I don't read what mental midgets like Hamza Tzortzis and Harun Yahya scribble. Instead, I peruse some of Craig's works, the writings of Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame, and Richard Swinburne of Oxford, all clever, albeit mistaken, christian philosophers and theologians. OK, now we’re getting somewhere. Care to elaborate on how they are mistaken? Ps your posts tend to be sprinkled with spitefulness and distain towards Islam and Muslims. What gives? Surely you’re now free from the shackles. Surely you can do what you want (that is what it’s all about is it not?). Why hold so much hate and contempt? Naxar, I think the onus is on you to tell us what you have a problem with and why. Mavericksky, Quite a refreshing post there and one I totally agree with. I think the following Ayah you posted best sums up this thread thus far. ''And We send not the Messengers except as giver of glad tidings and warners. But those who disbelieve, dispute with false argument , in order to refute the truth thereby. And they treat My Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), and that with which they are warned, as jest and mockery!'' Surat Cave 56.

Alaab iyo maalayacni What is the name of the Chinese company? What is required to be done at Egal airport? More details baliis otherwise it is another 'shuqul UDUB' as Xaji Xunjuf would say.

Tony Blair should get an Oscar. What a performance!

The penalty should have been re-taken. Egypt for the Cup. I'm supporting them in the hope they don't win as being against isn't working

Forget the atheists I think Sherban Shabeel, after a little work, will be good for conversion

^Heh. Couldn't resist a rabbit punch? You of all people shouldn't be commenting on debating Ms 'I'll go with whatever Fox News says' guerrila, you ignored what I asked of you in my first reply to you. The other atheists don't seem to want to play without their someone holding their hand.

^Naden, I'm not going to repeat myself. Lets just say I'm impressed with the coordinated response although coated with a few licks of hypocrisy.

^Naden, you're usually prepared to defend one who uses such a strange way of debating. What happened? Maybe I should change my nick Johnny

^The media here have reported everything about this case from day one. They even name him now which is a suprise.

Originally posted by NGONGE: ^^ He's no Alonso, saaxib. But he has the potential to become a better player than Alonso. LoL. Say that to your LFC fan brother and tell me how he reacts

^You just want me to repeat myself don’t you? How can you evaluate Hamza's rebuttal though? Are his beliefs valid? I’m not evaluating. I’m ONLY going off his rebuttal and I believe there are no flaws in it. If you believe his rebuttal has flaws (because you’ve read the book) it is EXPECTED of you to present your views with reasons. That is how debate/discussions USUALLY transpire. All parties don’t need to know all the issues for this to happen. 2. Even if Hamza read the book, is he presenting Dawkins' arguments fairly? Is there something he overlooks that you would spot yourself? Can you critique the rebuttal at all? Are there any flaws in his reasoning, or something you disagree with? [hint: first clue that you are in over your head is if you can't think of ANYTHING to criticize about someone's position]. I think you’ve now chosen to put the blinkers on. 1. He has presented his argument based on what he believes to be Dawkins’ main arguments (which he summarised). Whether or not he presented the arguments fairly is for you/Johhny/any other atheist (or anyone else for that matter) to state, supported by reasons. Remember, I haven’t evaluated it but I still think his rebuttal holds weight. Prove me wrong as it were. I.e this is a debate forum. 2. Maybe there is something he over looks which I might have spotted if I read the book. Then again, I haven’t read the book but there are people who think he has overlooked certain issues, I would expect them to highlight them (still waiting). I.e. this is a debate forum. 3. I can’t critique the rebuttal as I haven’t read the book. I was hoping anyone who opposed it would believe it was his/her obligation to do so. I.e this is a debate forum. 4. There are no flaws in his reasoning that I can see. LOL. Actually it would be refreshing if this forum was "reduced" to that. Instead the recent debate on evolution was started by someone who does not know what a mutation is, and here you are, wanting to have a debate about a book without reading the book. You see my last post there? The bit I quoted? It is quite obvious guerrilla believes in that quote. Do I try and state what I believe to be correct by using the resources available to me to counter what he believes or do I just sit back and tell him to go and learn the meaning of the Quran and Sunnah before I engage him? You see I believe in the former, you believe in the latter and you call me a lazy thinker? We’re playing by different rules I suppose. Looks as though you’re all only prepared to extend yourselves when the wind is blowing in the right direction

Weekend! Max, I didn't bother eating it. Had KFC instead.

Anyone ever eaten Ostrich meat?

^Most of what you said there is irrelevant. I would like you to expand on the following however: "How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better that we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My God is a little God and I want him to stay that way.' ..." From Pale Blue Dot by Carl Sagan (must read}. Dawkins seems to arouse those who knew little about their religion in the first place with such statements. You seem to be prepared to take his word as gospel.

3.28mins was so random it cracked me up Oz, don't think I can watch the game. It's on too late. Enjoy