Sheh , sweet mama , i thought u got it . LZO did it. don´t tell me that i´ve been your source of sleeplesness since then . somebody shoot me n see to it that i somehow survive

Now , why do i feel intimidated? What is it ? is the question , but are we done refuting his claims?

Castro, you´re known more for your bigotory ,the day you abandon your commy dictator freind in havana , then only then you´ll be hightened to heaven. Ibtisam ... you bet he is afraid.. Castro is a white collar chicken!

Castro ,Ibtisam is here , we don´t have to wait Cally , i don´t know what does the trick ! But it ain´t breathing life into already living thing, nor do i know if we can conclude that all other things are constant, somehow that woulden´t be Ceteris paribus Ibtisam , Just becouse Castro understands Arabic i envy him alot.

Ibtisam , thanks for beeing so kind to my Ego, Cally, you gonna PAY for that, you Elephant ego. Ibtisam , i´ve YET to see on SOL a person who abandoned a position or even modified his/her position becouse of the presented eveidence and arguments that in an ideal forum compel them to do just so. On the contrary , SOL is full of people who are defending positions that they themselves really don´t beleive in anymore, but since they´ve taken those positions earlier,they wish to have been right, so they keep creating new reasons for the old position. worst is when the position is a religious position. i remember an incident where Shiias were referred to as non-moslims. P.S .. just becouse you know that you can be wrong sometimes doesn´t mean you keep abandoning every position you take. now meow like a real one, can´t hear ya!

There is so much wrong with the first "most plausible candidate" so i don´t know where to start. If u´ve read LaBossier´s article , he mentions three physical explanations for the differences in cloned animal personalities 1:minor environmental differences, 2: wombs, and epigenetics, i don´t understand why he confines himself solely to these three options. The basic flaw in the idea seems to be the assumption that: given the exact same starting conditions, any two physical systems will necessarily progress along the same path and to the same conclusion. Thus it’s not true that identical genetic sequences will remain identical in their function. the second "most plausible candidate" should be: it´s almost impossible to be sure when such a large, complex system is identical to another.

Let us hope the producers stick to the funny theme and choose an "UKHTI" picture next week. my contribution: A nun´s fanny spreads the funny message faster.

Do Clones Show that Immaterial Minds Exist? A long-standing debate in philosophy and science is whether human beings are wholly material or whether there is some immaterial "spirit" which is responsible for our thoughts, opinions, desires, motives, etc. Is our mind simply the operation of our material brain, or is our mind an immaterial essence that is separate from the brain? Some think that cloning can provide clues. In issue 23 of The Philosophers' Magazine, Michael LaBossier writes: "Recent studies of cloned animals reveal that current cloning techniques produce animals that are as distinct in their personalities as animals produced by “natural†means of reproduction. Texas A&M, which has been on the forefront of animal cloning, has found that cloned pigs differ from each other in, among other things, their food preferences and degree of friendliness towards human beings. Given that the clones are genetically the same and are typically raised in similar environments, it seems reasonable to consider the possibility of a non-physical factor that causes the difference in personality. After all, once the physical factors are accounted for, what would seem to remain would be e non-physical. In light of the history of philosophy, the most plausible candidate would be the mind." So, the “most plausible candidate†for the cause of the differences in personalities of cloned animals is a “non-physical†mind... not because there is specific evidence pointing that way or because there is something about “non-physical mind†which actually explains this data, but because the concept has been popular in the history of philosophy ? I don´t agree with him. What do you think? Happy hollidays SOL.

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: إذا رأيت أنياب الليث بارزة Ùلاتظنن أن الليث مبتسم Amen !! Originally posted by xiinfaniin: I hope next time you won’t dwell topics in their lowest levels. I may not be much of an observer but ain´t that comming from the wrong cavity ?

The duration of your holding to Castro´s hair did . aren´t you happy to see me?

Xiin,To pose that question ,you need to ascend to his level , and for that, you´ll need a help

DP

Castro , thank god that your choice is not beeing questioned regardless the yardstick u use Ather, Castro, without you SOL would need a face-lift.

McPharax, I guess explaining an assumption by another assumption is a forte ! while stating the obvious is as complicated as my right to vote and nominate whomever i may wish. Ather,you´d be happy that neither do we gauge equally nor are u in position to judge SB. my only rational conclusion is either you´re an ingrate or lack the ability to absorb wisdom. SB may have not posted much , so let me leave ya with few of his words to munch. Originally posted by Socod_badne: How can FACTS be proven otherwise? Isn't fact what is already proven?

It boils down to what you consider a cutting-edge contribution respectively rubbish. In my circles Socod_badne symbolizes open-mindedness , on the issue and honest discourse. in short i woulden´t trade him for say YOU. P/s what is your assumption on my freindship with him is based on? Ather, can your ego entertain beeing wrong?

Ahura and NGONGE. Castro ,Socod_badne ,Callypso, Curling W,Sheh,LazyG , Rahima and Idil are reservee

Evils committed by humans are often attributed to things like greed money power, land ) or hatred: (hatred of different races, religions, ethnic groups). This is not unreasonable because we can see the obvious influence of greed and hatred in so many human conflicts, both large-scale (like wars) and small-scale (like local crime). I´d like to single out what i think may be an even more significant source of suffering and violence, the desire to be right. This particular motivation isn’t nearly so easy to identify as are motivations like greed and hatred, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t there. I think that most people will intuitively recognize the existence of such a motive in others ,but will they recognize it in themselves? Hardly. This is a personal motivation that prevents a person from modifying or even abandoning a position in the light of evidence or arguments which should, in an ideal world, compel them to do just that. Why? Because an Ego can’t face the consequences of having been wrong. This is a curious facet of human character because if asked directly, no one will pretend that they are infallible and everyone will acknowledge that they are not only capable of making mistakes but that they do, indeed, make mistakes regularly. That’s simply the nature of being human. So why is there an insistence on infallibility on a case-by-case basis? This is probably limited to those issues where being wrong would undermine ideas which hold a great deal of psychological or emotional value. Don´t i sound right ? now consider your answer , my ego is at stake here

Muraad, Both Qatar Airways and SOL are taking you more personally

If the rib is the one bone that can regrow if the surrounding membrane (periosteum) is left intact, then how come men have one less rib than Women? Does the genetic instructions passed on to the offspring contain acuurate information, is less information sometimes preferable say in the case of a parent who have 6 fingers on his right hand? If Adam´s missing rib was genetically inherritable why woulden´t those 6 fingers.

Proud one,nice to see ya again! This looks like a template , and u seem to have forgotten filling in the quranic verses. where is your view? if u dnt have any, a link would have been sufficient.

Originally posted by Khayr: Salams, Which is worse ATHEIST OR AGNOSTIC? Fi Amanillah What is the bad thing that they can be worse ?

Chocko & honey, sis , how can i be BOTH confused and have valid points? skip it, don´t answer, let us instead take a closer look at your three refuting reasons. I find reason nr1 rather questioning than refuting ,yet somehow valid and related to the issue .so lemme answer it. Firstly i know that (most)Muslim men blame women Muslim and non-Muslim for their impurity regarding how the women is dressed, that is why i asked why? Secondly It is not about women giving a hoot or slouch, it is about the blame beeing directed at the sisters in the first place, weather some women take the bite or not is upto each and every girl/woman. reason nr2 is basically vacuous , A choice between Allah and feminism is absurd choice ,why? a woman would never be asked to make such a choice becouse she IS both feminine and beleives in God. That, i find slighly pretentious and irrational at the same time. It seems as if you´re reacting to a specific connotation of the term feminism, yet i can see nothing wrong with beeing feminine and loving it. chocko & honey sis, I´m male so i woulden´t know what feminism deeply means for a women, but i do beleive in gender equality. Reason nr3 is a recast of Jamelia´s invalid question, She was talking about Muslim dress and i´ve never heard of such a thing. As for pamela and Paris etc etc What are you saying? That they shoulden´t have their rights as equal society members?

Ofcourse the scandnavians rule in civility, and beleive me the only thing that is wrong with the Danish is they never attend PTA meetings About the Somalis , i think Albanians are close if not worse

Is there a risk that Suldanka is taking the footsteps of the late General Duke?

Bilan, had i be fair to say , you´ve deliberately chosen to debate the feminine and why reveal part of it instead of addressing the muscline stake in it? My argument is/was men have to take care of their virtue without blaming Women for their (made up )impurity if women dress normally and unattractiveness as covered dignities.