![[kinetic] is offline](images/statusicon/user-offline.png)
Forum Addict
Ovaj kukavac je kao papagaj, ne zna ništa do citata iz Kurana, programiran od rođenja, meni ga je žao, iskreno.
Ili što bi rekla ona dobra, stara - 'Bojim se čovjeka jedne knjige'.
Member
Boj se sebe i svoje pameti jer sa takvim razmišljanjem ti ni jednu nisi shvatio.Originally Posted by [kinetic]
Ovaj kukavac je kao papagaj, ne zna ništa do citata iz Kurana, programiran od rođenja, meni ga je žao, iskreno.
Ili što bi rekla ona dobra, stara - 'Bojim se čovjeka jedne knjige'.
- :wink:
Last edited by Dawud; 28-05-11 at 12:01.
Forum Addict
Da to je bas logicno :roll:
Mozda ti ne bi bilo logicno da si procitao, ne znam, mozda "Porijeklo vrsta" od Darwina ili ili "Sebicni gen" od Dawkinsa ili "Adaptacija i prirodna selekcija" od Williamsa. Ili cak Kuran da si procitao sa razumjevanjem a ne sa vjerom pa bi dovoljno bilo da shvatis kako su te zajebali.
Last edited by VanjaTheMan; 28-05-11 at 16:01.
My stomach was making the rumblies - that only hands would satisfy.
Banned
"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."Charles Darwin,LONG before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to theory. These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:—First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology. Quoted in N.C. Gillespie, 'Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation' (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book]
Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some other animal with widely different habits and structure? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, an organ of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, an organ so wonderful as the eye?Charles Darwin,
Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to the instinct which leads the bee to make cells, and which has practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians?
Fourthly, how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired?
Origin of Species, Ch. 6, p133
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.
Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication.
Charles Darwin,
Origin of Species, Ch. 6, p144
O njegovoj knjizi:
But I did not sit down intending to scribble thus; but to beg a favour of you. I gave Hooker a list of species of Silene, on which Gärtner has experimentised in crossing: now I want extremely to be permitted to say that such and such are believed by Mr. Bentham to be true species, and such and such to be only varieties. Unfortunately and stupidly, Gärtner does not append author's name to the species. Thank you heartily for what you say about my book; but you will be greatly disappointed; it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collocating some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas. My only hope is that I certainly see very many difficulties of gigantic stature.
If you can remember any cases of one introduced species beating out or prevailing over another, I should be most thankful to hear it. I believe the common corn-poppy has been seen indigenous in Sicily. I should like to know whether you suppose that seedlings of this wild plant would stand a contest with our own poppy; I should almost expect that our poppies were in some degree acclimatised and accustomed to our cornfields
2 vols., London, John Murray, 1903, Ch 6, p 450
A zakljucak mnogo godina posle njega:
Ni jedan dokaz nije nadje iako su potroseni bilioni dolara da uguravanje Teorije Evolucije u naucna istrazivanja.
Ne treba pominjati da je ogroman broj pometacina pokusan od strane ateista da bi pokusali sa laznim dokazima da pokazu kako je teorija tacna.
The American People's Encyclopedia (Chicago: The Spencer Press, Inc.) was written in 1948. My father gave me a set of this encyclopedia in 1954, when I was thirteen years old. I still have this set of encyclopedias in my library. Here is what that encyclopedia said about "Piltdown Man" back in 1948,
A fossil human skull found near Piltdown, England, in 1912. It was taken from a gravel pit cut into an ancient alluvial fan. The deposit itself probably dates from the third glaciation but contains much older materials washed in from higher levels. The skull while exceedingly thick and showing some primitive characteristics is essentially that of modern man (ibid., volume 15, p. 782).
Although the 1953 edition of this encyclopedia does throw some doubt on "Piltdown Man," it still presented it that year as a credible proof of the theory of evolution. But Dr. Don Boys gives us the rest of the story. He tells us that, with the discovery of this skull,
The evolutionists, flushed and excited, pointed to their "missing link" for more than 40 years [from 1912 until 1953], and boasted about it in all the textbooks as being "proof of evolution." In fact more than 500 doctoral dissertations were written on Piltdown Man, seeking to establish him as one of the most impressive "finds" in the history of science…[But] in 1953, three honest scientists found that the modern ape's jaw and human skull had been "doctored" to resemble an ape man, and the fake [had] fooled the world's greatest experts! The persons responsible for the hoax (fraud) some allege, were [Charles] Dawson [himself - the man who "found" the fossil] and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who had written several books trying to harmonize evolution and [Catholicism] (Don Boys, Ph.D., Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith, Largo, Florida: Freedom Publications, 1994, pp. 259-260).
Dr. Boys pointed out that the British Museum, where the "fossil" was stored, prevented it from being examined by experts for over forty years (ibid., p. 261). Dr. Henry M. Morris points out that Pierre Teilhard de Chardin has been "implicated by a number of his fellow evolutionists as one of the perpetrators of the infamous Piltdown Man hoax" (Henry M. Morris, Ph.D., The Long War Against God, Master Books, 2000, p. 23). De Chardin was one of the leading evolutionists of the twentieth century.
nastavak slijedi...
Banned
Dr. Michael Pitman writes:
Only in 1953, when a method for determining the age of fossil bones by analyzing their fluorine content was revived, were critical tests carried out on the Piltdown fossils. The human skull and ape-like jaw, contradicting updated ideas about man's evolution, had aroused suspicion. They were found to be of commensurate [equal] age but much younger than the other fossils and articles which were supposed to have been found. Most of the specimens had been artificially stained with bichromate [a saline solution derived from potassium. The specimens had been artificially stained to give them the appearance of great age]. The canine tooth had been filed, coloured and packed [artificially] with grains of sand. An elephant bone associated with the skull, of a type found…in Egypt, had been cut with steel instruments into an improbable "bat" shape. The Piltdown skull was a deliberate fraud. The faking of the mandible and canine was skilful and deliberate: it was certainly a determined and unscrupulous hoax. Sir Solly Zuckerman, who later reviewed the story, considered the hoaxer knew more about primate anatomy than the experts who were several times deluded (Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: Century Hutchinson, Ltd., 1984; reprinted by Baker Book House, 1987, p. 93).
Who was responsible for this hoax? Charles Dawson, a Sussex lawyer, who led the excavation, was twice "surprised…in his office staining bones" by two paleontologists who did not trust him (p. 93). Arthur Smith Woodward was the head of the anthropology department at the British Museum - who collaborated with Dawson. Although he was an expert on fish bones, Woodward was "certainly not an anthropologist" (ibid., p. 91). Teilhard is the third man. All three, Dawson, Woodward, and Teilhard, took part in the "discovery." The tooth, filed down from that of an elephant from Tunisia, was almost certainly supplied by Teilhard, who had visited the place where these elephants are buried in Tunisia. Michael Pitman tells us,
Dawson was certainly at the bottom of it but probably didn't know enough of primate anatomy to do the job well. Others from the British Museum may have been involved [this would explain why the "fossil" was kept under lock and key for so many years, and even such [leading] anthropologists as Dr. Louis Leakey were not allowed to examine it, ibid,. p. 93], and Teilhard de Chardin almost certainly planted the [ground-down and stained elephant] tooth (ibid., p. 94).
Thus, Eoanthropus dawsonii (Dawson's Dawn Man) was proved to be a hoax. Why did these men create this fraud? The answer is simple: they were trying to find "missing links" to prove the theory of evolution. When they couldn't find any in Britain, they created one - to try to prove the theory of evolution. But you can't "prove" this theory with hoaxes!
Banned
Next, consider the case of "Nebraska Man."
On receiving a tooth [found in Nebraska] from a Mr. Harold Cook, H. F. Osborn (head of the American Museum of Natural History) declared it had characteristics which were a mixture of human, chimpanzee and pithecanthropus. He named it Hesperopithecus haroldcookii (Harold Cook's Evening Ape). In Britain Sir Grafton Elliott Smith fully supported him and, on the basis of a single tooth, there appeared in the Illustrated London Times (24 June 1922) a center-spread of an artist's impression of "man-ape" Hesperopithecus cavorting with his wife. [Nearly everyone believed in "Nebraska Man" in 1922].
Darrow's two great arguments against Bryan were Piltdown Man - which was proved to be a forgery in 1953, 28 years after the Scopes Trial - and Nebraska Man, discovered in 1922, three years before the Scopes Trial.
Oh, I forgot to tell you, in 1930, it was discovered that the tooth, upon which Nebraska Man was based, was actually the tooth of an extinct pig!
Last edited by Ego_and_his_own; 28-05-11 at 16:40.
Banned
A skull, found in Spain and promoted as the oldest example of [man] in Eurasia, was later identified as that of a young donkey [This was in 1984]. (Pitman, ibid., p. 100).
In 1983 an American anthropologist tried to pass off a dolphin's rib as the collarbone of a prehistoric man (ibid.). "The problem with a lot of anthropologists," says anthropologist Dr. Timothy White, "is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone" (ibid.).
If there really were "missing links," or "transitional forms" between the ancestors of apes and humans - there ought to be millions and millions of fossils. But there aren't. They present a few scraps of bone, and a tooth or two, and build their whole theory of prehistoric man on that flimsy foundation. Most of these scraps of fossil bone are from old people, or sick people, or from another animal. The whole theory of evolution rests on a foundation of hoaxes and frauds!
2 Propovedaj reč, nastoj u dobro vreme i u nevreme, pokaraj, zapreti, umoli sa svakim snošenjem i učenjem;
3 Jer će doći vreme kad zdrave nauke neće slušati, nego će po svojim željama nakupiti sebi učitelje, kao što ih uši svrbe,
4 I odvratiće uši od istine, i okrenuće se ka bajkama.
5 A ti budi trezan u svačemu, trpi zlo, učini delo jevanđelista, službu svoju svrši.
A o ovom sarlatanu od dawkinsa ne zelimd a trosim rijeci.
Forum Addict
Sad si nas ubijedio. Par antropologa je podmetnulo lažne dokaze, i sad sve vidimo tako jasno - svijet je nastao za nedjelju dana, prije šest hiljada godina.
Dinosaurusi su i dalje samo đavolja podmetačina, u pokušaju da nas odvrati sa pravog puta.
Forum Addict
Jos jednom pokazujes kako ne znas nista i koristis se starom dobrom vjernickom odbranom od nauke i evolucije - trazenje rupa u evoluciji. Pod time mislim na to da kad naucnik nadje jedan fosil koji predstavlja prelaznu vrstu vjernici odmah skoce da traze fosil za vrstu prije te i jos fosila, i jos fosila i jos fosila, tako da vam nikad nije dosta. Nauka naravno nadje jos fosila, ali za svaki fosil koji naucnici nadju vjernici zahtjevaju jos 10. Licemjerno s obzirom da za vise od 2000 godina niste dali ni jedan jedini dokaz za ono u sta vi vjerujete. A za to vrijeme vecina vasih vjerovanja je pobijena sto od strane naucnika sto od strane filozofa.
I naravno koristite se idiotskom "logikom" da ako nauka nema odgovor, bog odnosi pobjedu. Ne trazite trece rjesenje, ne cekate da nauka nadje odgovor, ne. Ako nauka nema odgovor sad i odmah, vi sa svim vasim velicanstvenim neznanjem dajete bogu zasluge. I naravno, uvijek bez trunke dokaza.
Interesantno kako bogu ostaje sve manje mjesta koje bi mogao da popuni zahvaljujuci naucnim otkricima.
Ti ego, svoj citav post zasnvas na tome da Darvin nije bio 100% siguran u svoja otkrica. Nijedan naucnik nije 100% siguran u svoja otkrica. Zato je i naucnik, jer postavlja pitanja, jer sumnja i ne zadovoljava se djelimicnim ostvarenjima i idiotskim objasnjenjima kao ti. Darwinova teorija evolucije je samo pocetak. Ta teorija je sad cinjenica htio ti to ili ne, i od vremena Darwina se itekako promijenila i upotpunila. Ali ne dovoljno da bi je neznalice poput tebe prihvatile. Tebi je odgovor "GOD DID IT!" mnogo bolji i logicniji.
I pokusavas da opovrgnes evoluciju time sto je bilo nekoliko fosila za koje se mislilo da su nesto sto nisu? Pa sta? Nauka za razliku od religije priznaje svoje greske jer je cilj nauke da sazna istinu a ne da dovede u zabludu.
Ovo je najinteresantniji dio koji ti uopste i ne shvatas cim mislis da ide tebi u korist:
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree
A onda kaze:
Vidis to pitanje na pocetku pasusa nije Darwinovo misljenje sto zna svako ko je procitao cijelu knjigu a ne samo pasuse sa interneta. To je retoricko pitanje. I da si procitao ostatak pasusa vidio bi da je dao odgovor na to pitanje. Procitaj pasus jos jednom. Ustvari procitaj knjigu jer je ocigledno da je nisi procitao nego si izvukao pasuse sa nekog Hriscanskog sajta koji dijeli tvoj nedostatak inteligencije. A ja sam namjerno Dawudu ukazao na jos dvije (od mnogih) knjiga koje detaljnije objasnjavaju evoluciju (izmedju ostalog i evoluciju oka). Ali kao i svi vjernici ti znas da napadnes samo pocetke nauke koji su u to vrijeme bili jos nerazvijeni i da se proglasis pobjednikom na osnovu toga. E da je nauka od Darwinovog vremena ostala na tom nivou mozda bi ti to poslo za rukom. Ovako si se izblamirao sa vijek vjekova.When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.
Pometacina nije bilo osim od strane obicnih ljudi koji nadju neku kost i hoce na brzinu da se obogate tako sto kazu da je neki prastari fosil. Naucnici su takvee podmetacine odmah opovrgli. Bilo je i pogresnih misljenja koja su naravno opovrgnuta jer kao sto sam vec rekao cilj nauke je da nadje istinu ne samo za ateiste nego za sve ljude pa cak i za tebe iako nisi dostojan istine. Ali ko si ti da sudis o nauci? Jedan obican licemjer. Ajde da vidimo sta mogu od ovog citata da uradim:
Ironicno, zar ne? Hoces da opovrgnes dokazanu naucnu teoriju sa nekoliko od nauke vec odbacenih primjera, a sa druge strane ima na hiljade religija, i sve one tvrde istu stvar bez ijednog dokaza na njihovoj strani, a pregrst dokaza protiv tih religija. A da se religije sluze podmetanjem i lukavlucima nije nikakva tajna. I to je dio nagona za opstanak.Ne treba pominjati da je ogroman broj pometacina pokusan od strane vjernika da bi pokusali sa laznim dokazima da pokazu kako je njihova religija tacna
Kad pricas o podmetanjima sto ne pricas o selektivnom izboru jevandjelja koja su usla u Novi Zavjet? Sto ne pricas o jevandjeljima u kojima pise da se Isus kao djecak igrao sa svojim magicnim mocima i pretvarao ljude u koze i takve gluposti? Sto ne pricas o vec davno dokazanim istorijskim nepravilnostima vezanim za Isusovu porodicu. O nepravilnostima koje su skovane namjerno da bi se udovoljilo Jevrejskom prorocanstvu o mesiji? Sto ne pricas o razlikama u opisu o Isusovom rodjenju? U koje jevandjelje vjerujes jer je nemoguce da vjerujes u svako kad se ne podudaraju? A za vjernika je nemoguce i da ne vjeruje u sve sto pise u njegovoj svetoj (savrsenoj po definiciji bozje knjige) knjizi? Zasto si TOLIKI licemjer?
Sto se tice ljudi kao ti koji u 21-om vijeku imaju obraza da kazu da je teorija evolucije laz - o njima mislim isto sto i o ljudima iz ludnice koji tvrde da su Napoleoni i Cezari.
Last edited by VanjaTheMan; 28-05-11 at 17:33.
My stomach was making the rumblies - that only hands would satisfy.
Banned
A sjecate li se price o nadjenom nedostajucem linku koji je tako grandiozno najavljivan predprosle godine?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ink-found.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...l-missing-link
Pa je tiho pustena voda sa citavom pricom:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ssil-darwinius
Sve prevara za prevarom.
2 Propovedaj reč, nastoj u dobro vreme i u nevreme, pokaraj, zapreti, umoli sa svakim snošenjem i učenjem;
3 Jer će doći vreme kad zdrave nauke neće slušati, nego će po svojim željama nakupiti sebi učitelje, kao što ih uši svrbe,
4 I odvratiće uši od istine, i okrenuće se ka bajkama.
5 A ti budi trezan u svačemu, trpi zlo, učini delo jevanđelista, službu svoju svrši.
Last edited by Ego_and_his_own; 28-05-11 at 17:27.
Forum Addict
u prevodu na jezik civilizovanog svijeta trećeg milenijuma - naučno istraživanje.
Forum Addict
Kako moze da bude prevara ako su sami naucnici vrsili istrazivanja da bi dokazali da li je u pitanju pravi fosil i ako su na kraju kad su utvrdili da nije rekli da nije? Je li to tvoja logika ili sad namjerno trolujes jer ne znas (kao i obicno) da odgovoris na repliku? I umjesto toga ignorises repliku u potpunosti.
To sto si ti naveo nije prevara. Ne spada ni pod definiciju prevare sto znaju i djeca od 6 godina (ali iz nekog razloga ne i ti). Znas li sta jeste prevara? Prevara je to sto pored svih naucnih dokaza koji su toliko cvrsti da se u skolama uce postoje organizacije koje propovjedaju da je istina ono sto pise u nekoj knjizi staroj vise od 1500 godina. Knjiga je naravno puna kontradiktornosti sto sa samim tekstovima koji su u njoj sadrzani, sto sa naucnim dokazima koji su tu knjigu do kraja opovrgli. Ali ta organizacija (mislim da se zove crkva) i dalje nastavlja da propovjeda da su tekstovi iz te knjige istiniti i na osnovu toga odrzava sebe u zivotu a njeni clanovi zive u raskosu i dobijaju pare na osnovu...niceg od naroda. Takodje su izuzeti od vecine drzavnih poreza a u nekim crkvenim organizacijama bave se pedofilijom, priznat im je i status medjunarodno javnog subjekta i imaju suverenu teritoriju (Sveta stolica)
Ali nisu mi ni najmanje cudni egovi "dokazi" i njegove "definicije" koje se kose sa svime sto je normalnom covjeku poznato i logicno. A evo i zasto:
U slobodnom prevodu, nevjernici su pametniji od vjernika. Sto je prilicno ocigledno.Several research studies have been
published on the statistical relationship between religiosity and
educational level, or religiosity and IQ. Michael Shermer, in How
We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science, describes a
large survey of randomly chosen Americans that he and his
colleague Frank Sulloway carried out. Among their many interesting
results was the discovery that religiosity is indeed negatively
correlated with education (more highly educated people are less
likely to be religious). Religiosity is also negatively correlated with
interest in science and (strongly) with political liberalism. None of
this is surprising, nor is the fact that there is a positive correlation
between religiosity and parents' religiosity. Sociologists studying
British children have found that only about one in twelve break
away from their parents' religious beliefs.
On the subject of
religion and IQ, the only meta-analysis known to me was published
by Paul Bell in Mensa Magazine in 2002 (Mensa is the society of
individuals with a high IQ, and their journal not surprisingly
includes articles on the one thing that draws them together).57 Bell
concluded: 'Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship
between religious belief and one's intelligence and/or educational
level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher
one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be
religious or hold "beliefs" of any kind.'
Last edited by VanjaTheMan; 28-05-11 at 17:47.
My stomach was making the rumblies - that only hands would satisfy.
Banned
Za one koji su novi odje, informacije ko je zapravo vjerovao u Boga - sve najbolji naucnici koji su se ikad rodili:
https://forum.cdm.me/showthread.php?...jerovao-u-Boga
“The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concetrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power.
My Mother had taught me to seek all truth in the Bible.”
Nikola Tesla
Lista nekih, medju kojima je i sam darwin:
Albert EINSTEIN – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Max PLANCK – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Erwin SCHROEDINGER – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Werner HEISENBERG – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Robert MILLIKAN – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Charles TOWNES – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Arthur SCHAWLOW – Nobel Laureate in Physics
William PHILLIPS – Nobel Laureate in Physics
William BRAGG – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Guglielmo MARCONI – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Arthur COMPTON – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Arno PENZIAS – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Nevill MOTT – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Isidor Isaac RABI – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Abdus SALAM – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Antony HEWISH – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Joseph H. TAYLOR, Jr. – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Alexis CARREL – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
John ECCLES – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
Joseph MURRAY – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
Ernst CHAIN – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
George WALD – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
Ronald ROSS – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
Derek BARTON – Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
Christian ANFINSEN – Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
Walter KOHN – Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
Richard SMALLEY – Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
T.S. ELIOT – Nobel Laureate in Literature
Rudyard KIPLING – Nobel Laureate in Literature
Alexander SOLZHENITSYN – Nobel Laureate in Literature
Francois MAURIAC – Nobel Laureate in Literature
Hermann HESSE – Nobel Laureate in Literature
Winston CHURCHILL – Nobel Laureate in Literature
Jean-Paul SARTRE – Nobel Laureate in Literature
Sigrid UNDSET – Nobel Laureate in Literature
Rabindranath TAGORE – Nobel Laureate in Literature
Rudolf EUCKEN – Nobel Laureate in Literature
Isaac SINGER – Nobel Laureate in Literature
Albert SCHWEITZER – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Jimmy CARTER – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Theodore ROOSEVELT – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Woodrow WILSON – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Frederik de KLERK – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Nelson MANDELA – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Kim DAE-JUNG – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Dag HAMMARSKJOELD – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Martin Luther KING, Jr. – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Adolfo PEREZ ESQUIVEL – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Desmond TUTU – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
John R. MOTT – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Isaac NEWTON – founder of Classical Physics and Infinitesimal Calculus
Galileo GALILEI – founder of Experimental Physics
Nicolaus COPERNICUS – founder of Heliocentric Cosmology
Johannes KEPLER – founder of Physical Astronomy and Modern Optics
Francis BACON – founder of the scientific inductive method
Rene DESCARTES – founder of Analytical Geometry and Modern Philosophy
Blaise PASCAL – founder of Hydrostatics, Hydrodynamics, and the Theory of Probabilities
Michael FARADAY – founder of Electronics and Electro-magnetics
James Clerk MAXWELL – founder of Statistical Thermodynamics
Lord KELVIN – founder of Thermodynamics and Energetics
Robert BOYLE – founder of Modern Chemistry
William HARVEY – founder of Modern Medicine
John RAY – founder of Modern Biology and Natural History
Gottfried Wilhelm LEIBNIZ – German mathematician and philosopher, founder of Infinitesimal Calculus
Charles DARWIN – founder of the Theory of Evolution
Ernst HAECKEL – German biologist, the most influential evolutionist in continental Europe
Thomas H. HUXLEY – English biologist and evolutionist, famous as “Darwin’s bulldog”
Joseph J. THOMSON – Nobel Laureate in Physics, discoverer of the electron, founder of atomic physics
Louis PASTEUR – founder of Microbiology and Immunology
Wernher von BRAUN – rocket engineer, founder of Astronautics
Francis COLLINS – Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute
Founders of Modern Science Included in Part I
Immanuel KANT – one of the greatest philosophers in the history of Western Philosophy
Jean-Jacques ROUSSEAU – founder of Modern Deism
VOLTAIRE – French philosopher and historian, one of the most influential thinkers of the Enlightenment
David HUME – Scottish empiricist philosopher, historian, and economist, founder of Modern Skepticism
SPINOZA – Dutch-Jewish philosopher, the chief exponent of Modern Rationalism
Giordano BRUNO – Italian philosopher, astronomer, and mathematician, founder of the Theory of the Infinite Universe
George BERKELEY – Irish philosopher and mathematician, founder of Modern Idealism, famous as “the precursor of Mach and Einstein”
John Stuart MILL – English philosopher and economist, the major exponent of Utilitarianism
Ludwig WITTGENSTEIN – one of the founders of analytic philosophy
Richard SWINBURNE – Oxford Professor of Philosophy, one of the most influential theistic philosophers
2 Propovedaj reč, nastoj u dobro vreme i u nevreme, pokaraj, zapreti, umoli sa svakim snošenjem i učenjem;
3 Jer će doći vreme kad zdrave nauke neće slušati, nego će po svojim željama nakupiti sebi učitelje, kao što ih uši svrbe,
4 I odvratiće uši od istine, i okrenuće se ka bajkama.
5 A ti budi trezan u svačemu, trpi zlo, učini delo jevanđelista, službu svoju svrši.
Last edited by Ego_and_his_own; 28-05-11 at 17:54.
Forum Addict
I skoro svi ti naucnici su pogresno citirani i njihove rijeci uzete iz konteksta. Drugi su zivjeli u vremenu kad je bilo profitabilno i pozeljno da se izjasnjavaju kao vjernici. Posto ti nisi u stanju da nadjes dokaz da je svaki od tih naucnika religiozan nego si samo izvukao listu sa nekog Hriscanskog sajta, pusti mene da ti slomim iluziju o Einsteinu jer njega iz nekog razloga najvise volite da prisvajate: Evo nekih njegovih rijeci:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I
do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied
this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me
which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it.I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat
new kind of religion.
I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or
anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic.
What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we
can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill
a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a
genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with
mysticism.
The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems
even naive.Ne sumnjam da su naucnici za koje ti mislis da su vjernici na isti ili slican nacin bili "religiozni". Ali nijedan od njih nije bio glup da bi vjerovao u boga kao neko natprirodno bice koje se zanima sudbinama ljudi. Bili su vise vjernici u smislu u kojem je septembar vjernik.I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly
harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with
fates and actions of human beings'
Last edited by VanjaTheMan; 28-05-11 at 17:59.
My stomach was making the rumblies - that only hands would satisfy.
Banned
Jedan od najvecih naucnika, osnivac psihoanalize. Glavom i bradom to jest brkovima.
2 Propovedaj reč, nastoj u dobro vreme i u nevreme, pokaraj, zapreti, umoli sa svakim snošenjem i učenjem;
3 Jer će doći vreme kad zdrave nauke neće slušati, nego će po svojim željama nakupiti sebi učitelje, kao što ih uši svrbe,
4 I odvratiće uši od istine, i okrenuće se ka bajkama.
5 A ti budi trezan u svačemu, trpi zlo, učini delo jevanđelista, službu svoju svrši.
Forum Addict
Ima li smjesnije stvari na svijetu od te da oni koji vjeruju u fine bajkice, rajske vrtove, zanosne hurije.... traze materijalni dokaz oznacen kao "karika koja nedostaje". Jane Goodall im postavlja pitanje za razmisljanje(pod uslovom da su sposobni) da li znaju koliko karika nedostaje izmedju obicnih smrtnika i genijalnih izumitelja i kako bi izgledao taj fosilni ostatak
Forum Addict
Od kad je Carl Jung jedan od najveih naucnika? Vjerovatno ne bi bio da nije vjernik. Zasluzan je za osnivanje psihoanalize i svaka mu cast za to. Ali to ne dokazuje da bog postoji. Dokazuje samo da je on mislio da bog postoji. A psihoanaliza je drustvena a ne prirodna nauka. A razlika izmedju drustvenih i prirodnih nauka je ogromna, a izmedju naucnika jos veca. Mogao bi na isti nacin da izvadis listu religioznih pravnika i istoricara.
U medjuvremenu nastavi da ignorises odgovore koji ti ne odgovaraju i nastavi da ceprkas po inernetu. Mozda nadjes nesto vrijedno pomena. Sve sto si do sad uradio je sve ono sto su mnogi vjernici prije tebe pokusali i nisu uspjeli a to je: quote mining, trazenje missing linka, lista naucnika "vjernika", argument iz ljepote i savrsenstva, argument iz neznanja itd. Sve stari stosevi, davno pobijeni naucnim putem. Probaj da izmislis nesto novo.
Ima kako nema, mirisljavi toalet papirIma li smjesnije stvari na svijetu od te da oni koji vjeruju u fine bajkice, rajske vrtove, zanosne hurije.... traze materijalni dokaz oznacen kao "karika koja nedostaje". Jane Goodall im postavlja pitanje za razmisljanje(pod uslovom da su sposobni) da li znaju koliko karika nedostaje izmedju obicnih smrtnika i genijalnih izumitelja i kako bi izgledao taj fosilni ostatak
Sve sto ti imas Ego su liste naucnika za koje nema dokaza da su vjerovali u licnog boga a logikom se moze doc do zakljucka da ako su vjerovali u nesto to je nesto slicno Einsteinovom "vjerovanju". Tako da mozes da batalis tu listu slobodno jer ne dokazuje nista osim onog sto bi ti htio da dokazuje. A velika je razlika izmedju zelja i realnosti. Kad smo kod realnosti evo ti jos malo naucnih istrazivanja. Ti imas nedokazane liste, ja imam naucna istrazivanja. Pitam se sta je vjerodostojnije: http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Inte...20religion.htm
Obrati paznju na istrazivanja o studentima
Naravno ja ne kazem da su svi nevjernici pametniji od svih vjernika, to bi bilo apsurdno. Ali najveci dio jeste. Doduse kad su u pitanju zagrizeni vjernici poput tebe i Dawuda, vrlo je malo (ako uopste i postoje) nevjernici od kojih bi vi bili pametniji. S obzirom na gluposti koje redovno valjate po forumu mogu slobodno da kazem da je i vecina vjernika pametnija od vas dvojice.
Last edited by VanjaTheMan; 28-05-11 at 18:54.
My stomach was making the rumblies - that only hands would satisfy.
Forum Addict
Opet vi sa naucnicima koji su navodno bili vjernici
1 prvi naucnik koga si silu na sramotu uvrstio u vjernike (jadni Tesla ko ga sve pominje) je bio nevjernik
"Religion is simply an ideal. It is an ideal force that tends to free the human being from material bonds. I do not believe that matter and energy are interchangeable, any more than are the body and soul. There is just so much matter in the universe and it cannot be destroyed. As I see life on this planet, there is no individuality. It may sound ridiculous to say so, but I believe each person is but a wave passing through space, ever-changing from minute to minute as it travels along, finally, some day, just becoming dissolved." - Nikola Tesla
da sumiramo Nikoline riječi
- ne postoji duša
- ne postoji ništa poslije smrti
"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view." ~Nikola Tesla~
New York Herald Tribune (11 September 1932)
da sumiramo
- bog ima atribute koje mu mi ljudi damo(Mi smo ga IZMISLILI)
2. Trecina od tih naucnika koje su ugurao u vjernike su bili Agnostici (To ti je Ateista lite)
gledajuci ovu glupu listu "vjenika" ovlas, vidim dvojicu koji su bili Ateisti
Teodor Ruzvelt i Dzimi Karter
Dobro da nisi kao tvoj genijalni kolega proglasio Napoleona i Tomasa Edisona vjernicima (ljude kojima se vjera gadila)
Last edited by Rakun; 28-05-11 at 20:31.
"Ja i dalje čekam da mi dokažeš da je Sunce kancerogeno.", Bugi
Forum Addict
Nemoj Rakune mislim da mu je dosta bilo za nocas. Budi human pa nismo vjernici majka mu stara
Last edited by VanjaTheMan; 28-05-11 at 20:56.
My stomach was making the rumblies - that only hands would satisfy.
Banned
a cujesh ti ovoga.... kako sebe zanosi.Nemoj Rakune mislim da mu je dosta bilo za nocas. Budi human pa nismo vjernici majka mu stara
A aj se sve pitam kad cesh prestat da se provaljujesh odje.
Bolje posavjetuj Rakuna da nauci bolje engleski, jer ovako napola mu ce cini da pise nesto sto ne postoji.
Forum Addict
Ajde sto ne shvatas teoriju evolucije, nisi jedini dosta je komplikovana ponekad. Ali da salu ne shvatas to me cak i od tebe iznenadjuje. A jedini koji se isprovaljivao ovdje si ti.a cujesh ti ovoga.... kako sebe zanosi.
A aj se sve pitam kad cesh prestat da se provaljujesh odje.
Bolje posavjetuj Rakuna da nauci bolje engleski, jer ovako napola mu ce cini da pise nesto sto ne postoji.
My stomach was making the rumblies - that only hands would satisfy.
Forum Addict
HAHA
aj života ti prevedi da vidim taj "tačan" prevod
"Ja i dalje čekam da mi dokažeš da je Sunce kancerogeno.", Bugi
Member
kako isti taj bog u kojeg oni vjeruju gleda na cuda moderne tehnologije,kojima su isti oni umnogome doprinijeli,i koja se itekako kose sa nekim stvarima koje propovijeda religija?
a eo.
Forum Addict
A, mora i Gospod da se prilagodi vremenu, da bude hip.
Prije dvije hiljade godina je govorio: 'Zlo će doći od načitanih' a danas njegov drugar Ego zle naučnike koristi kao dokaz postojanja Boga.
Banned
Svo znanje dolazi od Boga. Covjek nemoze nista znat a da mu to Bog nije otkrio i dao.
Kako vi to ne shvatate?
Svasta od ovoga naroda....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks