Dragă "Traditie" iţi reamintesc ca dacă tu crezi "ceva" nu înseamnă ca acel "ceva" este adevărat.
Tu ai făcut nişte simple negaţii ale argumentelor de mai sus,negaţii susţinute de 0 dovezi+o întrebare.Esti cool.
Daca citeai ce am scris iti dadeai seama ca era despre termodinamica si cum multi "inteligenti" se gandesc sa ne explice cum functioneaza un motor cu combustie interna,ei fiind zero barat la fizica.


P.S. Inainte sa imi raspunzi te-as ruga sa citesti toate acele "aberatii infantile" cu creierul prezent,chiar daca nu esti obisnut cu asa ceva.

Categoric astazi este o zi ciudata pentru mine.Un amic,intrigat de faptul ca nu las niciodata celebrul ,,bacsis"/,,spaga" la chelneri m-a intrebat acelasi lucru ,,nu esti scotian nu-i asa ?"Daca mai aud intrebarea asta va trebui sa fondez un sindicat.Sa revenim>citatul din semnatura nu este tradus din romana in engleza ci este in engleza.Fiind un citat din KJV>se da ca atare.Cine nu intelege poate utiliza multe mijloace de tradus de pe net(exceptand situatia in care nu se prinde ca John=Ioan si nu are o Biblie ca sa verifice versetul cu pricina).Ce cauta pe un forum romanesc?Nu stiu Vadime.Exact acelasi lucru ca si nickul geto-dac ,,Heorhe".Sigur asta a fost intentia mea>o semnatura atat de cifrata ca sa nu o inteleaga nici autoru.Bingo.Mai este o singura enigma dragul meu Watson>ce inseamna BTW.
Fii atent la solutia asta ,,geniala">incerca>google>ma simt norocos>tasteaza BTW>click si vezi ce apare.Nu este in romana.Stiu>sunt vinovat de folosirea unui cuvant care nu a fost scris in romana.Sper sa nu ma pui sa scriu Bing-Bang pe stil Bum-Poc.Pt orice alte intrebari,pe acest stil,iti raspund,cu cea mai mare placere, cu o bere in fata.Bere pe care o vei da tu pt ca nu am de gand sa o achit eu.Sunt zgarcit si asta nu ar trebui sa te mire daca te raportezi la intrebarea ta initiala :)

Crestinii care sustin asta ii tin departe de credinta pe cei ce se declara atei agnostici. De aceea i-as ruga sa fie mai rezervati si sa-i lase si pe altii sa intre in Rai impreuna cu ei.

Pot fi cateva mii de ani de la izgonirea lui Adam din Rai, dar de la prima "zi" a Facerii nu stim cat este. Poate ca 13 virgula ceva miliarde de ani, asta nu contrazice cu nimic pimele doua capitole ale Genezei.

Stii, ideea asta cu vechimea Pamantului de 6000 de ani seamana cu aia ca evolutionismul sustine provenienta din maimuta.

Eroare de logica prietene.Sunt sute de dovezi pentru evolutie (si in crestere) si zero pentru varsta de 6000 de ani a Pamantului.

Si acesti baieti (oameni de stiinta) de ce au o alta parere? http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php
Asa de curiozitate>da un click pe ,,download the list"si vezi cine semneaza.

Da am dat si din pacate nu vad semnaturile ci doar numele lor.Orice cretin putea sa faca o lista cu diversi oameni de stiinta.Dar desigur,tot ce este pe site-ul acela este adevarat,altfel de ce sa il fii binecuvantat dumnezeu cu cei 5 $ necesari inregistrarii unui domeniu?

Adica acel site este un fals?

Nu am zis ca este fals.Apropo,nicaieri nu este precizat ca acei oameni neaga teoria evolutiei ci ca sunt sceptici.

,,Sceptic" este un cuvant bland daca vei mai verifica putin.Apropo>se mai mentioneaza si aici
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22722
sau aici http://www.discovery.org/a/2732

Da ai dreptate.Marele unicorn roz exista.


Over at dissentfromdarwin.org, there's a list of 700 PhD holders who have agreed to sign up in support of the following statement:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

This list is obviously used by creationists as evidence that the scientific community is in disagreement about the truth of evolution. Now, for starters let's overlook the fact that many of these people hold PhDs in subjects completely unrelated to evolution, such as computing, engineering, philosophy, mathematics or astronomy (it seems to be a common idea among creationists that if you hold a PhD you have the authority to discuss any aspect of science and that your opinion has the same worth as that of an expert in the field).

Let's also overlook the fact that scientific truth is not decided by petitions or popular vote. Science isn't a democracy, the truth is the truth, and always will be, and even if the creationists triumph and the teaching of evolution in schools is replaced by creationism, that won't change the fact that we evolved.

Take a closer look at the statement these doctors are in support of. Notice that the statement does not say that these scientists think the theory of evolution is wrong, it doesn't even say that they disagree with it on a personal level. Just that they are skeptical of it, and believe it should be subjected to testing rather than accepted on faith. But this is exactly how ALL good scientists should approach ANY theory or idea. It is, in fact, a fairly succinct definition of the scientific method. All scientific theories should be treated with skepticism and subjected to tests. It's how the good theories are weedled out from the bad. Those theories that fail the testing are adandoned and those that pass are retained. And unfortunately for the creationists, the theory of evolution, just like quantum theory or the theory of relativity, has so far passed all rigorous scientific testing with flying colors.

So now I must admit that I'm also a PhD holder who agrees completely with the above statement. Will I sign the petition? Absolutely not, because I'm well aware of the purpose behind it; it's pure creationist propaganda designed to mislead the general public, cheap trickery and nothing more. It's a perfect example of creationist sleight-of-hand, a tactic they must rely on, having no evidence of their own.

It is perhaps the "softness" of the statement that has allowed so many professionals to feel safe to sign it and provide their personal details. I wonder how many of them would sign up in support of the following:

"We believe that evolution by natural selection alone cannot explain the diversity of life."

At a first glance this seems pretty much the same as the original statement, but it's fundamentally different. This second statement is truly dissent from Darwin, and is exactly how the organizers of the petition are hoping the general public will understand their version.

Shame on the 700 PhD holders participating in this charade.