#1101
Posted: 01/03/2007 06:10
Page 45 of 244
#1102
Posted: 01/03/2007 15:52
....i čovjek ima bradu kao i jarac....a tek oči, uši, nos.....ali svi ti hajvani zajedno, nemaju ono što ti imaš.....NIN wrote:...nego Gorcine,
mogao si mi objasniti, s tvoje tacke gledista, mali repic sto svi ljudi kao bozija krajnja kreacija imaju na samom kraju kicme, kad si vec toliko navalio?!
(Ako ti je lakse, mozda Harun ima kakav prijedlog)
Peace...
#1103
Posted: 01/03/2007 16:59
to se zove evolucijavatrogasac wrote:....i čovjek ima bradu kao i jarac....a tek oči, uši, nos.....ali svi ti hajvani zajedno, nemaju ono što ti imaš.....NIN wrote:...nego Gorcine,
mogao si mi objasniti, s tvoje tacke gledista, mali repic sto svi ljudi kao bozija krajnja kreacija imaju na samom kraju kicme, kad si vec toliko navalio?!
(Ako ti je lakse, mozda Harun ima kakav prijedlog
Peace
#1104
Posted: 01/03/2007 17:15
....nužno...?....PITARKA_SA wrote: to se zove evolucija
#1105
Posted: 01/03/2007 17:18
ocigledno.vatrogasac wrote:....nužno...?....PITARKA_SA wrote: to se zove evolucija
tvoje misljenje je..?
#1106
Posted: 01/03/2007 17:25
....baš...?.........ja sam u iščekivanju ozbiljnih naučnih spoznaja....PITARKA_SA wrote: ocigledno.
tvoje misljenje je..?
#1107
Posted: 01/03/2007 17:33
ili onih koji bi isli u prilog tvom vjerovanju?vatrogasac wrote:....baš...?.........ja sam u iščekivanju ozbiljnih naučnih spoznaja....PITARKA_SA wrote: ocigledno.
tvoje misljenje je..?
#1108
Posted: 01/03/2007 17:37
...a zar postoji sukob....?....teorije su teorije....Gost123 wrote:
ili onih koji bi isli u prilog tvom vjerovanju?
#1109
Posted: 01/03/2007 18:04
nisam shvatio, sorry...vatrogasac wrote:...a zar postoji sukob....?....teorije su teorije....Gost123 wrote:
ili onih koji bi isli u prilog tvom vjerovanju?
#1110
Posted: 01/03/2007 18:21
Deseti tjedan:
Beba
Vaš mali embrij sada postaje fetus. Prosječna dužina mu je oko 4,5 cm i teži oko 5 grama. Glava je još uvijek velika u odnosu na tijelo, ali poprima sve više ljudskih karakteristika. Maleni nožni prsti su se oblikovali. Oči su trenutno širom otvorene, ali se očni kapci počinju spajati i ostat će spojeni sve do 25 ili 27 tjedna. Uši su potpuno formirane, kao i gornja usnica. Najveće dostignuće krajem ovoga tjedna bit će gubitak repa.
...ali ipak nekoliko prsljena (od 3 do 5) ipak ostane u sastavu kicme koje nazivamo rudimentarni rep ili coccyx:
1 Sacroiliac Joint 2 Coccyx (tailbone) 3 Sacrum
http://www.spineuniverse.com/displayart ... e1396.html
Sada ja vas pitam, otkud nama ljudima rep?
Pozdrav...
#1111
Posted: 01/03/2007 18:51
pa od svinje, 
, a lijepo je to opisano u Sto godia samoće- koliko se ja sjećam elem taj rep , tako kažu, podsjeća na svinjski
, a lijepo je to opisano u Sto godia samoće- koliko se ja sjećam elem taj rep , tako kažu, podsjeća na svinjski#1112
Posted: 01/03/2007 21:04
ja sam ti rekla..evolucija..to nije nesto sto se mijenja i razvija za deset niti pedeset godina..shodno promjeni nacina zivota i POTREBAMA ,dakle evoluciji,mjenjaju se i funkcije tijela.vatrogasac wrote:....baš...?.........ja sam u iščekivanju ozbiljnih naučnih spoznaja....PITARKA_SA wrote: ocigledno.
tvoje misljenje je..?
nekada su ljudi jeli zivo meso,pa su imali celjusti shodno tome,kakav nacin zivota su vodili..kako se mozak razvijao,sticanjem raznih iskustava i spoznaja,prestali su jesti zivo meso ..i direktno povezano sa tim,celjusti su se razvile u ovakve kakve sada i ja i ti imamo..znaci ..razvitak,spoznaja mogucnosti,nacin zivota,razvoj..promjena..ili kratko receno evolucija.
ako za to trebas dokaze i skeptik si(sto je naravno tvoje individualno pravo) onda kako ocekujes da ja ne budem skeptik u "tvoju"teoriju,ili jos gore ,indirektno "trazis"(ne licno ti)da vjerujem onome sto pise a ne onoem sto je naucno dokazano i sto se svakim danom vise dokazuje i razjasnjava...mislim ono...suludo,jako suludo..
na jednu stranu dokazi na drugu slijepo vjerovanje ciji je jedini argument "pa tako pise"...hmmm..vrlo tesko se odluciti,zaista.
lijep pozz
#1113
Posted: 01/03/2007 23:29
ideologija bre...
The only reason that Darwin's theory is still defendend despite its obvious refutation by science is the close link between that theory and materialism. Darwin applied materialist philosophy to the natural sciences and advocates of this philosophy, Marksists being foremost among them, go on defending Darwinism no matter what.
One of the most famous contemporary champions of the theory of evolution, the biologist Douglas Futuyma, wrote: "Together with Marx's materialistic theory of history"... Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism." This is a very clear admission of why the theory of evolution is really so important to its defenders.
Another famous evolutionist, the paleanthologist Stephen J. Gould said: "Darwin applied a consistent philosophy of materialism to his interpretation of nature"
Leon Trotsky, one of the masterminds of the Russian Communist Revolution along with Lenin, commented:"The discovery by Darwin was the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter.".
However science has shown that Darwinism was not a victory for materialism but rather a sign of that philosophy's overthrow.
The Myth of Embryological Recapitulation
Haeckel was an evolutionist even more ardent than Darwin in many respects. For this reason, he did not hesitate to distort the scientific data and devise various forgeries.
What used to be called the "recapitulation theory" has long been eliminated from scientific literature, but it is still being presented as a scientific reality by some evolutionist publications. The term "recapitulation" is a condensation of the dictum "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", put forward by the evolutionist biologist Ernst Haeckel at the end of the 19th century.
This theory of Haeckel's postulates that living embryos re-experience the evolutionary process that their pseudo-ancestors underwent. He theorised that during its development in its mother's womb, the human embryo first displayed the characteristics of a fish, and then those of a reptile, and finally those of a human.
It has since been proven that this theory is completely bogus. It is now known that the "gills" that supposedly appear in the early stages of the human embryo are in fact the initial phases of the middle-ear canal, parathyroid, and thymus. The part of the embryo that was likened to the "egg yolk pouch" turns out to be a pouch that produces blood for the infant. The part that had been identified as a "tail" by Haeckel and his followers is in fact the backbone, which resembles a tail only because it takes shape before the legs do.
These are universally acknowledged facts in the scientific world, and are accepted even by evolutionists themselves. George Gaylord Simpson, one of the founders of neo-Darwinism, writes:
Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny
In an article published in American Scientist, we read:
Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exorcised from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry it was extinct in the twenties
Another interesting aspect of "recapitulation" was Ernst Haeckel himself, a faker who falsified his drawings in order to support the theory he advanced. Haeckel's forgeries purported to show that fish and human embryos resembled one another. When he was caught out, the only defence he offered was that other evolutionists had committed similar offences:
After this compromising confession of "forgery" I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoners' dock hundreds of fellow culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of "forgery", for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed
HUMAN EMBRYOS DO NOT HAVE GILL SLITS
Once defined as an inheritance from past ancestors, the folds on the human embryos are now redefined. It has been shown that human embryos do not recapitulate evolutionary history of man.
There are indeed "hundreds of fellow culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists" whose studies are full of prejudiced conclusions, distortions, and even forgeries. This is because they have all conditioned themselves to champion evolutionary theory although there is not a shred of scientific evidence supporting it.
Peace&Joy
The only reason that Darwin's theory is still defendend despite its obvious refutation by science is the close link between that theory and materialism. Darwin applied materialist philosophy to the natural sciences and advocates of this philosophy, Marksists being foremost among them, go on defending Darwinism no matter what.One of the most famous contemporary champions of the theory of evolution, the biologist Douglas Futuyma, wrote: "Together with Marx's materialistic theory of history"... Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism." This is a very clear admission of why the theory of evolution is really so important to its defenders.Another famous evolutionist, the paleanthologist Stephen J. Gould said: "Darwin applied a consistent philosophy of materialism to his interpretation of nature"
Leon Trotsky, one of the masterminds of the Russian Communist Revolution along with Lenin, commented:"The discovery by Darwin was the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter.".However science has shown that Darwinism was not a victory for materialism but rather a sign of that philosophy's overthrow.
The Myth of Embryological Recapitulation
Haeckel was an evolutionist even more ardent than Darwin in many respects. For this reason, he did not hesitate to distort the scientific data and devise various forgeries.
What used to be called the "recapitulation theory" has long been eliminated from scientific literature, but it is still being presented as a scientific reality by some evolutionist publications. The term "recapitulation" is a condensation of the dictum "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", put forward by the evolutionist biologist Ernst Haeckel at the end of the 19th century.
This theory of Haeckel's postulates that living embryos re-experience the evolutionary process that their pseudo-ancestors underwent. He theorised that during its development in its mother's womb, the human embryo first displayed the characteristics of a fish, and then those of a reptile, and finally those of a human.
It has since been proven that this theory is completely bogus. It is now known that the "gills" that supposedly appear in the early stages of the human embryo are in fact the initial phases of the middle-ear canal, parathyroid, and thymus. The part of the embryo that was likened to the "egg yolk pouch" turns out to be a pouch that produces blood for the infant. The part that had been identified as a "tail" by Haeckel and his followers is in fact the backbone, which resembles a tail only because it takes shape before the legs do.
These are universally acknowledged facts in the scientific world, and are accepted even by evolutionists themselves. George Gaylord Simpson, one of the founders of neo-Darwinism, writes:
Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny
In an article published in American Scientist, we read:
Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exorcised from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry it was extinct in the twenties
Another interesting aspect of "recapitulation" was Ernst Haeckel himself, a faker who falsified his drawings in order to support the theory he advanced. Haeckel's forgeries purported to show that fish and human embryos resembled one another. When he was caught out, the only defence he offered was that other evolutionists had committed similar offences:
After this compromising confession of "forgery" I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoners' dock hundreds of fellow culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of "forgery", for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed
HUMAN EMBRYOS DO NOT HAVE GILL SLITSOnce defined as an inheritance from past ancestors, the folds on the human embryos are now redefined. It has been shown that human embryos do not recapitulate evolutionary history of man.
There are indeed "hundreds of fellow culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists" whose studies are full of prejudiced conclusions, distortions, and even forgeries. This is because they have all conditioned themselves to champion evolutionary theory although there is not a shred of scientific evidence supporting it.
Peace&Joy
#1114
Posted: 01/03/2007 23:42
Gorcine,
nisam te pitao za to sta kaze drug Harun o navodnim skrgama nego o REPU?!
Vidis li ga, eno ga oznacen brojem 2!
nisam te pitao za to sta kaze drug Harun o navodnim skrgama nego o REPU?!
Vidis li ga, eno ga oznacen brojem 2!
#1115
Posted: 02/03/2007 00:05
ne znam... ne nadjoh ,sad, nabrzinu, nista o "repu"
po njegovom scenariju to pitanje jest relevantno, dok za Vjernika, to spada u Boziju odredbu/mudrost pri kreiranju.
Peace&Joy
po njegovom scenariju to pitanje jest relevantno, dok za Vjernika, to spada u Boziju odredbu/mudrost pri kreiranju.
Peace&Joy
#1116
Posted: 02/03/2007 00:30
...haj' dobro,Gorcin wrote:ne znam... ne nadjoh ,sad, nabrzinu, nista o "repu"
po njegovom scenariju to pitanje jest relevantno, dok za Vjernika, to spada u Boziju odredbu/mudrost pri kreiranju.
Peace&Joy
kada nadjes tu sam!
Pozdrav...
#1117
Posted: 02/03/2007 00:44
....ispade da ja ne znam šta je TE pa mi ti morade objasniti....sjećaš se vremena kad su teoretičari evolucije u potpunosti isključivali Boga u svemu tome.....@Gorcin se gore dotače i tog momenta.....kako se teorija razvija zanimljivo je naći često i ovakve rečenice.....PITARKA_SA wrote: ja sam ti rekla..evolucija..to nije nesto sto se mijenja i razvija za deset niti pedeset godina..shodno promjeni nacina zivota i POTREBAMA ,dakle evoluciji,mjenjaju se i funkcije tijela.
nekada su ljudi jeli zivo meso,pa su imali celjusti shodno tome,kakav nacin zivota su vodili..kako se mozak razvijao,sticanjem raznih iskustava i spoznaja,prestali su jesti zivo meso ..i direktno povezano sa tim,celjusti su se razvile u ovakve kakve sada i ja i ti imamo..znaci ..razvitak,spoznaja mogucnosti,nacin zivota,razvoj..promjena..ili kratko receno evolucija.
ako za to trebas dokaze i skeptik si(sto je naravno tvoje individualno pravo) onda kako ocekujes da ja ne budem skeptik u "tvoju"teoriju,ili jos gore ,indirektno "trazis"(ne licno ti)da vjerujem onome sto pise a ne onoem sto je naucno dokazano i sto se svakim danom vise dokazuje i razjasnjava...mislim ono...suludo,jako suludo..
na jednu stranu dokazi na drugu slijepo vjerovanje ciji je jedini argument "pa tako pise"...hmmm..vrlo tesko se odluciti,zaista.
lijep pozz
....ja nisam ni prije, a niti danas vjerujem da Bog sjedi na oblaku ili neki svetac i da baca munje odozgo.....nego u gore opisani Božiji zakon da one nastaju zbog razlike u potencijalu između oblaka i zemlje.......Prvi organizam je mogao nastati abiogenezom (tj. iz nežive materije, kroz kompleksne hemijske reakcije), mogao ga je stvoriti Bog, mogli su ga doneti vanzemaljci.......
......Do pre samo par stotina godina, ljudi su verovali da Bog (ili neki Božji izaslanik, na primer Sveti Ilija) uzrokuje grom i munje. Nauka je u međuvremenu otkrila da to nije tako. Da li ovo otkriće umanjuje Boga? Da li je bolje verovati u neistinu da Bog baca munje, ili u istinu da one nastaju zbog razlike u potencijalu između oblaka i zemlje?
......Ako Bog postoji, da li on želi da mi ovako razmišljamo? Da li je Bogu stalo da verujemo u grandiozne neistine – da on baca gromove......
http://www.teorijaevolucije.com/sta_je_evolucija.html
....dalje....nisam samo ja jedini skeptik spram TE.....
PDF copy of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
....a ujedno imaš pogrešnu predstavu o teističkom posmatranju i objašnjavanju svijeta oko sebe.....jedno teističko, slično mojem....
Stvoritelj je ljudskom rodu dao dve knjige. U jednoj je pokazao svoju velicinu, a u drugoj svoju volju. Prva je - ovaj vidljivi svet koji je On stvorio da bi covek, gledajuci na velicinu, krasotu i skladnost Njegovog dela, priznao bozansku svemoc. Druga je - Sveto pismo. U njoj je izneta Bozja namera za nase spasenje. Drugu objasnjavaju ucitelji vere, a prvu fizicari, matematicari, astronomi ... I propovednici Svetog pisma, i naucnici uveravaju nas ne samo u postojanje Boga vec nam otkrivaju i Njegova bezbrojna dobrocinstva prema nama. (Mihail B. Lomonosov)
[email protected] upravo polusjedeći ovo kucam sjedeći na tom 'repu' i mogu ti reći da vjerovatno ne bih mogao tako da ga nemam....nemoj me sad i repatim praviti....
#1118
Posted: 02/03/2007 01:11
...ma, ne pravim te ja repatimvatrogasac wrote:[email protected] upravo polusjedeći ovo kucam sjedeći na tom 'repu' i mogu ti reći da vjerovatno ne bih mogao tako da ga nemam....nemoj me sad i repatim praviti....
, jedino ako Anatomija covjeka laze onda sam i ja u velikoj zabludi, hm....Pozdrav...
#1119
Posted: 02/03/2007 01:16
....kakogod....samo da nemam taj 'rep' bio bi mi uskraćen moj omiljeni polusjedeći položaj.....NIN wrote:
...ma, ne pravim te ja repatim
Pozdrav...
#1120
Posted: 02/03/2007 01:20
...mislis ovaj:vatrogasac wrote:....kakogod....samo da nemam taj 'rep' bio bi mi uskraćen moj omiljeni polusjedeći položaj.....NIN wrote:
...ma, ne pravim te ja repatim
Pozdrav...
#1121
Posted: 02/03/2007 01:31
A gdje je taj rep? Ja ga ne vidim ni na jednom covjekuNIN wrote:...mislis ovaj:vatrogasac wrote:....kakogod....samo da nemam taj 'rep' bio bi mi uskraćen moj omiljeni polusjedeći položaj.....NIN wrote:
...ma, ne pravim te ja repatim
Pozdrav...
Sta je zapravo rep? To je ono sto viri iz tijela zivotinja?
Ili je ono sto ne viri iz covjeka? Kako sad to da je rep kod covjeka ako se ne vidi,a isto se zove rep i kod zivotinja kod kojih je on jasno vidljiv? Jel' ovo slucajno kakva manipulacija rijecima ili se meni cini?
#1122
Posted: 02/03/2007 02:19
Ne, nije nikakva igra rijecima, drug. Nego se ti lijepo vrati malo nazad pa polako iscitaj sve vezano za rep. A ako ti nije ni tada jasno imas google ili, ako ti je vec lakse, mozda Harun pomognechinese_water wrote:A gdje je taj rep? Ja ga ne vidim ni na jednom covjeku
Sta je zapravo rep? To je ono sto viri iz tijela zivotinja?
Ili je ono sto ne viri iz covjeka? Kako sad to da je rep kod covjeka ako se ne vidi,a isto se zove rep i kod zivotinja kod kojih je on jasno vidljiv? Jel' ovo slucajno kakva manipulacija rijecima ili se meni cini?
...Pogledaj dio pod brojem 2!
Pozdrav...
#1123
Posted: 02/03/2007 02:23
Ovaj rep?NIN wrote:Ne, nije nikakva igra rijecima, drug. Nego se ti lijepo vrati malo nazad pa polako iscitaj sve vezano za rep. A ako ti nije ni tada jasno imas google ili, ako ti je vec lakse, mozda Harun pomognechinese_water wrote:A gdje je taj rep? Ja ga ne vidim ni na jednom covjeku
Sta je zapravo rep? To je ono sto viri iz tijela zivotinja?
Ili je ono sto ne viri iz covjeka? Kako sad to da je rep kod covjeka ako se ne vidi,a isto se zove rep i kod zivotinja kod kojih je on jasno vidljiv? Jel' ovo slucajno kakva manipulacija rijecima ili se meni cini?
Pogledaj dio pod brojem 2!
Pozdrav...
Ili je to ipak ovaj?
#1124
Posted: 02/03/2007 02:23
....kod mene rep na pogresnoj strani .....
#1125
Posted: 02/03/2007 02:25
heheheheforUMASH wrote:....kod mene rep na pogresnoj strani .....