Început de intravenos, Mie 7 feb 2007 · 2.364 răspunsuri · 135.692 vizualizări
Da-mi un link. Ce, vrei sa te cred pe cuvant? Da-mi un link si apoi spune ce legatura are:
faptul ca in aceste constelatii corpurile
stelare nu se misca ,, spiralat ,, ca de obicei......ci au toate acelasi ,,vector,, de miscare - directie
si sens
cu:
31. Poţi tu să legi cataramele Pleiadelor sau să deznozi lanţurile Orionului? -
Nu mai forta explicatiile ca esti PENIBIL. Este atat de tras de par ce incerci tu sa faci aici, incat mi-e mie rusine pentru tine.
Enki a scris:Da-mi un link. Ce, vrei sa te cred pe cuvant? Da-mi un link si apoi spune ce legatura are:faptul ca in aceste constelatii corpurile
stelare nu se misca ,, spiralat ,, ca de obicei......ci au toate acelasi ,,vector,, de miscare - directie
si sens
cu:
31. Poţi tu să legi cataramele Pleiadelor sau să deznozi lanţurile Orionului? -
Nu mai forta explicatiile ca esti PENIBIL. Este atat de tras de par ce incerci tu sa faci aici, incat mi-e mie rusine pentru tine.
.........uite un link in care apar numele mai multor savanti care studiaza aceste lucruri......http://www.icr.org/ si altul...
http://www.sfaturiortodoxe.ro/varsta_paman..._cronologie.htm
........una din cartile pe care o am cu semnatura.........Henry M. Morris, Creaţionismul ştiinţific........poti s-o
cauti si singur pe net.......
.......altul de unde am extras fraza urmatoare..........http://liviu.myeweb.net/custom.html
.......Exista destui oameni care, in ultimii zece sau douazeci de ani, au inceput sa contraatace pe cei ce sunt extrem de siguri de aceasta teorie. Exista un grup in San Diego numit Institutul de cercetari creationiste si un altul in Michigan, numit Societatea pentru cercetarea creatiei. Ei au dat la iveala cateva carti de stiinta care examineaza problema: pe ce temei fac oamenii aceste prezumtii despre milioanele si miliardele de ani ? Se dovedeste ca teoria contine mult mai multe ipoteze decat fapte.
Exista o carte scrisa de un evolutionist, intitulata Cum s-a alcatuit scala timpului preistoric (The Growth of a Prehistoric Time Scale), in care autorul (William B.N. Berry) admite ca pentru a interpreta milioanele si miliardele de ani trebuie presupus ca fiintele fosilizate din nivelurile inferioare de roci sunt stramosii evolutivi ai celor din.........etc.......
........mai vrei sa-ti mai dau .......sau credeai ca ma ia gura pe dinainte ca pe zexe la care ii tii ,, trena ,,.....
Editat Lun 7 apr 2008 09:11
leo luke a scris:.........uite un link in care apar numele mai multor savanti care studiaza aceste lucruri......http://www.icr.org/ si altul...http://www.sfaturiortodoxe.ro/varsta_paman..._cronologie.htm
........una din cartile pe care o am cu semnatura.........Henry M. Morris, Creaţionismul ştiinţific........poti s-o
cauti si singur pe net.......
.......altul de unde am extras fraza urmatoare..........http://liviu.myeweb.net/custom.html
.......Exista destui oameni care, in ultimii zece sau douazeci de ani, au inceput sa contraatace pe cei ce sunt extrem de siguri de aceasta teorie. Exista un grup in San Diego numit Institutul de cercetari creationiste si un altul in Michigan, numit Societatea pentru cercetarea creatiei. Ei au dat la iveala cateva carti de stiinta care examineaza problema: pe ce temei fac oamenii aceste prezumtii despre milioanele si miliardele de ani ? Se dovedeste ca teoria contine mult mai multe ipoteze decat fapte.
Exista o carte scrisa de un evolutionist, intitulata Cum s-a alcatuit scala timpului preistoric (The Growth of a Prehistoric Time Scale), in care autorul (William B.N. Berry) admite ca pentru a interpreta milioanele si miliardele de ani trebuie presupus ca fiintele fosilizate din nivelurile inferioare de roci sunt stramosii evolutivi ai celor din.........etc.......
........mai vrei sa-ti mai dau .......sau credeai ca ma ia gura pe dinainte ca pe zexe la care ii tii ,, trena ,,.....
cat de penibil.... 8) eu iti cer un link la in site stiintific, al unei universitati unde au scris savanti diversi despre Orion si Pleiade, dupa cum te laudai tu si tu ce-mi dai:
1:Siteul Institute for Creation Research... 
Al asa-zisilor oameni de stiinta creationisti, unde nu poti intra decat daca crezi in BIblie si esti adeptul creationismului.
2:Siteul sfaturi ortodoxe.... 8) :x stiinta curata acolo, ce mai! Interviu cu marele om de stiinta parintele Serafim.... ale carui unice studii despre evolutie sunt cele facute de INstitutul de cercetari creationiste si Sociatetea pentru cercetarea creatiei :) Si BTW, acolo nu vorbeste nimic de Orion, mai Lio Liuc. Te-am prins, ca nici macar nu ai citit pagina... o fi din cauza ca e site... ortodox si ai tu asa o aversiune?
si 3: pagina personala de web a lu' Liviu! 
care Liviu e tot un crestin infocat. 
:x
Editat Lun 7 apr 2008 09:55
Enki a scris:1:Siteul Institute for Creation Research...
2:Siteul sfaturi ortodoxe.... 8) :x stiinta curata acolo, ce mai!
si 3: pagina personala de web a lu' Liviu!
........multi dintre acestia nu erau crestini cand au inceput sa ia in serios problema......si
tocmai ca o studiaza ,, detasat ,,........nu ca sa caute ,, argumente ,,.........
........iar institutul din california nu e religios........ca numele se refera la domeniul de studiu adica
Creationism sau evolutionism.........asta nu inseamna ca ,, trag ,, spre religie........
.......insa tu probabil vrei argumente pro creationism chiar de la evolutionisti sau poate satanisti.....
......tu crezi ca esti mai ,, savant,, decat urmatorii.........insa ,,rasul ,, tau ar avea poate ,, greutate ,,....daca
ai avea si macar ceva dovezi clare pro evolutionism........
* Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
* Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
* Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
* Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
* Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
* Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
* Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
* Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
* Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
* Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
* Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
* Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
* Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
* Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
...........iar despre profetii vad ca eviti sa le ,, explici ,,......oare de ce Isaac Newton nu le-o fi
evitat............
Editat Lun 7 apr 2008 10:28
Lio liuc mai baiete, din totalul oamenilor de stiinta de pe planeta asta, numai 1% sunt creationisti. Nu te pune pe ganduri, de ce or fi asa putini?
Ia uite ce scrie despre lista ta de oameni de stiinta:
In October and November 2001, the Discovery Institute (DI), a Seattle-based public policy institute, placed advertisements in at least three periodicals, including The New York Review of Books, The New Republic, and The Weekly Standard. The advertisement in The New York Review of Books appeared under the headline "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" followed by this text:
Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBS's Evolution series, that "all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution" as does "virtually every reputable scientist in the world."
The following scientists dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.
After this brief statement is a gray box taking up the majority of the page which contains in small print a list of names followed by the names of the institutions at which the signatories work, previously worked, or attained doctoral degrees. In a cleared space in the middle of this display is an area containing the statement to which the signatories attest:
We are skeptical of the 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.
Under close examination, the text of both the leading paragraphs and the statement attested to appear to be very artfully phrased. The first paragraph tells readers that spokespersons for the PBS series Evolution have assured the public that "all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution." But notice that "Darwinian" appears in brackets. That "all known scientific evidence supports evolution" is a different claim than "all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution." Exactly who is equating Darwinian evolution and evolution? In the same vein, the signatories to the second declaration are described as dissenting from "Darwinism" - but do they reject evolution as well? NCSE decided to go to the source to ask the questions.
The Quote
On October 31, 2001, Mark Edwards of the DI responded to an e-mail request for the source of the quote. He stated that he did not know offhand the source of the quotation in the first paragraph but would make an effort to track it down. As of this writing, he has not supplied that information.
Personnel from public television station WGBH, the coproducer of the PBS Evolution series, were unable to find the exact quotation in any of their published literature. An internal memorandum providing background information on the Evolution series to PBS stations nationwide contains an almost identical sentence: "All known scientific evidence supports evolution." - without the word "Darwinian".
Let us assume that this internal memorandum (described on the DI web page) is the source of the quote used in the advertisement. If the word "Darwinian" does not occur in the original quote, why was it added here? In the rest of the paragraph from which the quote was evidently taken there is a discussion of "new discoveries over the past 150 years", including much of the fossil record, DNA, and the process of genetic replication. The paragraph goes on to state that any of these discoveries could have potentially discredited evolution, but they did not. In fact, they have provided even more evidence for descent with modification and common ancestry. The paragraph concludes by acknowledging that there certainly are things about evolution we do not yet know, just as with "all comprehensive scientific theories, from the theory of gravity to quantum mechanics."
We believe that the Discovery Institute intentionally modified the sentence and thereby changed its meaning. The original PBS sentence focused on evolution - the thesis that living things have common ancestors. It would not be equivalent to say that "all known scientific evidence supports Darwinian evolution"; by adding "Darwinian", the meaning of the quotation is changed. Is there healthy scientific debate about the role natural selection plays in evolution? Absolutely, and this is widely recognized. The discoveries of genetics have led to a better understanding of the sources for variation, and the latter half of the 20th century has witnessed a vigorous debate about the roles of proposed additional mechanisms - including genetic drift, gene flow, and developmental processes. These are some of the most interesting topics in modern evolutionary science. But arguments within the scientific community about how evolution occurs should not be confused with arguments - conspicuously absent from the scientific community - about whether evolution occurred.
The Statement
The signatories appear to attest to a statement about the ability of natural selection to "account for the complexity of life" - in other words, a statement about how evolution takes place. Given the anti-evolutionary tone of the introductory paragraphs, a layperson reading the advertisement might well assume that the signatories objected to evolution itself, rather than to the universality of natural selection as its mechanism. But did the scientists themselves object to evolution? Any of them? All of them? Or were some of them only questioning the importance of natural selection? Many scientists - including many associated with NCSE - could in good conscience
The Signatories
The list consists of 41 biologists (over half of whom are biochemists), 16 chemists, 4 engineers, 2 geologists/geophysicists, 8 mathematicians, 10 medical professionals, 4 social scientists, 15 from physics or astronomy, and 3 whose specialties we were unable to determine. Few were from biological subfields associated with organismic and population-level biology - the divisions of biology most closely associated with the study of evolution. None was recognizable as a prominent contributor to the scientific literature debating the role of natural selection in evolution. (The list published on the review evolution web site, which we analyzed, originally contained 103 names. The ads published in the print media contained 105 names, with the addition of the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, the creationist arm of the DI, President Stephen Meyer and Fellow Paul Nelson, both of whom hold PhDs in philosophy.)
NCSE contacted a sample of the signatories and asked them specific questions about their attitudes concerning evolution, namely whether or not they accepted "evidence for common ancestry, meaning that different species today shared common ancestors in the past," and whether or not they were convinced "that humans and chimps both share a common ancestor."
We anticipated that signatories working for Christian anti-evolution ministries - especially those who are young-earth creationists, such as David A Dewitt, PhD, an adjunct faculty member at the Institute for Creation Research - would answer in the negative, but responses from some of the other signatories were quite revealing. One signatory responded to each of the two questions with "I don't have a problem with this," then went on to elaborate that his "dissent mainly concerns the origin of life." But, of course, evolution is not a theory of the origin of life, nor was "Darwinism" in any of its forms; evolution concerns what happens after life appears.
Although another signatory responded that "the definition of species is very troublesome," he added that "I certainly do accept that SOME (perhaps most) modern species shared at least a recent common ancestor." On the question of whether chimps and humans share a common ancestor, he said, "I believe the genetic evidence is overwhelming for the morphology." Another signatory has elsewhere written, "I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent."
Therefore, although the signatories represent a diverse range of opinions about the role of natural selection in evolution, the list is nothing more than careful word play - what is known as "spin." Should one draw the conclusion from the advertisement that there is a growing movement of scientists who doubt evolution? Hardly; many of the names on the list are not new to anti-evolutionary activity. Ironically, if one were to conduct a survey of scientists who accepted evolution, the size of that list would swamp by tens of thousands this list assembled by the Discovery Institute!
It is regrettable that the public is likely to be confused by these advertisements and be misled into thinking that all of these scientists reject evolution, or that there is a groundswell of scientists rejecting evolution. Neither is true.
The National Center for Science Education is a nonprofit organization, based in Oakland, California, dedicated to defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools. On the web at www.ncseweb.org.
For information contact Skip Evans, NCSE Network Project Administrator.
Preluat de pe http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/..._11_29_2001.asp
Editat Lun 7 apr 2008 10:30
Enki a scris:Lio liuc mai baiete, din totalul oamenilor de stiinta de pe planeta asta, numai 1% sunt creationisti. Nu te pune pe ganduri, de ce or fi asa putini?Ia uite ce scrie despre lista ta de oameni de stiinta:
In October and November 2001, the Discovery Institute (DI), a Seattle-based public policy institute, placed advertisements in at least three periodicals, including The New York Review of Books, The New Republic, and The Weekly Standard. The advertisement in The New York Review of Books appeared under the headline "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" followed by this text:
Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBS's Evolution series, that "all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution" as does "virtually every reputable scientist in the world."
The following scientists dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.
After this brief statement is a gray box taking up the majority of the page which contains in small print a list of names followed by the names of the institutions at which the signatories work, previously worked, or attained doctoral degrees. In a cleared space in the middle of this display is an area containing the statement to which the signatories attest:
We are skeptical of the 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.
Under close examination, the text of both the leading paragraphs and the statement attested to appear to be very artfully phrased. The first paragraph tells readers that spokespersons for the PBS series Evolution have assured the public that "all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution." But notice that "Darwinian" appears in brackets. That "all known scientific evidence supports evolution" is a different claim than "all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution." Exactly who is equating Darwinian evolution and evolution? In the same vein, the signatories to the second declaration are described as dissenting from "Darwinism" - but do they reject evolution as well? NCSE decided to go to the source to ask the questions.
The Quote
On October 31, 2001, Mark Edwards of the DI responded to an e-mail request for the source of the quote. He stated that he did not know offhand the source of the quotation in the first paragraph but would make an effort to track it down. As of this writing, he has not supplied that information.
Personnel from public television station WGBH, the coproducer of the PBS Evolution series, were unable to find the exact quotation in any of their published literature. An internal memorandum providing background information on the Evolution series to PBS stations nationwide contains an almost identical sentence: "All known scientific evidence supports evolution." - without the word "Darwinian".
Let us assume that this internal memorandum (described on the DI web page) is the source of the quote used in the advertisement. If the word "Darwinian" does not occur in the original quote, why was it added here? In the rest of the paragraph from which the quote was evidently taken there is a discussion of "new discoveries over the past 150 years", including much of the fossil record, DNA, and the process of genetic replication. The paragraph goes on to state that any of these discoveries could have potentially discredited evolution, but they did not. In fact, they have provided even more evidence for descent with modification and common ancestry. The paragraph concludes by acknowledging that there certainly are things about evolution we do not yet know, just as with "all comprehensive scientific theories, from the theory of gravity to quantum mechanics."
We believe that the Discovery Institute intentionally modified the sentence and thereby changed its meaning. The original PBS sentence focused on evolution - the thesis that living things have common ancestors. It would not be equivalent to say that "all known scientific evidence supports Darwinian evolution"; by adding "Darwinian", the meaning of the quotation is changed. Is there healthy scientific debate about the role natural selection plays in evolution? Absolutely, and this is widely recognized. The discoveries of genetics have led to a better understanding of the sources for variation, and the latter half of the 20th century has witnessed a vigorous debate about the roles of proposed additional mechanisms - including genetic drift, gene flow, and developmental processes. These are some of the most interesting topics in modern evolutionary science. But arguments within the scientific community about how evolution occurs should not be confused with arguments - conspicuously absent from the scientific community - about whether evolution occurred.
The Statement
The signatories appear to attest to a statement about the ability of natural selection to "account for the complexity of life" - in other words, a statement about how evolution takes place. Given the anti-evolutionary tone of the introductory paragraphs, a layperson reading the advertisement might well assume that the signatories objected to evolution itself, rather than to the universality of natural selection as its mechanism. But did the scientists themselves object to evolution? Any of them? All of them? Or were some of them only questioning the importance of natural selection? Many scientists - including many associated with NCSE - could in good conscience
The Signatories
The list consists of 41 biologists (over half of whom are biochemists), 16 chemists, 4 engineers, 2 geologists/geophysicists, 8 mathematicians, 10 medical professionals, 4 social scientists, 15 from physics or astronomy, and 3 whose specialties we were unable to determine. Few were from biological subfields associated with organismic and population-level biology - the divisions of biology most closely associated with the study of evolution. None was recognizable as a prominent contributor to the scientific literature debating the role of natural selection in evolution. (The list published on the review evolution web site, which we analyzed, originally contained 103 names. The ads published in the print media contained 105 names, with the addition of the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, the creationist arm of the DI, President Stephen Meyer and Fellow Paul Nelson, both of whom hold PhDs in philosophy.)
NCSE contacted a sample of the signatories and asked them specific questions about their attitudes concerning evolution, namely whether or not they accepted "evidence for common ancestry, meaning that different species today shared common ancestors in the past," and whether or not they were convinced "that humans and chimps both share a common ancestor."
We anticipated that signatories working for Christian anti-evolution ministries - especially those who are young-earth creationists, such as David A Dewitt, PhD, an adjunct faculty member at the Institute for Creation Research - would answer in the negative, but responses from some of the other signatories were quite revealing. One signatory responded to each of the two questions with "I don't have a problem with this," then went on to elaborate that his "dissent mainly concerns the origin of life." But, of course, evolution is not a theory of the origin of life, nor was "Darwinism" in any of its forms; evolution concerns what happens after life appears.
Although another signatory responded that "the definition of species is very troublesome," he added that "I certainly do accept that SOME (perhaps most) modern species shared at least a recent common ancestor." On the question of whether chimps and humans share a common ancestor, he said, "I believe the genetic evidence is overwhelming for the morphology." Another signatory has elsewhere written, "I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent."
Therefore, although the signatories represent a diverse range of opinions about the role of natural selection in evolution, the list is nothing more than careful word play - what is known as "spin." Should one draw the conclusion from the advertisement that there is a growing movement of scientists who doubt evolution? Hardly; many of the names on the list are not new to anti-evolutionary activity. Ironically, if one were to conduct a survey of scientists who accepted evolution, the size of that list would swamp by tens of thousands this list assembled by the Discovery Institute!
It is regrettable that the public is likely to be confused by these advertisements and be misled into thinking that all of these scientists reject evolution, or that there is a groundswell of scientists rejecting evolution. Neither is true.
The National Center for Science Education is a nonprofit organization, based in Oakland, California, dedicated to defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools. On the web at www.ncseweb.org.
For information contact Skip Evans, NCSE Network Project Administrator.
Preluat de pe http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/..._11_29_2001.asp
.........daca pe tine te pune pe ganduri numarul pro sau contra........eu nu cred ca asta e ,,cheia,, adevarului....
..........vorba aia ........larga e calea spre pierzare si multi merg pe ea...........
cat despre profetii.......ia uite una care s-a implinit abia in 1966.......refacerea statului Israel........si dovedit sant
scripturi vechi de sute de ani care contineau aceasta profetie.........dar vad ca pe astea le eviti mereu...........
........si da-mi te rog savantii care spun de cele 2 constelatii ca nu e asa cum e scris in Iov...........
Editat Lun 7 apr 2008 10:48
Ce tare esti; da-mi savantii care au spus ca nu e cum este in Iov. Pai ce mare rahat spune in Iov: spune ca stelele sunt fixe pe cer intr-o constelatie in raport una cu cealalta, nu ca planetele, care se misca. Asta se stia de mult.
Si domnu Lio Liuc, nju eu trebuie sa dau numele savantilor care spun ca nu e ca in Biblie, ci tu trebuie sa dai numele celor care spun ca e ca in BIblie. Esti deja penibil cu cate afirmatii gratuite poti sa faci. Mi-ai dat trei linkuri jenante la siteuri religioase, pretinzand ca sunt siteuri stiintifice, ai facut afirmatia aia trasa de par cu Orion si pleiadele, iar acum dai din colt in colt cand vine vorba sa imi dai un link. Las-o mai moale cu biblia carte de stiinta, ca nu e. Mai cinstit si mai fairplay ar fi sa spui: domnule, biblia este o carte despre realitatile spirituale, despre evolutia spirituala, despre mantuire, legi morale, etc. Si tocmai de asta nu are cum sa acopere nici astronomia, nici biologia, nici geologia. Dar nuuu... voi va lacomiti sa faceti din cartea aia manual universal de stiinta, si nici nu va dati seama cat de penibili sunteti cand fortati intelesurile cuvintelor (cum a fost faza aia cu fronturile atmosferice ) si cand aveti pretentia ca toate cunostintele acumulate pana acum in biologie, astronomie, geologie, istorie... sunt gresite... pentru ca in Biblie nu scrie asa, ci altfel.
Editat Lun 7 apr 2008 10:53
Enki a scris:Ce tare esti; da-mi savantii care au spus ca nu e cum este in Iov. Pai ce mare rahat spune in Iov: spune ca stelele sunt fixe pe cer intr-o constelatie in raport una cu cealalta, nu ca planetele, care se misca. Asta se stia de mult.Si domnu Lio Liuc, nju eu trebuie sa dau numele savantilor care spun ca nu e ca in Biblie, ci tu trebuie sa dai numele celor care spun ca e ca in BIblie.
hai pe bune te ridica cineva la rang de anchetator si noi nu stim . stiu ca biblia a fost modificata si tradusa aiurea dar sunt unele informatii care acum apar faptul ca tu nu vrei sa le vezi e treaba ta.
stai in bula ta de realitate .
Si tu ce problema ai? Esti cumva de parere ca lumea are 7000 de ani? Esti cumva de parere ca evreii stiau de fronturile atmosferice? De ce nu i-as cere lui Lio dovada pentru ce afirma, cum ca exista "savanti care confirma ca ceea ce scrie in Biblie de Orion si Pleiade e adevarat"? BTW, tu cum interpretezi acel Iov 38:31?
leo luke a scris:.........bine ca limbajul tau din topicele anterioare .......nu e jenant......ca de altfel si ideiletale........
cand ramai fara argumente, incepi sa vorbesti prostii? si ti se intampla des treaba asta?
leo luke a scris:iar pt. tine biblia rezulta din ceea ce zici ca e doar o poveste.......oare indemnulprincipal al bibliei de a deveni mai buni sa te deranjeze ?......
ia prinde-te tu de subiect si tine-te cu toate puterile. poate reusesti sa intelegi ca ti s-au demontat toate "dovezile" despre pamantul cel sferic si despre vederea din satelit prezentata in biblie. daca nu esti sado-maso, bineinteles... 8)
leo luke a scris:.......insa ceea ce tu nu vei putea ,, tagadui ,, niciodata sant profetiile.... una din ele aratand dinaintecare va fi semnul fiarei ......si faptul ca il va ,, impune ,, inainte de revenirea lui Hristos........
da, bine, acum hai sa lasam putin viitorul, la care biblia se pricepe de minune, si sa ne intoarcem putin in trecut, mai exact la momentul in care Dumnezeu spune ca iepurele e rumegator.
adica Dumnezeu dezvaluie rotunjimea pamantului, intinderea norilor si vastitatea cosmosului, dar...se-mpiedica de-un urecheat? 8) nasol moment...divin.
intrebarea e valabila si pentru tine, vali, ca vad ca in ultimul timp te-a cam lasat logica de izbeliste daca te apuci sa scoti remarci din astea referitor la ce se discuta aici.