Evolucija

Naučna otkrića, edukacija, školstvo, univerziteti, fakulteti...

Moderator/ica: NIN

PostPostao/la NIN dana 15/03/2006 16:29

Haqqani je napisao/la:Bismillah!

Ja sam muzicku , jel to to ? :)


Nije zafrkancija, ozbiljno pitam!
Avatar
NIN
Globalni moderator
 
Postovi: 5812
Pridružen/a: 15/02/2006 21:18
Lokacija: Via Lactea, Orion Arm

PostPostao/la danas dana 15/03/2006 16:48

a sad na citanje :D
(tekst je dugacak, pa sam malo skratila...)


Finding Darwin's God

To creationists, an acceptance of evolution cannot coexist with belief in a created world. Not only are the creationists wrong, argues a professor of biology who is also a Christian, they deny the possibility of human beings created free to choose right from wrong. Darwin's theories, he says, can actually deepen our belief in a Creator.

By Kenneth R. Miller '70


The great hall of the Hynes Convention Center in Boston looks nothing like a church. And yet I sat there, smiling amid an audience of scientists, shaking my head and laughing to myself as I remembered another talk, given long ago, inside a church to an audience of children.

Without warning, I had experienced one of those moments in the present that connects with the scattered recollections of our past. Psychologists tell us that things happen all the time. Five thousand days of childhood are filed, not in chronological order, but as bits and pieces linked by words, or sounds, or even smells that cause us to retrieve them for no apparent reason when something "refreshes" our memory. And just like that, a few words in a symposium on developmental biology had brought me back to the day before my first communion. I was eight years old, sitting with the boys on the right side of our little church (the girls sat on the left), and our pastor was speaking.

Putting the finishing touches on a year of preparation for the sacrament, Father Murphy sought to impress us with the reality of God's power in the world. He pointed to the altar railing, its polished marble gleaming in sunlight, and firmly assured us that God himself had fashioned it. "Yeah, right," whispered the kid next to me. Worried that there might be the son or daughter of a stonecutter in the crowd, the good Father retreated a bit. "Now, he didn't carve the railing or bring it here or cement it in place. . . but God himself made the marble, long ago, and left it for someone to find and make into part of our church."

I don't know if our pastor sensed that his description of God as craftsman was meeting a certain tide of skepticism, but no matter. He had another trick up his sleeve, a can't-miss, sure-thing argument that, no doubt, had never failed him. He walked over to the altar and picked a flower from the vase.

"Look at the beauty of a flower," he began. "The Bible tells us that even Solomon in all his glory was never arrayed as one of these. And do you know what? Not a single person in the world can tell us what makes a flower bloom. All those scientists in their laboratories, the ones who can split the atom and build jet planes and televisions, well, not one of them can tell you how a plant makes flowers." And why should they be able to? "Flowers, just like you, are the work of God."

I was impressed. No one argued, no one wisecracked. We filed out of the church like good little boys and girls, ready for our first communion the next day. And I never thought of it again, until this symposium on developmental biology. Sandwiched between two speakers working on more fashionable topics in animal development was Elliot M. Meyerowitz, a plant scientist at Caltech. A few of my colleagues, uninterested in research dealing with plants, got up to stretch their legs before the final talk, but I sat there with an ear-to-ear grin on my face. I jotted notes furiously; I sketched the diagrams he projected on the screen and wrote additional speculations of my own in the margins. Meyerowitz, you see, had explained how plants make flowers.

The four principal parts of a flower - sepals, petals, stamens, and pistils - are actually modified leaves. This is one of the reasons why plants can produce reproductive cells just about anywhere, while animals are limited to a very specific set of reproductive organs. Your little finger isn't going to start shedding reproductive cells anytime soon. But in springtime, the tip of any branch on an apple tree may very well blossom and begin scattering pollen. Plants can produce new flowers anywhere they can grow new leaves. Somehow, however, the plant must find a way to "tell" an ordinary cluster of leaves that they should develop into floral parts. That's where Meyerowitz's lab took over.

Several years of patient genetic study had isolated a set of mutants that could only form two or three of the four parts. By crossing the various mutants, his team was able to identify four genes that had to be turned on or off in a specific pattern to produce a normal flower. Each of these genes, in turn, sets off a series of signals that "tell" the cells of a brand new bud to develop as sepals or petals rather than ordinary leaves. The details are remarkable, and the interactions between the genes are fascinating. To me, sitting in the crowd thirty-seven years after my first communion, the scientific details were just the icing on the cake. The real message was "Father Murphy, you were wrong." God doesn't make a flower. The floral induction genes do.

Our pastor's error, common and widely repeated, was to seek God in what science has not yet explained. His assumption was that God is best found in territory unknown, in the corners of darkness that have not yet seen the light of understanding. These, as it turns out, are exactly the wrong places to look.

Searching the Shadows

By pointing to the process of making a flower as proof of the reality of God, Father Murphy was embracing the idea that God finds it necessary to cripple nature. In his view, the blooming of a daffodil requires not a self-sufficient material universe, but direct intervention by God. We can find God, therefore, in the things around us that lack material, scientific explanations. In nature, elusive and unexplored, we will find the Creator at work.

The creationist opponents of evolution make similar arguments. They claim that the existence of life, the appearance of new species, and, most especially, the origins of mankind have not and cannot be explained by evolution or any other natural process. By denying the self-sufficiency of nature, they look for God (or at least a "designer") in the deficiencies of science. The trouble is that science, given enough time, generally explains even the most baffling things. As a matter of strategy, creationists would be well-advised to avoid telling scientists what they will never be able to figure out. History is against them. In a general way, we really do understand how nature works.

And evolution forms a critical part of that understanding. Evolution really does explain the very things that its critics say it does not. Claims disputing the antiquity of the earth, the validity of the fossil record, and the sufficiency of evolutionary mechanisms vanish upon close inspection. Even to the most fervent anti-evolutionists, the pattern should be clear - their favorite "gaps" are filling up: the molecular mechanisms of evolution are now well-understood, and the historical record of evolution becomes more compelling with each passing season. This means that science can answer their challenges to evolution in an obvious way. Show the historical record, provide the data, reveal the mechanism, and highlight the convergence of theory and fact.

There is, however, a deeper problem caused by the opponents of evolution, a problem for religion. Like our priest, they have based their search for God on the premise that nature is not self-sufficient. By such logic, only God can make a species, just as Father Murphy believed only God could make a flower. Both assertions support the existence of God only so long as these assertions are true, but serious problems for religion emerge when they are shown to be false.


If we accept a lack of scientific explanation as proof for God's existence, simple logic would dictate that we would have to regard a successful scientific explanation as an argument against God. That's why creationist reasoning, ultimately, is much more dangerous to religion than to science. Elliot Meyerowitz's fine work on floral induction suddenly becomes a threat to the divine, even though common sense tells us it should be nothing of the sort. By arguing, as creationists do, that nature cannot be self-sufficient in the formation of new species, the creationists forge a logical link between the limits of natural processes to accomplish biological change and the existence of a designer (God). In other words, they show the proponents of atheism exactly how to disprove the existence of God - show that evolution works, and it's time to tear down the temple. This is an offer that the enemies of religion are all too happy to accept.

Putting it bluntly, the creationists have sought God in darkness. What we have not found and do not yet understand becomes their best - indeed their only - evidence for the divine. As a Christian, I find the flow of this logic particularly depressing. Not only does it teach us to fear the acquisition of knowledge (which might at any time disprove belief), but it suggests that God dwells only in the shadows of our understanding. I suggest that, if God is real, we should be able to find him somewhere else - in the bright light of human knowledge, spiritual and scientific.


Faith and Reason
The Weapons of Disbelief

As a species, we like to see ourselves as the best and brightest. We are the intended, special, primary creatures of creation. We sit at the apex of the evolutionary tree as the ultimate products of nature, self-proclaimed and self-aware. We like to think that evolution's goal was to produce us.
In a purely biological sense, this comforting view of our own position in nature is false, a product of self-inflating distortion induced by the imperfect mirrors we hold up to life. Yes, we are objectively among the most complex of animals, but not in every sense. Among the systems of the body, we are the hands-down winners for physiological complexity in just one place - the nervous system - and even there, a nonprimate (the dolphin) can lay down a claim that rivals our own.

More to the point, any accurate assessment of the evolutionary process shows that the notion of one form of life being more highly evolved than another is incorrect. Every organism, every cell that lives today, is the descendant of a long line of winners, of ancestors who used successful evolutionary strategies time and time again, and therefore lived to tell about it - or, at least, to reproduce. The bacterium perched on the lip of my coffee cup has been through as much evolution as I have. I've got the advantage of size and consciousness, which matter when I write about evolution, but the bacterium has the advantage of numbers, of flexibility, and most especially, of reproductive speed. That single bacterium, given the right conditions, could literally fill the world with its descendants in a matter of days. No human, no vertebrate, no animal could boast of anything remotely as impressive.

What evolution tells us is that life spreads out along endless branching pathways from any starting point. One of those tiny branches eventually led to us. We think it remarkable and wonder how it could have happened, but any fair assessment of the tree of life shows that our tiny branch is crowded into insignificance by those that bolted off in a thousand different directions. Our species, Homo sapiens, has not "triumphed" in the evolutionary struggle any more than has a squirrel, a dandelion, or a mosquito. We are all here, now, and that's what matters. We have all followed different pathways to find ourselves in the present. We are all winners in the game of natural selection. Current winners, we should be careful to say.

That, in the minds of many, is exactly the problem. In a thousand branching pathways, how can we be sure that one of them, historically and unavoidably, would lead for sure to us? Consider this: we mammals now occupy, in most ecosystems, the roles of large, dominant land animals. But for much of their history, mammals were restricted to habitats in which only very small creatures could survive. Why? Because another group of vertebrates dominated the earth - until, as Stephen Jay Gould has pointed out, the cataclysmic impact of a comet or asteroid drove those giants to extinction. "In an entirely literal sense," Gould has written, "we owe our existence, as large and reasoning animals, to our lucky stars."

So, what if the comet had missed? What if our ancestors, and not dinosaurs, had been the ones driven to extinction? What if, during the Devonian period, the small tribe of fish known as rhipidistians had been obliterated? Vanishing with them would have been the possibility of life for the first tetrapods. Vertebrates might never have struggled onto the land, leaving it, in Gould's words, forever "the unchallenged domain of insects and flowers."

Surely this means that mankind's appearance on this planet was not pre-ordained, that we are here not as the products of an inevitable procession of evolutionary success, but as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out. What follows from this, to skeptic and true believer alike, is a conclusion whose logic is rarely challenged - that no God would ever have used such a process to fashion his prize creatures. How could he have been sure that leaving the job to evolution would lead things to working out the "right" way? If it was God's will to produce us, then by showing that we are the products of evolution, we would rule God as Creator. Therein lies the value or the danger of evolution.

The alternative is a world where all events have predictable outcomes, where the future is open neither to chance nor to independent human action. A world in which we would always evolve is a world in which we would never be free. To a believer, the particular history leading to us shows how truly remarkable we are, how rare is the gift of consciousness, and how precious is the chance to understand.

Certainty and Faith

One would like to think that all scientific ideas, including evolution, would rise or fall purely on the basis of the evidence. If that were true, evolution would long since have passed, in the public mind, from controversy into common sense, which is exactly what has happened within the scientific community. This is, unfortunately, not the case - evolution remains, in the minds of much of the American public, a dangerous idea, and for biology educators, a source of never-ending strife.

I believe much of the problem is the fault of those in the scientific community who routinely enlist the findings of evolutionary biology in support their own philosophical pronouncements. Sometimes these take the form of stern, dispassionate pronouncements about the meaninglessness of life. Other times we are lectured that the contingency of our presence on this planet invalidates any sense of human purpose. And very often we are told that the raw reality of nature strips the authority from any human system of morality.

As creatures fashioned by evolution, we are filled, as the biologist E. O. Wilson has said, with instinctive behaviors important to the survival of our genes. Some of these behaviors, though favored by natural selection, can get us into trouble. Our desires for food, water, reproduction, and status, our willingness to fight, and our tendencies to band together into social groups, can all be seen as behaviors that help ensure evolutionary success. Sociobiology, which studies the biological basis of social behaviors, tells us that in some circumstances natural selection will favor cooperative and nurturing instincts - "nice" genes that help us get along together. Some circumstances, on the other had, will favor aggressive self-centered behaviors, ranging all the way from friendly competition to outright homicide. Could such Darwinian ruthlessness be part of the plan of a loving God?

Yes, it could. To survive on this planet, the genes of our ancestors, like those of any other organism, had to produce behaviors that protected, nurtured, defended, and ensured the reproductive successes of the individuals that bore them. It should be no surprise that we carry such passions within us, and Darwinian biology cannot be faulted for giving their presence a biological explanation. Indeed, the Bible itself gives ample documentation of such human tendencies, including pride, selfishness, lust, anger, aggression, and murder.

Darwin can hardly be criticized for pinpointing the biological origins of these drives. All too often, in finding the sources of our "original sins," in fixing the reasons why our species displays the tendencies it does, evolution is misconstrued as providing a kind of justification for the worst aspects of human nature. At best, this is a misreading of the scientific lessons of sociobiology. At worst, it is an attempt to misuse biology to abolish any meaningful system of morality. Evolution may explain the existence of our most basic biological drives and desires, but that does not tell us that it is always proper to act on them. Evolution has provided me with a sense of hunger when my nutritional resources are running low, but evolution does not justify my clubbing you over the head to swipe your lunch. Evolution explains our biology, but it does not tell us what is good, or right, or moral. For those answers, however informed we may be by biology, we must look somewhere else.

What Kind of World?

This sad specter of a weakened and marginalized God drives the continuing opposition to evolution. This is why the God of the creationists requires, above all, that evolution be shown not to have functioned in the past and not to be working now. To free religion from the tyranny of Darwinism, creationists need a science that shows nature to be incomplete; they need a history of life whose events can only be explained as the result of supernatural processes. Put bluntly, the creationists are committed to finding permanent, intractable mystery in nature. To such minds, even the most perfect being we can imagine would not have been perfect enough to fashion a creation in which life would originate and evolve on its own. Nature must be flawed, static, and forever inadequate.

Science in general, and evolutionary science in particular, gives us something quite different. It reveals a universe that is dynamic, flexible, and logically complete. It presents a vision of life that spreads across the planet with endless variety and intricate beauty. It suggests a world in which our material existence is not an impossible illusion propped up by magic, but the genuine article, a world in which things are exactly what they seem. A world in which we were formed, as the Creator once told us, from the dust of the earth itself.

It is often said that a Darwinian universe is one whose randomness cannot be reconciled with meaning. I disagree. A world truly without meaning would be one in which a deity pulled the string of every human puppet, indeed of every material particle. In such a world, physical and biological events would be carefully controlled, evil and suffering could be minimized, and the outcome of historical processes strictly regulated. All things would move toward the Creator's clear, distinct, established goals. Such control and predictability, however, comes at the price of independence. Always in control, such a Creator would deny his creatures any real opportunity to know and worship him - authentic love requires freedom, not manipulation. Such freedom is best supplied by the open contingency of evolution.

One hundred and fifty years ago it might have been impossible not to couple Darwin to a grim and pointless determinism, but things look different today. Darwin's vision has expanded to encompass a new world of biology in which the links from molecule to cell and from cell to organism are becoming clear. Evolution prevails, but it does so with a richness and subtlety its original theorist may have found surprising and could not have anticipated.

Evolution is neither more nor less than the result of respecting the reality and consistency of the physical world over time. To fashion material beings with an independent physical existence, any Creator would have had to produce an independent material universe in which our evolution over time was a contingent possibility. A believer in the divine accepts that God's love and gift of freedom are genuine - so genuine that they include the power to choose evil and, if we wish, to freely send ourselves to Hell. Not all believers will accept the stark conditions of that bargain, but our freedom to act has to have a physical and biological basis. Evolution and its sister sciences of genetics and molecular biology provide that basis. In biological terms, evolution is the only way a Creator could have made us the creatures we are - free beings in a world of authentic and meaningful moral and spiritual choices.

Those who ask from science a final argument, an ultimate proof, an unassailable position from which the issue of God may be decided will always be disappointed. As a scientist I claim no new proofs, no revolutionary data, no stunning insight into nature that can tip the balance in one direction or another. But I do claim that to a believer, even in the most traditional sense, evolutionary biology is not at all the obstacle we often believe it to be. In many respects, evolution is the key to understanding our relationship with God.

When I have the privilege of giving a series of lectures on evolutionary biology to my freshman students, I usually conclude those lectures with a few remarks about the impact of evolutionary theory on other fields, from economics to politics to religion. I find a way to make clear that I do not regard evolution, properly understood, as either antireligious or antispiritual. Most students seem to appreciate those sentiments. They probably figure that Professor Miller, trying to be a nice guy and doubtlessly an agnostic, is trying to find a way to be unequivocal about evolution without offending the University chaplain.

There are always a few who find me after class and want to pin me down. They ask me point-blank: "Do you believe in God?"

And I tell each of them, "Yes."

Puzzled, they ask: "What kind of God?"

Over the years I have struggled to come up with a simple but precise answer to that question. And, eventually I found it. I believe in Darwin's God.


Kenneth Miller is a professor of biology at Brown. This article is adapted from Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, published in September by Cliff Street Books.
Avatar
danas
 
Postovi: 18861
Pridružen/a: 11/03/2005 20:40
Lokacija: 10th circle...

PostPostao/la Kwaheri dana 15/03/2006 17:08

A je napisao/la:
zena je napisao/la:vjerujem da bih, kao sto ne rijetko cijenim i ono sto ti iznosis ovdje ...i nije tacno da ce tvoji izvori biti tretirani uvijek, ali ponekada, ako sto kad prepoznam ideje ljudi poput gorenavedenih, onda znam sta mogu reci...doduse, moze biti i da je to stvar vjere, ja vjerujem jednima, ti drugima itd...nemoj mi one price o cafirluku molim te... ;)

Pitanje vjere? Recimo da je tvoj izvor Dr Karic - teolog, a meni su uglavnom istoricari. I ono sto procitam ne uzimam kao apsolutnu istinu, nego razlucim sta moze biti cinjenica, sta pretpostavka, sta zakljucak autora teksta. Nikakve tu vjere nema.

A Mutewatir je, kako god, usmeno predanje, znaci potrebna je vjera u boga, pa vjera u istinitost Muhamedovih rijeci, pa tacnost prenosenja, pa tacnost zapisa.... Lanac vjere je predug, da bi se prenesena informacija mogla uzeti kao vjerodostojna.


...i ja vala zapela za tog karića...dostupna literatura svima...
...historicari...da ti velim draga nesto...

...npr. postoji jedna zemlja..."njfthdgdhgz" nevazno...datira iz recimo nekog stoljeća...i sad, ima ta zemlja pisane izvore o nastanku gradova, licnosti koje se pojavljuju itd. Cime se tu bave historicari? Oni ti lijepo tu zemlju "iseciraju", ali nakon sto se utvrdi recimo, da pisani tragovi (naravno ne samo to, vec i arhitektura, tragovi uopce) nisu falsifikati (novijeg doba) informacije se uzimaju odatle ili iz sporednih izvora (dakle, opet pisani tragovi ili tragovi uopce) od nekih drugih ..."njfthdgdhgz" koji su bili njihovi savremenici ili bar su bili blizu...
...dakle, izvori...

samo u slucaju islama...i porijekla islama i Kur'ana, pa i Muhammeda a.s. Kao istorijske licnosti...to ne vrijedi...muslimani kao izvor su "nepodobni"..dace historicari/orijentalisti uglavnom, nama, malo novije "izvore"... Nije li tako?
Kwaheri
 
Postovi: 3305
Pridružen/a: 30/04/2004 12:33

PostPostao/la dripac dana 15/03/2006 17:25

zena je napisao/la:
A je napisao/la:
zena je napisao/la:vjerujem da bih, kao sto ne rijetko cijenim i ono sto ti iznosis ovdje ...i nije tacno da ce tvoji izvori biti tretirani uvijek, ali ponekada, ako sto kad prepoznam ideje ljudi poput gorenavedenih, onda znam sta mogu reci...doduse, moze biti i da je to stvar vjere, ja vjerujem jednima, ti drugima itd...nemoj mi one price o cafirluku molim te... ;)

Pitanje vjere? Recimo da je tvoj izvor Dr Karic - teolog, a meni su uglavnom istoricari. I ono sto procitam ne uzimam kao apsolutnu istinu, nego razlucim sta moze biti cinjenica, sta pretpostavka, sta zakljucak autora teksta. Nikakve tu vjere nema.

A Mutewatir je, kako god, usmeno predanje, znaci potrebna je vjera u boga, pa vjera u istinitost Muhamedovih rijeci, pa tacnost prenosenja, pa tacnost zapisa.... Lanac vjere je predug, da bi se prenesena informacija mogla uzeti kao vjerodostojna.


...i ja vala zapela za tog karića...dostupna literatura svima...
...historicari...da ti velim draga nesto...

...npr. postoji jedna zemlja..."njfthdgdhgz" nevazno...datira iz recimo nekog stoljeća...i sad, ima ta zemlja pisane izvore o nastanku gradova, licnosti koje se pojavljuju itd. Cime se tu bave historicari? Oni ti lijepo tu zemlju "iseciraju", ali nakon sto se utvrdi recimo, da pisani tragovi (naravno ne samo to, vec i arhitektura, tragovi uopce) nisu falsifikati (novijeg doba) informacije se uzimaju odatle ili iz sporednih izvora (dakle, opet pisani tragovi ili tragovi uopce) od nekih drugih ..."njfthdgdhgz" koji su bili njihovi savremenici ili bar su bili blizu...
...dakle, izvori...

samo u slucaju islama...i porijekla islama i Kur'ana, pa i Muhammeda a.s. Kao istorijske licnosti...to ne vrijedi...muslimani kao izvor su "nepodobni"..dace historicari/orijentalisti uglavnom, nama, malo novije "izvore"... Nije li tako?


Ja, a zapad sljepo vjeruje svemu što piše u Bibliji. Jel to to što hočeš reći?
dripac
 
Postovi: 374
Pridružen/a: 05/10/2005 09:22

PostPostao/la Kwaheri dana 15/03/2006 17:34

dripac je napisao/la:
zena je napisao/la:
A je napisao/la:
zena je napisao/la:vjerujem da bih, kao sto ne rijetko cijenim i ono sto ti iznosis ovdje ...i nije tacno da ce tvoji izvori biti tretirani uvijek, ali ponekada, ako sto kad prepoznam ideje ljudi poput gorenavedenih, onda znam sta mogu reci...doduse, moze biti i da je to stvar vjere, ja vjerujem jednima, ti drugima itd...nemoj mi one price o cafirluku molim te... ;)

Pitanje vjere? Recimo da je tvoj izvor Dr Karic - teolog, a meni su uglavnom istoricari. I ono sto procitam ne uzimam kao apsolutnu istinu, nego razlucim sta moze biti cinjenica, sta pretpostavka, sta zakljucak autora teksta. Nikakve tu vjere nema.

A Mutewatir je, kako god, usmeno predanje, znaci potrebna je vjera u boga, pa vjera u istinitost Muhamedovih rijeci, pa tacnost prenosenja, pa tacnost zapisa.... Lanac vjere je predug, da bi se prenesena informacija mogla uzeti kao vjerodostojna.


...i ja vala zapela za tog karića...dostupna literatura svima...
...historicari...da ti velim draga nesto...

...npr. postoji jedna zemlja..."njfthdgdhgz" nevazno...datira iz recimo nekog stoljeća...i sad, ima ta zemlja pisane izvore o nastanku gradova, licnosti koje se pojavljuju itd. Cime se tu bave historicari? Oni ti lijepo tu zemlju "iseciraju", ali nakon sto se utvrdi recimo, da pisani tragovi (naravno ne samo to, vec i arhitektura, tragovi uopce) nisu falsifikati (novijeg doba) informacije se uzimaju odatle ili iz sporednih izvora (dakle, opet pisani tragovi ili tragovi uopce) od nekih drugih ..."njfthdgdhgz" koji su bili njihovi savremenici ili bar su bili blizu...
...dakle, izvori...

samo u slucaju islama...i porijekla islama i Kur'ana, pa i Muhammeda a.s. Kao istorijske licnosti...to ne vrijedi...muslimani kao izvor su "nepodobni"..dace historicari/orijentalisti uglavnom, nama, malo novije "izvore"... Nije li tako?


Ja, a zapad sljepo vjeruje svemu što piše u Bibliji. Jel to to što hočeš reći?



...ja sam rekla sto sam rekla, ne znam otkud ti ovakav zakljucak? i otkud uopce Biblija u ovoj prici..
nejse...A. de mu ti pojasni...meni se ne da...
Kwaheri
 
Postovi: 3305
Pridružen/a: 30/04/2004 12:33

PostPostao/la dripac dana 15/03/2006 17:42

zena je napisao/la:
dripac je napisao/la:
zena je napisao/la:
A je napisao/la:
zena je napisao/la:vjerujem da bih, kao sto ne rijetko cijenim i ono sto ti iznosis ovdje ...i nije tacno da ce tvoji izvori biti tretirani uvijek, ali ponekada, ako sto kad prepoznam ideje ljudi poput gorenavedenih, onda znam sta mogu reci...doduse, moze biti i da je to stvar vjere, ja vjerujem jednima, ti drugima itd...nemoj mi one price o cafirluku molim te... ;)

Pitanje vjere? Recimo da je tvoj izvor Dr Karic - teolog, a meni su uglavnom istoricari. I ono sto procitam ne uzimam kao apsolutnu istinu, nego razlucim sta moze biti cinjenica, sta pretpostavka, sta zakljucak autora teksta. Nikakve tu vjere nema.

A Mutewatir je, kako god, usmeno predanje, znaci potrebna je vjera u boga, pa vjera u istinitost Muhamedovih rijeci, pa tacnost prenosenja, pa tacnost zapisa.... Lanac vjere je predug, da bi se prenesena informacija mogla uzeti kao vjerodostojna.


...i ja vala zapela za tog karića...dostupna literatura svima...
...historicari...da ti velim draga nesto...

...npr. postoji jedna zemlja..."njfthdgdhgz" nevazno...datira iz recimo nekog stoljeća...i sad, ima ta zemlja pisane izvore o nastanku gradova, licnosti koje se pojavljuju itd. Cime se tu bave historicari? Oni ti lijepo tu zemlju "iseciraju", ali nakon sto se utvrdi recimo, da pisani tragovi (naravno ne samo to, vec i arhitektura, tragovi uopce) nisu falsifikati (novijeg doba) informacije se uzimaju odatle ili iz sporednih izvora (dakle, opet pisani tragovi ili tragovi uopce) od nekih drugih ..."njfthdgdhgz" koji su bili njihovi savremenici ili bar su bili blizu...
...dakle, izvori...

samo u slucaju islama...i porijekla islama i Kur'ana, pa i Muhammeda a.s. Kao istorijske licnosti...to ne vrijedi...muslimani kao izvor su "nepodobni"..dace historicari/orijentalisti uglavnom, nama, malo novije "izvore"... Nije li tako?


Ja, a zapad sljepo vjeruje svemu što piše u Bibliji. Jel to to što hočeš reći?



...ja sam rekla sto sam rekla, ne znam otkud ti ovakav zakljucak? i otkud uopce Biblija u ovoj prici..
nejse...A. de mu ti pojasni...meni se ne da...


Razumiješ ti mene jako dobro. Hočeš da kažeš da kada je islam u pitanju nevjeruje se muslimanima, nego se traži od istoričara da daju svoj sud. Reci da to nije slučaj i sa Biblijom i katolicima. Srednji vijek i sljepo vjerovanje crkvi je daleko za nama.
dripac
 
Postovi: 374
Pridružen/a: 05/10/2005 09:22

PostPostao/la danas dana 15/03/2006 17:53

a zasto biblija ne bi bila u prici? to je isti bog valjda, i kreacionisticka teorija je valjda zasnovana na tom 7-dnevnom stvaranju... za koje nemamo niti jedan jedini dokaz, osim onoga sto biblija i kuran kazu i pustog vjerovanja da je to tako...

PS i elvis je ziv, poselamio vas je sve. stanuje u alabami i bavi se uzgojem rasnih pasa...
Avatar
danas
 
Postovi: 18861
Pridružen/a: 11/03/2005 20:40
Lokacija: 10th circle...

PostPostao/la Sretno Biće dana 15/03/2006 18:09

vodolija_33 je napisao/la:
A je napisao/la:I drugo, nepromjenjenost Kurana (ili tvrdnje da je neizmjenjen) pociva na uvjerenju u pouzdanost onih koji su ga prenjeli, jer nije pisan u momentu Muhamedovog, boziji blagoslov na njega, zivota, nego kasnije, na osnovu rijeci prenosilaca od povjerenja. Znaci da su i tu rijeci vjerovjesnika mogle biti promjenjene. Trece, prijevodi Kurana evoluiraju, tako da se pomalo prilagodjavaju vremenu i savremenom rijecniku.


Uz dužno poštovanje A, ovo što si navela nije tačno. Možda si to pomiješala sa pisanjem Bibilije, jer je Biblija napisana 77 godina nakon "smrti" Isusa/ Isaa a.s. Kur'an je originalan, niti riječ jedna nije promijenjena do dana današnjeg. Ako ne vjeruješ, raspitaj se malo ....

gle novi zavjet je napisan iza isusove smrti, no stari zavjet je postojao mnogo ranije...
Avatar
Sretno Biće
 
Postovi: 92
Pridružen/a: 22/01/2006 14:53

PostPostao/la danas dana 15/03/2006 18:18

jusuff je napisao/la:
pa dobro, za tebe ne postoji savrsenost... ok, ne moras se ljutiti i boga nazivati zlobnim, estagfirullah

u tome i jeste tvoj (citaj vas) problem, ti boga zelis personificirati, dati mu atribute covjeka kako bi bila u mogucnosoti da ga spoznas
sigurno je lahko reci da je bog zloban jer eto ljudi ratuju, gladuju...
draga moja, i po tvojoj teoriji smo r. karadzic i ja, a na tvoju zalost i ti, produkt istog, recimo, procesa... ne kontam sta zelis reci uporedjujuci karadzica sa mnom, osim sto, vjerovatno, zelis nakon sto nazoves boga zlobnim i meni prikaciti bratstvo s krvopijom...
draga danas, umjela si i bolje i ljepse

selam


da je bog vec personificiran nije meni palo na pamet vec je to ocigledno iz svetih tekstova, u kojima je on opisan sa ljudskim odlikama (a iz kojih se takodje vidi njegova ubitacnost i zloba kao i ostale raznorazne falinke u karakteru i moralu). najdrazi mi je onaj dio iz starog zavjeta kad bog zgromi nekog nesretnika jer je kupio drva za potpalu subotom?!? :shock: :roll:

a posto je ovo tema o evoluciji, daj da se vratimo na to. tezu da si ti djelo savrsenog kreatora si pokrenuo ti sam. a moje pitanje je sljedece; kako to da savrseni kreator stvori toliko nesavrsenosti na dunjaluku i toliko nesavrsenih ljudi? meni, kao nekome ko smatra evoluciju ispravnim objasnjenjem, nije ni iz dzepa ni u dzep sto postoje lopovi i ubice, jer evolucija ne podrazumjeva nikakvu savrsenost a kamoli moralnost. dok su savrsenost i moralnost oslonci tvoje kreacionisticke toerije, pa opet samo pitam -- odakle ovoliki falicni produkti od savrsenog tvorca?

ako je jedini odgovor koji ces moci ponuditi otrcana fraza (cije znacenje nema nikakvog smisla, ali neki je vole ponavljati do besvjesti) da je bog savrsen ali mi nismo :-) onda nema potrebe da odgovaras...

PS a za savrsenost... da, biloski gledano, vjerovatno su pacovi i bubasvabe najblizi necemu sto se moze zvati savrsen dizajn. vrlo su otporni, mogu da prezive u svakojakim uslovima, i mala je sumnja da ce upravo ove dvije vrste uveliko nadzivjeti covjecanstvo... :D
Avatar
danas
 
Postovi: 18861
Pridružen/a: 11/03/2005 20:40
Lokacija: 10th circle...

PostPostao/la Gorcin dana 15/03/2006 18:22

Evolucija :lol: , nametnuto smeće od strane onih koji su Boga zamjenili naukom, ali će biti ljepota gledati vaša lica na dan u koji ama baš nikakve sumnje nema, pa makar i ja (ne do mi Bog :)) bio među onim tamnim facama, smijat ću vam se, ignoranti!!!!


Evo, ovdje potraži odgovore!!

:D :D http://www.harunyahya.com :D :D

-a što se tiče fosila, bujrum ovdje baci pogled

http://www.living-fossils.com/
Zadnja izmjena: Gorcin; 15/03/2006 18:27; ukupno mijenjano 1 put/a.
Gorcin
 
Postovi: 99
Pridružen/a: 26/02/2006 13:28

PostPostao/la danas dana 15/03/2006 18:28

A je napisao/la:Pored ovakvih argumenata, cemu nastavljati diskusiju? :D


argumenata? :-)
pa covjek nema sumnje, to je potreban i dovoljan uslov, nema dalje :D :lol:
Avatar
danas
 
Postovi: 18861
Pridružen/a: 11/03/2005 20:40
Lokacija: 10th circle...

PostPostao/la dripac dana 15/03/2006 18:32

Gorcin je napisao/la:Evolucija :lol: , nametnuto smeće od strane onih koji su Boga zamjenili naukom, ali će biti ljepota gledati vaša lica na dan u koji ama baš nikakve sumnje nema, pa makar i ja (ne do mi Bog :)) bio među onim tamnim facama, smijat ću vam se, ignoranti!!!!


Evo, ovdje potraži odgovore!!

:D :D http://www.harunyahya.com :D :D

-a što se tiče fosila, bujrum ovdje baci pogled

http://www.living-fossils.com/



Da se ti nepojavi, ostali bismo neprosvjetljni. Hvala ti prosvjetitelju veliki.
dripac
 
Postovi: 374
Pridružen/a: 05/10/2005 09:22

PostPostao/la Sretno Biće dana 15/03/2006 18:33

mislim da je najveća zabuna ovdje u tome što pojedini ne mogu vidjeti različitost pristupa načina istraživanja i problematiku egzaktnih znanosti od teologije i filozofije.
Egzaktne znanosti (u ovom slučaju paleontologija, paleoantropologija, arheologija) temelje se na egzaktnim materijalnim dokazima (fosilni i arheološki nalazi) i na osnovu tih materijalnih nalaza donose pretpostavke o određenim biološki i kulturnim manifestacijama, te njihovim promjenama u vremenu.
Kod teologije primarna u interpretaciji njegova postanka je duša (na osnovu koje se i definira čovjek), stoga tekstovi o stvaranju (iz Svetih knjiga) predstavljau simbolično prenošenje vjerske poruke i nije im cilj zadirat u biološki razvoj čovjeka.
S druge strane egzaktne znanosti čovjeka definiraju na temelju tjelesnog ustroja, razuma, kulture, te je biološki i kulturološki razvoj predmet proučavanja znanosti (paleoantropologija- na temelju arheoloških dokaza i fosilnih ostataka).
Iz gore navedenog se može reći da u biti nema sukoba (kojeg neki ovdje pokušavaju nametnuti) između dva tumačenja (znanstvenog i religioznog) jer se radi o različitom sferama proučavanja jedne te iste stvari, te različitim kompetencijama egzaktnih znanosti i teologije... :)
Avatar
Sretno Biće
 
Postovi: 92
Pridružen/a: 22/01/2006 14:53

PostPostao/la Sretno Biće dana 15/03/2006 18:40

ne nije sad da sam Un ili slično nego samo iznosim svoje mišljenje...
Avatar
Sretno Biće
 
Postovi: 92
Pridružen/a: 22/01/2006 14:53

PostPostao/la danas dana 15/03/2006 18:45

Sretno Biće je napisao/la:Iz gore navedenog se može reći da u biti nema sukoba (kojeg neki ovdje pokušavaju nametnuti) između dva tumačenja (znanstvenog i religioznog) jer se radi o različitom sferama proučavanja jedne te iste stvari, te različitim kompetencijama egzaktnih znanosti i teologije... :)


to bi bilo tako, da religija ne daje sebi za pravo da zadire u domen egzaktnih nauka. primjeti da ovdje niko ne debatira niti osporava subjektivno vidjenje vjere, te subjektivna vjerska osjecanja -- koja su po meni sasvim u redu, i u njih mi ne pada na pamet da se mjesam (ili u bilo ciji duhovni zivot). raspravljati o tome da li je bolje moliti se allahu ili budi ili ne moliti se nikako je isto kao raspravljati da li je bolja zeljanica ili sirnica. znaci, licni ukusi i licne potrebe (koje kod nekih ukljucuju potrebu za visim bicem kojem ce biti potcinjeni) nisu predmet spora.

ali raspravljati o tome da li je covjek stvoren za 7 dana ili je evoluirao nije stvar subjektivnog vidjenja i duhovnog iskustva, vec je stvar egzaktne nauke. problem je svakako sto i tu vjera smatra da moze sprovoditi svoje nepisane dogme -- "ovako je kako mi kazemo i vjerujemo", sto nikako nije u redu i tu cu se uvijek usprotiviti ovakvim tezama.

ukratko -- subjektivno vidjenje i iskustvo je OK (niti me zanima previse kao takvo) ali objektivna diskusija mora biti zasnovana na necemu visem od puste vjere. na naucnim cinjenicama, na primjer.
Avatar
danas
 
Postovi: 18861
Pridružen/a: 11/03/2005 20:40
Lokacija: 10th circle...

PostPostao/la NIN dana 15/03/2006 18:47

Sretno Biće je napisao/la:mislim da je najveća zabuna ovdje u tome što pojedini ne mogu vidjeti različitost pristupa načina istraživanja i problematiku egzaktnih znanosti od teologije i filozofije.
Egzaktne znanosti (u ovom slučaju paleontologija, paleoantropologija, arheologija) temelje se na egzaktnim materijalnim dokazima (fosilni i arheološki nalazi) i na osnovu tih materijalnih nalaza donose pretpostavke o određenim biološki i kulturnim manifestacijama, te njihovim promjenama u vremenu.
Kod teologije primarna u interpretaciji njegova postanka je duša (na osnovu koje se i definira čovjek), stoga tekstovi o stvaranju (iz Svetih knjiga) predstavljau simbolično prenošenje vjerske poruke i nije im cilj zadirat u biološki razvoj čovjeka.
S druge strane egzaktne znanosti čovjeka definiraju na temelju tjelesnog ustroja, razuma, kulture, te je biološki i kulturološki razvoj predmet proučavanja znanosti (paleoantropologija- na temelju arheoloških dokaza i fosilnih ostataka).
Iz gore navedenog se može reći da u biti nema sukoba (kojeg neki ovdje pokušavaju nametnuti) između dva tumačenja (znanstvenog i religioznog) jer se radi o različitom sferama proučavanja jedne te iste stvari, te različitim kompetencijama egzaktnih znanosti i teologije... :)


Nije fazon u sukobu nego u ISTINI!
Istini koju mnogi NE VIDE a tu im je ispred nosa. U spoznaji da smo prolazni i u suzivotu sa ostali bicima na ovoj nam jedinoj planeti i zivotu. Samim tim, ne poimaljem prolaznosti smo stvorili kult nadentiteta koji ''gleda'' na nas i ''upravlja'' nasim zivotima, a u sustini enigma je u nama samima. U desifriranju nase psihe lezi ultimativni odgovor! Mnogi se boje da budu desifrovani ali to je normalno, ne dopusta nam nas EGO! Sjetite se samo svojih snova! Sta vam oni govore!
Avatar
NIN
Globalni moderator
 
Postovi: 5812
Pridružen/a: 15/02/2006 21:18
Lokacija: Via Lactea, Orion Arm

PostPostao/la Sretno Biće dana 15/03/2006 18:49

danas je napisao/la:
Sretno Biće je napisao/la:Iz gore navedenog se može reći da u biti nema sukoba (kojeg neki ovdje pokušavaju nametnuti) između dva tumačenja (znanstvenog i religioznog) jer se radi o različitom sferama proučavanja jedne te iste stvari, te različitim kompetencijama egzaktnih znanosti i teologije... :)


ali raspravljati o tome da li je covjek stvoren za 7 dana ili je evoluirao nije stvar subjektivnog vidjenja i duhovnog iskustva, vec je stvar egzaktne nauke. problem je svakako sto i tu vjera smatra da moze sprovoditi svoje nepisane dogme -- "ovako je kako mi kazemo i vjerujemo", sto nikako nije u redu i tu cu se uvijek usprotiviti ovakvim tezama.


gle religije ne osporavaju evoluciju, već je problem u pojedicima koji ne vide pored zdravih očiju, a ja tu baš ništa ne mogu... :)
Avatar
Sretno Biće
 
Postovi: 92
Pridružen/a: 22/01/2006 14:53

PostPostao/la danas dana 15/03/2006 18:50

Sretno Biće je napisao/la: gle religije ne osporavaju evoluciju, već je problem u pojedicima koji ne vide pored zdravih očiju, a ja tu baš ništa ne mogu... :)


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
pa o cemu mi ovdje raspravljamo? :lol:
ili je bog stvorio covjeka (religija) ili nije (evolucija)... :-)
Avatar
danas
 
Postovi: 18861
Pridružen/a: 11/03/2005 20:40
Lokacija: 10th circle...

PostPostao/la mostarac dana 15/03/2006 18:51

danas je napisao/la:
Sretno Biće je napisao/la: gle religije ne osporavaju evoluciju, već je problem u pojedicima koji ne vide pored zdravih očiju, a ja tu baš ništa ne mogu... :)


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
pa o cemu mi ovdje raspravljamo? :lol:
ili je bog stvorio covjeka (religija) ili nije (evolucija)... :-)


ti bi crkla da se ne nasmijes :P :D
mostarac
 
Postovi: 8435
Pridružen/a: 03/03/2005 14:47

PostPostao/la danas dana 15/03/2006 18:52

mostarac je napisao/la:ti bi crkla da se ne nasmijes :P :D


pa kad je smijesno... :-) :lol:
Avatar
danas
 
Postovi: 18861
Pridružen/a: 11/03/2005 20:40
Lokacija: 10th circle...

PostPostao/la Sretno Biće dana 15/03/2006 18:53

danas je napisao/la:
Sretno Biće je napisao/la: gle religije ne osporavaju evoluciju, već je problem u pojedicima koji ne vide pored zdravih očiju, a ja tu baš ništa ne mogu... :)


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
pa o cemu mi ovdje raspravljamo? :lol:
ili je bog stvorio covjeka (religija) ili nije (evolucija)... :-)

:-)

gle ti ovdje raspravljaš sa zatucanim pojedincima koji su pripadnici neke religije a ne s religijom kao takvom...
Avatar
Sretno Biće
 
Postovi: 92
Pridružen/a: 22/01/2006 14:53

PostPostao/la danas dana 15/03/2006 18:57

Sretno Biće je napisao/la:gle ti ovdje raspravljaš sa zatucanim pojedincima koji su pripadnici neke religije a ne s religijom kao takvom...


dobro, mozes li mi onda reci koja to religija zvanicno i u potpunosti usvaja objasnjenje evolucije covjeka od nizih primata a ne njegovu bozansku kreaciju?
Avatar
danas
 
Postovi: 18861
Pridružen/a: 11/03/2005 20:40
Lokacija: 10th circle...

PostPostao/la Haqqani dana 15/03/2006 19:20

Bismillah!

Naučnici koji su postavili temelje nauci, kao što su bili Isak Njutn, Luj Paster, Gregor Mendel i mnogi drugi, tvrdili su da je ovaj svet stvoren od strane superiornog Tvorca, i da ljudi, stvoreni po Njegovom obličju, treba da žive kao braća. Međutim, oduvek su postojali oni koji nisu bili zainteresovani za taj koncept i koji nisu birali sredstva za ispunjenje svojih sebičnih želja. Kako je zabluda intelektualna potreba čoveka koji želi da živi suprotno prirodnim zakonima (a jedan od prirodnih zakona je "ljubi bližnjega svoga"), sebični ljudi su oduvek izmišljali zablude kojima su umirivali svoju nečistu savest.
Neki od religioznih naučnika, koji tvrde da su svi ljudi braća, prihvataju islamsku religiju. Ako neko prihvata islamsku religiju, da li to odmah znači da je pripadnik Al Kaide, kako sugeriše čitalac lista Danas? Ako tako misli, preporučujem njemu i ostalim istomišljenicima da pročitaju knjigu "Primjeri čojstva i junaštva", koju je napisao moj rođak i brastvenik vojvoda Marko Miljanov iz Kuča, i da se upoznaju sa moralnim delima ljudi koji su zastupali koncept islama. Da li je greh ako se grupa ljudi udruži i osnuje Centar za prirodnjačke studije ( http://www.cps.org.yu ) koji će promovisati koncept da ovaj svet ima svog Tvorca koji je uspostavio moralne principe? Da li je greh ako ista grupa ljudi ne prihvati koncept da je "čovek čoveku vuk"? Da li je greh ako neko odbija da prihvati koncept da su ljudi potomci majmunolikih stvorenja? Da li je greh ako neki nastavnik biologije nabavi od istog centra video materijale koji prikazuju primere neverovatno složenih sistema iz prirode koji ukazuju na ono što su tvrdili Njutn i ostali utemeljivači nauke, a da pri tom isti materijali ne propagiraju nijednu religiju, i to preporuči đacima.Ako su to "pseudonaučne baljezgarije", kako kaže gospodin iz Engleske, ljudi iz istog Centra mu poručuju, kao i svakome ko slično misli, da izabere mesto i vreme za "obračun" po ovim pitanjima, korišćenjem oružja iz arsenala nauke i logike. Miroljub Petrović, Predsednik Centra za prirodnjačke studije, Beograd




U toku nekoliko proslih meseci, evolucionisti u Beogradu vode kampanju protiv direktora CPS-a Miroljuba Petrovica, zbog njegovih nastupa na jednoj od televizija u Jugoslaviji.
U periodu od aprila do avgusta 2000. godine, beogradska televizija 'Palma' emitovala je 14 emisija u serijalu 'Cudesa stvaranja', u kojima je Miroljub Petrovic, dipl. inz. geologije, iznosio naucne dokaze u prilog biblijskog koncepta stvaranja. Emisije su bile reprizirane. (Ove emisije je moguce pogledati na video kasetama.)
Posto je Miroljub Petrovic u to vreme zavrsavao postdiplomske studije na smeru za paleontologiju Rudarsko-geoloskog fakulteta u Beogradu, profesori i asistenti sa tog smera su doneli odluku da onemoguce Miroljuba Petrovica da zavrsi magistarske studije (videti tekst zapisnika sa sednice), i u tome su trazili podrsku najvisih organa Rudarsko-geoloskog fakulteta.
Najvisi organi Rudarsko-geoloskog fakulteta u Beogradu su najpre doneli odluku da komisija ponovo izvrsi procenu naucne zasnovanosti magistarske teze Miroljuba Petrovica (videti tekst zapisnika sa sednice), a na sledecoj sednici su osudili nastupe Miroljuba Petrovica na televiziji kao nenaucne (videti tekst zapisnika sa sednice).
M. Petrovic je imao priliku da razgovara sa clanovima pomenute komisije u januaru 2001. godine i glavni clan komisije je tom prilikom rekao M. Petrovicu:
'Mi smo u velikoj dilemi da li da potpisemo da je tvoja tema naucno opravdana.' (Interesantno je zapaziti da je ista komisija pre dve godine, kada jos nije bilo emisija o stvaranju na televiziji, potpisala da je ta ista tema naucno opravdana.) 'Ukoliko i potpisemo, pitanje je da li ce naucno-nastavno vece prihvatiti nas izvestaj. Ako ga i prihvati, ti najverovatnije neces moci da odbranis svoju magistarsku tezu, jer nece moci da se skupi komisija od tri clana, posto niko od profesora nece hteti da bude u komisiji, osim tvog mentora. Moramo da razmislimo da li cemo da potpisemo. Nas savet ti je da zavrsis magistarske studije na nekom drugom fakultetu.'
Od tog razgovora je proslo pet meseci, i sedam meseci od kako su najvisi organi fakulteta zatrazili izvestaj komisije, a komisija nije podnela nikakav izvestaj naucno-nastavnom vecu Rudarsko-geoloskog fakulteta. To je za M. Petrovica bio znak da komisija ne zeli da potpise pomenuti izvestaj ili da oduglovlaci sa odlukom, pa je M. Petrovic kontaktirao dekana fakulteta sa zahtevom da mu fakultet vrati novac (oko 2000 DEM) koji je M. Petrovic uplatio na ime skolarine, posto mu se onemogucava da zavrsi magistarske studije. Dekan je posle duzeg oklevanja saopstio M. Petrovicu da novac ne moze da mu se vrati jer je vec potrosen za izvodjenje nastave.
Postoji mogucnost da M. Petrovic o ovom slucaju obavesti Ministarstvo prosvete Republike Srbije ili da sudskim putem pokusa da povrati novac koji je ulozio na ime skolarine.
Nove informacije o ovom slucaju bice objavljene na ovom veb sajtu.
Haqqani
 
Postovi: 1087
Pridružen/a: 06/12/2005 11:49

PostPostao/la danas dana 15/03/2006 19:24

haj' sto nas non-stop "obavestavas", nego jos i na ekavici :D :oops:
Avatar
danas
 
Postovi: 18861
Pridružen/a: 11/03/2005 20:40
Lokacija: 10th circle...

PostPostao/la Haqqani dana 15/03/2006 19:25

Bismillah!


Sram vas i stid bilo evolucionisti, nedate covjeku da magistrira :)
Haqqani
 
Postovi: 1087
Pridružen/a: 06/12/2005 11:49

PrethodnaSljedeća

Natrag na Nauka i edukacija

Online

Trenutno korisnika/ca: / i 5 gostiju.