|
Post by Shmajser on Jan 14, 2009 7:43:53 GMT -5
www.harunyahya.com/ ;D What do you think about this guy and his web site(s), he is on a mission to refute Darwinism hehe, i understand he is very popular in Turkey, some Muslims say he is an idolator and reject him, is it true that he was in prison? We have a similar creationist movemant in the States led my Michael Behe, a very prominent scientist.
|
|
|
Post by Shmajser on Jan 9, 2009 7:51:07 GMT -5
Well i said it`s new to me, i don`t have in depth knowledge of Bulgarian history like you do, i read some stuff from Zlatarski and Johv V.A Fine about Bulgarians, and one other historian, i can`t remember his name now, those are very complicated questions and i don`t have good answers to them. It is nothing new that Slavs take up foreign tribal names, all historians believe that proto Croats were not Slavs, they did not leave any trace either, some say that even Serbs were Iranian ruling cast. Even the name Russians originates from a Scandinavian word Rus. Than you have non Slavs Huns-Hungary-Hungarians, they did not leave much trace either, it`s nothing unusual. I think we should investigate what Bulgarians were at that period of time, do we by that term mean all ppl living in Bulgaria Slavs+proto Bulgarians or simply just proto Bulgarians, if the first option is correct that would explain a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Shmajser on Jan 9, 2009 7:29:26 GMT -5
My family background is none of your business, you have no knowledge of Islam, why i chose Islam should not concern you, i suggest you concentrate on the topic and not me.
|
|
|
Post by Shmajser on Jan 9, 2009 7:23:03 GMT -5
A.K, i can safely say that you don`t have a clue, i suggest that you at least read "origins of species" by Charles Darwin, that is the basis for all our discussion, i can easily refute most of it, starting from whales to DNA, all you do is basically character assassination of the ppl you don`t agree with. I can do the same with your heroes ppl like Dawkins, Hitchens and that nutty talk show host Bill Maher, but why stoop to your level. Theory of evolution is raughly based on the following: Natural selection: we know today that natural selection cannot explain the complexity of organisms. he even stated that "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species Harvard university 1964 p.189. ( if you want me to scan this page, just say a word. I have his book. I will do more scans during Sathurday and Sunday. Than you have "strugle for survival" recent research showed that there was no strugle for life in nature as Darwin imagined it. Animals manage their population according to their food resources. Animals control their numbers acording to reproduction, not by competition. "Mutations" biologists tried to find examples of useful mutations by creating mutant flies. but it has always resulted in sick and deformed creatures. "Microevolution"The Modern Synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However, starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species- Darwin's problem-remains unsolved.34www.scribd.com/doc/6883055/ebook-Johnson-Philip-Darwin-On-Trial-evolution-intell"Fossil records" and "transitional links": Fossil records are the final nail in the coffin of so called theory or better yet the myth of evolution i will dedicate more time to this topic later, probably on monday. As for transitional links: If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The 'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals.www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_04.html In short this is the theory of evolution in a nutshell, if you actually took the time to study it instead of copy/paste from questionable sites you would know that even hardcore evolutionists agree with me on several points, but NOOO instead you say stuff like: Darwin's theory compared to what we know today was rather crude and not detailed. Thanks to modern genetics , geological and fossil evidence uncovered since Darwin's time, we have a much more accurate picture of evolution by natural selection. Genetics, rather than contradicting Darwin, fully supports his core theory.It is exactly the opposite my friend. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Shmajser on Jan 8, 2009 8:24:53 GMT -5
Because his statment is just wrong. First, Bulgars had a small Turkic mixture but in their majority they were Iranian who assimilated what was left of Scythians. Second, there is no Tatar influence whatsoever in Bulgarians. Third, the Gagauz are a separate ethnic group who are orthodox but speak Turkish and their origin is still a subject of disputes. Thanks for your explanation, your history is interesting to me, that iranian theory is new to me, but i think that even yoo will agree with me that majority of the scholars agree that Bulgars were steppe people of Turkic origins, but that iranian theory is worth exploring i must admit. But all that has little relevance today, you are slavophones just like we are, i guess most of the balkan people are a mix of Dacians,Thracians,illyrians,Slav invaders,Avars etc. and we all like to claim eachother, that is our unique phenomenon, i checked out your forum, funny how you ppl have a similar rhetoric like we do.
|
|
|
Post by Shmajser on Jan 8, 2009 7:59:49 GMT -5
Insult me all you want, but don`t insult other ppl, especially the ones you know nothing about, dr.Berlinski is more than qualified to express his opinions regarding Darwinism, and he is an atheist, which is the main reason why i picked him. And there are countless others just like him(more on that later when i have more time, i will elaborate), even Darwin himself had serious doubts collected in the book Life and letters of Charles Darwin, edited by his son Francis Darwin. Most of the letters written by Darwin to close friends and other scientists of that time are full of his confessions regarding his own theory. Some of those letters i will be showing here, and demonstrate how they are relevant today, Arthur Kane told me to open my eyes, and i did just that, it was Darwin himself who opened my eyes.LOOOOOOL Isn`t that ironic. Only couple of months ago i was a hardcore atheist and evolutionist. Believe it or not. And you missed the point with the whale example, in any case, there is no strong evidence to support“transitional” organism between land mammals and whales. Ciao
|
|
|
Post by Shmajser on Jan 5, 2009 17:45:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Shmajser on Jan 5, 2009 17:37:10 GMT -5
So Turks have nothing Asian?! This is some statement... Peccafly, may I kindly ask you to restrict your comments to spheres you are familiar with? Obviously the origin of Bulgarians is not among them, let alone this of the Bulgars. Why do you find that statement so offensive, it is a fact and common knowledge among scholars that the Onogur Bulgars were seminomadic ethnically mixed nomads, i am sure you are aware of the seven tribes subjected by the Bulgars. Their leader was named Kovrat, what Balkan people does that name reminds you of? Kovrat-Horvat, it`s a striking similarity don`t you think?
|
|
|
Post by Shmajser on Dec 31, 2008 13:48:27 GMT -5
Happy new year!!
|
|
|
Post by Shmajser on Dec 26, 2008 21:40:35 GMT -5
Piece of crap, Bill Maher is not that funny, taking bits and pieces from religious scriptures without context and ridiculing them is a bit childish, to my understanding this guy is a journalist, as a journalist he should investigate more in order to find real facts, this is like watching Zeitgeist 3.
|
|
|
Post by Shmajser on Dec 26, 2008 21:32:48 GMT -5
Happy b-day guys.
|
|
|
Post by Shmajser on Dec 26, 2008 21:25:24 GMT -5
www.bogbosnaibosnjastvo.org/islamandsciencenauka.htmHere are the scanned pages of Quran in Bosnian language with English translation and explanation, i had to do a bi-lingual version cause making two pages would be time consuming, i hope this is not to confusing for you. The original text was at least twice this size, but i had to reduce it, even this looks gigantic.
|
|
|
Post by Shmajser on Dec 16, 2008 4:53:32 GMT -5
O.k atheists, i see that i will have to scan the pages from the Quran itself where those scientific facts are mentioned in order to convince you, this time word play will not help you, you shell see the proof from the original source itself, i don`t have much time to spend on this forum, so give me a week or two, i will have a Christmas break next week so that will give me more time to do some scanning. Quran is written in Bosnian, i could use the English version, but i chose Bosnian because i want to show you that nothing is "lost in translation" even when you translate it to a less known language. There are basically 3 main misconceptions that atheists on this forum have about the Quran 1.Did Quran copy from the Greek and Arab scholars 2. Quran and the grammatical errors, and possible grammatical mistakes that could create problems, when it come to scientific facts.3.Does prophet Muhammed copy Quran from Bible. Since Arthur Kane is familiar with Dr. Zakir Naik i am sure he has seen some of his videos where he talks about some of the misconceptions that ppl have about the Quran so i will let him answer all three questions.
Question 1.
Question 2
Question 3
Now that this is settled i will continue with scans probably next week.
|
|
|
Post by Shmajser on Dec 11, 2008 7:50:05 GMT -5
Than you should spank her, i am getting excited just by thinking about it, but you are right of course, from now on i am deleting everything not in accordance with ancient hellenic wisdom, enough is enouh, dammit.
|
|
|
Post by Shmajser on Dec 11, 2008 7:40:26 GMT -5
Yes mam, Cikola started it, i think you should spank him Illyria. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Shmajser on Dec 11, 2008 7:36:38 GMT -5
;D Cikola, you are the dumbest Croat on this forum, even Bob the chetnik retard is genious compared to you.
|
|
|
Post by Shmajser on Dec 11, 2008 7:30:13 GMT -5
Konj bi trebao biti tkonj onda. (sala mala) As for 1991.
|
|
|
Post by Shmajser on Dec 11, 2008 5:10:57 GMT -5
There is no such thing as genetic Slavs(at least use capital S aadmin after all you are a slavophone, show some pride), there are no traces of any Slavic race, in most Slavic-speaking countries the predominant race is Alpine, except in Russia where there is Nordic type the so-called Finnic element, many of the Greeks are also Alpines. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Shmajser on Dec 11, 2008 4:54:40 GMT -5
I have seen it, don`t know much about that subject to be honest. i could check in some books for some information, but i can`t promis anything.
|
|
|
Post by Shmajser on Dec 11, 2008 4:48:59 GMT -5
Should Bog stop opening stupid topics?
|
|